While researching something else, I came across a magazine article from 1844 which had one of those “this is masculine, this is feminine” lists. A few of the dichotomies were ones that still seem pretty familiar today – masculine intellect versus feminine understanding, masculine justice versus feminine mercy, etc.
Many of the other “masculine/feminine” dichotomies seem positively dadaesque today, however.
| Masculine | Feminine |
|---|---|
| Talent Language Laws Honesty Belief Food Prayer Time |
Genius Music Commandments Honor Faith Drink Praise Eternity |
Remember, folks – men might be talented, but women are geniuses. After all, what’s “feminine” and “masculine” is immutable biology, and never, ever changes over time or culture..
Ha ha, take that biological determinists!
You know, with some of those I don’t even know what they mean. For instance: laws vs. commandments. Huh?
Distinguishing between men and women, masc and fem, is pretty universal. What we put in those categories is a _lot_ more flexible, although there are areas (esp family life and responsibilities) where the flexibility is much less than in others (think men wearing makeup in the Sun King’s court, or Texan women shooting stuff).
ELT
Yes Eve. What comes to mind is the pink as girls’ color and blue as boys’ color. The initial intention was to have the pink for boys as it was regarded as the more dynamic color!
I wonder about time as masculine and eternity as feminine. Where did that come from?
don’t forget:
aether/absinthe
tobacco/tonic
whiskey/wine
syphillis/hysteria
gunpowder/strychnine
horse/cart
i could go on.
i think that the mutability of gender – what it is and what it means both from a scientific and a cultural perspective – is frightening to the socially rigid, particularly those who desire to preserve a certain social order against change, which is the fundamental truth of nature. some people just don’t like suprises – hence the narratives “the crying game”, “boys don’t cry” etc.
what’s life without a few surprises?
i wonder what people a hundred years from now will think of our prejudices and self-limitations. hopefully they will seem quaintly bizarre.
I wrote half of a dissertation on this stuff (the other half was about other stuff). One of the things that fascinated me the most is how the categories and meanings are located in understandings/interpretations of the meaning of the body. Roughly, the pre-Darwininst understanding of sex/gender maintained the notion that the human body was a single kind of thing; men were a somewhat better version, but female excellence, though unusual, could still be understood as possible and natural. Victorian “science” began to construct the body as a dichotomous thing–men’s bodies and women’s bodies were different kinds of things, with men being the norm(al). Women had to be the “opposite” of men (rather than a usually lesser version), which sets up a different dynamic. Obviously, it also prevents women from being normal. It also makes female excellence in “male” fields not just abnormal but dangerous. Two excellent books on this subject are Thomas Lacquer’s (I’m probably spelling his name wrong) “Making Sex,” and Cynthia Russett’s book on victorian science and gender, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
My favorite:
Masculine: Rules/Feminine: Guidelines.
Glad to have stumbled on your swell blog.
interestingly enough, some of those distinctions, if you play Torquemada with your logic enough, actually make sense.
now, perhaps someone could help me out… by “Talent” they mean “skills and attributes aquired through work and practice” while “genius” is “skill one is simply born with” right?
simply clarifying, since elsewhere I’ve participated in a debate as to which of the two is more valuable an asset.
which boils down to a free will vs. determinism arguement really, but now I’m rambling…
FTR, pink was never the “color” for boys. Before approximately WWI, red was the color for boys and blue for girls. So, yes, it was sort of opposite of what it is today (and certainly makes me look at those people who say that their daughters “naturally” take to pink “cuz they’re a girl” with more than just a raised eyebrow), but it was red, not pink, that was considered a “boys’ color.”
Yin:Yang
It’s not masculine VERSUS feminine, but it’s masculine AND feminine, no? I think each being has both in different balances and a different balance in each trait. Don’t we all pretty much believe this or are we still debating like fourth graders on the playground? I’m amazed how much time humanity spends trying to find out which of its genders are superior. 1844…really.
I don’t think any charecteristic is “masculine” or “feminine”–save for certain physical charecteristics.
Great list. Romanticism was kind of a weird movement, and there’s some of that in there.
In her book Gender and Genius, Christine Battersby argues that even when genius is coded feminine – e.g., considered inspired and nonrational – it’s still the province of men. Thus the Romantic movement believed genius was feminine but never female.
I think you’re being slightly misled by a change in the meaning of ‘genius’. Currently, it means being really really realy intelligent; while in a 19th C context it would have meant something much more like ‘an outside force that inspires you to do great things’. Your ‘Genius’ was something rather like a Muse. Under that interpretation, it’s stil a pretty conventional masculine/feminine stereotype: men are talented, and do good work through their own talents, while woume are inspired by outside forces, and aren’t really responsible for the good work they do.
What we put in those categories is a _lot_ more flexible
Yup. Don’t forget the Pythagorean Table of Opposites, now. (Another list.)
One Many
Same Different
Male Female
Right Left
Limited Unlimited
Odd Even
Rest Motion
Straight Bent
Good Bad
Square Oblong
(Dualism and French Feminist Thought.)
Hardly Victorian, all that.
Oh, yay, I get to be strychnine. Mmm, total CNS collapse.
How medieval. Men are open battle, women are covert poisoning. Doesn’t seem to fit up with men being Honesty and women being Honor, does it.
If I remember my social studies (it’s been a *long* time), yin is the half associated with femininity, and yang with masculinity. Yin, incidentally, is also associated with evil, yang with good. I’ve noticed that tends to be the case in a lot of cultures, though, and not just Western ones: women are somehow evil, tempting men away from their duties and destinies with, y’know, sex and lying around on soft pillows and stuff.
Frankly, I’d take sex over avenging my father’s death or making a lot of money or whatever, but then, I *am* female, so no doubt that’s just my natural evil talking.
I’m reading Irigaray’s To Be Two, and I think she’s a genius.
Morphienne–we aren’t supposed to like sex! That’s a man thing.
Er. . .I think. Though we are supposed to be temptresses.
Dang, it’s hard to keep track.
No, neko, women dislike sex, unless they are sluts. They just use sex to evilly control men. Like a man would say, “I must save that puppy.” And the woman, being evil and thus hating puppies, would say, “Wouldn’t you rather have sex?” And the man would say, “Okay.” And who then would save the puppy? No one, the evil temptress’s will be done. And the woman would be thinking, “gee, this having sex sure sucks, but at least that puppy is still in peril.” I hope this clears everything up.
The syphillis/hysteria one makes sense if you take the context of what was believed at the time. Back then doctors believed that hysteria was a condition stemming from tensions in a woman’s uterus, hence the fact that it’s stemmed from the latin word hysteros (I believe) which means uterus. Thus hysteria would be a specifically feminine disease. (side note: to cure hysteria, doctors at the time invented vibrators. How’s that for a medical breakthrough)
Given the frequency and interest in quizzes, article after article after article to explain away or foibles, lists upon lists… It seems that narcissism is generally a feminine trait.
Oh! Thanks for the explanation, Raznor. That explains why I only get horny when small cute furry animals are in peril.
Wait, that comment just opened the door to all kinds of nasty sarcastic thoughts, which *of course* being a lady, I would *never* say. Ahem.
(Do you think they would allow for sex toys in TX and other states if they were used for treating “hysteria”? Maybe add them to the health plan?)
Oh! Thanks for the explanation, Raznor. That explains why I only get horny when small cute furry animals are in peril.
Wait, that comment just opened the door to all kinds of nasty sarcastic thoughts, which *of course* being a lady, I would *never* say. Ahem.
(Do you think they would allow for sex toys in TX and other states if they were used for treating “hysteria”? Maybe add them to the health plan?)
Wow, Joe, that was sure sexist, off-topic and altogether ridiculous. There’s a difference between self-conscious fecetiousness and narcissism.
Unless it was meant as a sarcastic joke, in which case, I dunno, work on the technique man, work on the technique.
“I don’t think any charecteristic is “masculine” or “feminine”–save for certain physical charecteristics.”
I think the moon is made of frozen monkey tails. So, do I win?
I mean, yes, ranges and spectrums, yes, cultural influence… but really, who’s kidding who?
Unless you’re working from an incredibly broad definition of “physical” characteristics.
You know, that’s weird, Raznor, because I’ve noticed that my vibrators actually seem to *cause* me hysteria, at least temporarily.
Oh, no wait, then they cure it. So I guess that works, then.