Gendered adjectives Part 1

By Mae Wright

Gender is a difficult topic to write about. I've thought a lot about what makes it so tricky.

Because this is AdjAngst, I am going to say it is mainly due to the words we use, or more accurately, the adjectives that invade and cloud the topic of gender.

There are issues with basic definitions. We have the varying meanings and misunderstandings of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) the latter as though it had the same definition as the former: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!'

Then there are conceptual issues. The words masculine and feminine are portrayed as representing either side of a binary division, which is a grossly inadequate representation of the vast and complex array of human traits and behaviours. Even those who attempt to avoid this rigid binary conceptualisation of gender often characterise masculine and feminine as the end points on a continuum, with neutral or androgynous in the middle. This perpetuates the idea that human traits and behaviours exist in categories based on gender, but with a middle messy bit!

One sign that so many of the words about gender are inadequate for discussion is the proliferation of new words; recent examples being gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, etc. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.

I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.

This is not an argument about gender per se, but about words that could enable better conversations about this topic.

Our sex and gender are central to our self-concept as a person. They are integrated as a core aspect of personality. We can't lightly abandon the way gender is conceptualised as a dichotomy. Some people do reject the gender assigned to them, but that is not the same thing as rejecting the conceptualising of gender itself as the basis for a binary division of human traits and behaviours. Non-binary or gender-fluid is actually a third category, not a rejection of the binary (so we get a 'trinary', I guess), and still in reference to the dichotomy of masculine/feminine.

Some people attempt to avoid the difficulty of really discussing gender by saying masculinity means 'pertaining to men' and femininity 'pertaining to women'. But these words do not mean that at all.

Masculine/feminine and masculinity/femininity are the type of words we call 'normative', in that their very definition carries an idea of 'what is considered normal'. This applies to both masculinity and femininity, but let's just look at the first to see how this works.

Masculine from Merriam-Webster

having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.

From Wikipedia

Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviours, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods. Both males and females can exhibit masculine traits and behaviour.

From Urban dictionary

Masculinity is properly defined is an aspirational and normative style of being and living as a natural-born man that a critical mass of the members of that population applaud. Masculinity may evolve over time and diverge within cultures, but there are trans-historical and trans-cultural aspects that any reasonable man can realistically point to ... ('This' is masculinity. 'That' is not masculinity.)

The concept of 'what is considered normal' is incorporated into the definitions with the words appropriate, usually associated, traditionally associated, standards, aspirational and normative style. The same applies for definitions of feminine, but you get the idea already, right?

So, masculinity means how men 'should be' and, likewise, femininity means how women 'should be'. What's normal, what society agrees is normal. I will not bother right now about finding a 'reasonable man' to point to 'this' and 'that', but I understand what the Urban dictionary author is saying. We all kind of know what masculine and feminine 'should be', even if we don't like it, even if we don't think it applies to us. The 'what is normal' or 'what should be' concept is IN the words.

Fred also points out that if masculine means 'as a man should be' and man means 'a person with masculine traits', you are stuck in a definitional circle. (Fred finds circles everywhere.) I agree, this circle is exactly what prevents fruitful conversation of ideas about how men and women 'are' and 'could be' and when and how gender is a positive component of our humanity or when it is not.

Given that these adjectives for gender (masculine/feminine) mean the 'standard, appropriate, normal set of attributes, behaviours and roles' for being a man/woman, we run into trouble when we try to talk about gender stereotypes and about how we could loosen up rigid gender roles when they are damaging or limiting. People end up saying things like 'Women should be more masculine to succeed in politics' and 'Men need to be more feminine to reduce violence and conflict it the world'. Or even, 'People in business need both hard and soft skills', which is just a poorly camouflaged concept of hard = masculine and soft = feminine. The gendered dichotomy is just barely below the surface.

Here's the problem with the words themselves. If you say that a man is adopting more 'feminine' traits by staying home to care for his young children, you are very close to saying he is not as a man should be, not a real man. And if you say a woman has 'masculine' traits, you are implying that she is not a real woman.

If we can only describe human traits using words that invoke their 'traditional' gender assignment, i.e. 'this' is a masculine trait, 'that' is a feminine trait, we end up implying that men who exhibit 'traditionally feminine' traits or women who exhibit 'traditionally masculine' traits are contravening their gender. The normative function of the gender adjectives then shouts, 'not appropriate, not normal, not standard', and ultimately not a real man/woman.

The circular definition and the inherent concept of 'what is considered normal' is the rock-hard foundation of the stereotype.

This leads to both men and women adopting gender-stereotyped behaviour (whether they want to or not) under the pernicious influence of 'stereotype threat'. People usually want to fit in, be appropriate and be considered 'normal.' This means a person can (unknowingly) change how they behave because they fear that unless they adhere to their gender norms, their social identify and their value as a person is under threat.

For example, research links the threat of being seen to violate gender norms with women’s under-performance in maths and leadership aspirations. Likewise, research showed that men performed more poorly when decoding non-verbal cues if the test was described as designed to measure 'social sensitivity' a term for a 'traditionally feminine' skill. However, when the task was introduced as an 'information processing test', men did much better. No threat to their gender identity; no changing their behaviour.

It's more than 'stereotype threat' in research; there is a fierce resistance amongst many who writing about gender, saying things like 'attempts to feminise men will fail'. This really means 'attempts to make men into women will fail.' And yes, it will. If 'vulnerability' is a feminine trait, then a man who feels vulnerable is possibly being a woman (and definitely not a 'real man'? (Men report fear that they are not 'really a man' if they don't act as though they are strong all the time.) Particularly amongst men who eschew the whole swathe of traits and behaviours as 'traditionally-feminine' and as therefore 'not okay for a (real) man', this won't get any traction.

But not just those men. It's all of us. I don't like my excellent map reading skills described as 'more like a man'. I don't like the implication that I am not a real woman. I don't appreciate it when people compliment my technical and practical traits as 'excellent for a woman' or mock my male partner as 'not much of a man' when they see me putting the rubbish bins out on the street.

Each of us needs to be affirmed that we are okay, and our sex and gender are key in how we exist in the world. We each want to feel safe and acceptable. So, if our traits and choices are described by words that imply (or directly state) that we are not a real man/woman, we don't like it.

To me, the issue seems more extreme for men, due to feminism expanding ideas about ways to be a woman somewhat, but not having much success at expanding ideas about ways to be a man. The constraints around masculinity seem tighter and more rigid. But the constraints of gender apply to everyone.

Those who experience a deep conflict between what society says someone of their sex 'should do' and what they want to do and how they see themselves, tend to see gender (i.e. social identity) itself as the problem. I tend to think they really mean they see a problem in this rigidity and narrowness of gender roles, rather than the idea that we each have social roles and a social identity. The rigidity and narrowness results in restriction, limits on personal freedom, lack of authenticity, stifling of individuality, etc. They want things to change.

But WHY would anyone else change? What rationale can those who want a post-gender future provide to the rest of us for why we should less like a 'traditional' masculine or feminine gender identity? What does any suggestion that men/women need to be more 'like each other' have as its basis? Just criticism; criticism of men and women for being the way they are. And criticising someone is never a great starting place to encourage them to think about making a change, even change that might benefit the individual.

Sigh.

We seem to lack words to discuss gender in a productive way. If we can only describe certain traits as masculine or feminine, we are stuck in the normative circle of normal gendered behaviour = real man/woman and real man/woman = normal gendered behaviour.

But I've been wondering: does gender have to be foremost in our way we think about being a person? Is placing gender as the top organising reference for all traits, behaviour and social roles the only way to conceptualise human traits, e.g. this trait (e.g. caring) is feminine, that trait (e.g. aggression) is masculine.

Surely there must be another way to talk about human traits and behaviours that doesn't start with a reference to the sex and gender of the people exhibiting them. A way to talk about the multiple facets that make any person who he or she is, without conceptualising human traits as based on a dichotomy of 'traditional' gender differences. And without saying they are maybe not a 'real' man or woman if they have the 'wrong' traits.

In Part 2, I present a suggestion I think could help a lot.


Images used under Creative Commons
Circle: Pixabay.com
Research: Bagxofxtricks