What exactly is it to be masculine or feminine? Is being masculine what it is to be a man, and being feminine what it is to be a woman? How are these two terms defined and what purpose do they serve? The readings in this critical review attempt to answer these questions.
In Lois Gould's reading, “X: A Fabulous Child's Story”, she tells the story of a child raised without being defined by their gender. Gould challenges the notion of what it is to be “male” and what it is to be “female” by refusing to create a division between the two genders. This creates a powerful message about how gender or masculinity and femininity are merely socially constructed and how much society relies on these constructions.
Emily Martin illustrates in her reading, “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”, that the construction of what it is to be “male” or “female” is implied even at the earliest stage of life; conception.
bell hooks speaks about the feminist movement and its portrayal as being “man-hating” in her reading, “Feminist Masculinity”, and how the feminist movement has failed to include men. hooks explains the unfortunate image that many men not only feel they need to conform to as being “masculine”, but do not know how to identify themselves without it.
To be a man or a woman in our society is not just defined by the biological traits someone possesses, but it is also defined by what is expected that a man or a woman should act like in our society, which has been socially constructed and fed to us beginning at a very young age.
From the beginning of life, we are lead to believe that by being a boy or girl we will have to follow certain unwritten “rules” of what is expected of us based on our sex. This construction of “femininity” or “masculinity” normally begins with the colour of our clothing. Traditionally, pink is for girls, blue is for boys. Growing up, as children we are given toys that reinforce these “rules” of “femininity” or “masculinity” and to reflect what our future role in society will be. Girls are given dolls and play kitchen sets, because one day we are going to be “mommies”, and we will be the one who is doing most of the cooking, for her children and husband. Boys of course and given chemistry sets and G.I. Joe's, because they will grow up to be smart, successful, strong and powerful.
Gould points out how people interact with children in a specific way geared towards the child's gender. If a boy falls down and cries, they are told that little boys should not cry. Little girls are told they should not be too loud or should not get dirty when playing, because that is not what little girls do. (Gould, pg. 83). Gould's reading makes you think, why should we not cuddle with little boys and give them lots of affection, and why should we not have little girls participate in sports? Why does there have to be a division between the two genders at all? Gould mentions in her story about how the child that was not defined by their gender ended up possessing no identity problem. This notion seems to indicate that in fact many of us have identity problems because we are defining ourselves by our gender, whether all the traits of being “masculine” or “feminine” fit us or not. How sad it is that many of us do not know who we are as individuals without identifying ourselves with our gender.
The imposing of conforming to being “masculine” and “feminine” is all around us, whether it be in the media or ideals transferred onto us by our parents. However, more and more we are discovering it in more subtle forms. Martin, who examines the language used in describing the process of conception, gives one example of a subtle form. Historically, the description of conception seems to downplay or devalue the part that the egg (hence the woman) plays in this process, while the male sperm is the active participant, and doing all the work, and “saving” the egg from “death”. Even this description reflects the way that males and females are supposed to act, with the egg (female) being passive, and the sperm (male) being active (Martin, pg. 31). It is my opinion that not only has this process been described with patriarchal roots, but that somehow this description is being used to justify why a man acts the way he does, and that being “masculine” is somehow biological, and hence even embedded and transferred into the male sperm. Although, this notion would seem somewhat ironic when you consider that this very “masculine” sperm can create a female child.
