Feminization of Culture

[Pathless]

As spring sets in, I find myself looking around at and soaking in the blooming of flowers, warm sun, green grass, a breeze. I notice that I become happier as the sun sets later and later. Being out at the park or, even better, in the mountains or an open field, seems to give my body, mind, and spirit a quick tune-up.

The other day at work, I was working on a schedule for my employees. Since I send copies of this schedule out for them to work from on a monthly basis, I like to make it interesting and inspiring for them; to that end, I will add quotes and sometimes pictures or drawings to what would otherwise be a boring calendar. Since it is spring, I was giving this particular schedule a spring theme--a tangle of wildflowers, an outstretched hand with a butterfly hovering over it. One of my coworkers came by and saw what I was doing and made a comment about how I was playing with flowers and dolls (I would like to state for the record that I was not playing with dolls! ) I suddenly became ashamed; there I was, a grown man, putting flowers and butterflies on a work schedule. How embarassing! How unmanly! How--gasp!--effeminate!

Why is that? Why should feelings of shame wash over me, as if I had been busted doing something terribly deviant, when I am trying to brighten up a boring piece of paper and thereby, hopefully, brighten my employees' days? Why, as a man, should I be ashamed to explore the feminine?

Culturally--and more and more, globally--we are people of masculinity over femininity, competition over cooperation, passion over compassion. I don't mean to denounce masulinity and masculine qualities, but rather I am concerned about an imbalance; the dominance of masculine over the feminine.

What would happen if there was a radical feminization of culture? If all of the sudden it was with the attitude of a mother, rather than an aggressive and confused son, that we made decisions?

Is a feminization of culture even practical? If so, where does the burden rest? On women? Or men? Both? It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of courage and faith for a man to express a feminine nature. It's almost as if, as men, we're afraid that we will lose our masculinity by relaxing in a hot bath of mineral salts or accessorizing with jewelry. We're ashamed to walk barefoot through the park, humming a tune, making eye contact and smiling at strangers as we pass. And if we were to stop and smile at an unknown child, kneeling down to talk with him in simple language? Positively deviant!

A shift towards a more feminine culture would certainly do much to ease a stressed, aggressive, and overburdened world. Is it possible? How do we achieve such a thing?

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Pathless,

Thank you for a thought-provokiing thread. You know, it feels politically incorrect to talk about feminization and masculinization of things, sorting out traits as if they belonged only to one gender or the other when in fact we all have both *feminine* and *masculine* qualities. However, in the USA at least, I tend to agree with you that we are becoming a culture of competition over cooperation, that masculine traits seem to be valued over feminine ones. And I think is it also true that women exhibiting competitive/power traits are more accepted than men exhibiting cooperative/compassion traits. I agree with your term: imbalance.

What would happen if there was a radical feminization of culture? If all of the sudden it was with the attitude of a mother, rather than an aggressive and confused son, that we made decisions?

I think I know what you mean here, but it is problematic to use the roles of mother and son as a pattern for culture. Oh boy, I'm sure there're all kinds of Fruedian takes on that line of thinking! But, a mother can be quite aggressive when it comes to protecting her young, and a son can be quite tender towards his mother. But if what you are calling for is more compassion, yes I'd agree that it would have a positive impact on society.

Is a feminization of culture even practical? If so, where does the burden rest? On women? Or men? Both? It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of courage and faith for a man to express a feminine nature. It's almost as if, as men, we're afraid that we will lose our masculinity by relaxing in a hot bath of mineral salts or accessorizing with jewelry. We're ashamed to walk barefoot through the park, humming a tune, making eye contact and smiling at strangers as we pass. And if we were to stop and smile at an unknown child, kneeling down to talk with him in simple language? Positively deviant!

In reverse, sadly yes a lot of our reaction to the world is fear. Trust in other humans is hard to come by these days. We all pull in and hunker down to protect our own. If you don't act according to the expected norm, you are suspect. I experienced this just this past week when an unfamiliar white van parked on our cul -de-sac and the driver, a man, just sat there for several minutes watching the little boy across the street play. I reacted in fear, a neighbor called me, I called a neighbor, but by the time we rallied to go talk to the driver he pulled away. He was probably just a paper delivery person or something, but the blood runs cold thinking about all the headlines of missing children.

But hey! I don't mind if men wear jewlery or relax at fancy spas! Go for it!

Everyone must be involved to effect change and it is slow going. I don't think of it as feminization or masculinization, but humanization, or better yet, becoming more sacred. What is it that we must be? The virtues belong to both genders: nobility, strength, compassion, courage, friendliness, truthfulness, trustworthiness, gentleness, empathy, sincerity, peacefulness, patience. Fruits of the spirit is another way of looking at it. Neither male nor female for all are one.

How we make our individual choices does matter.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[iBrian]

Feminisation of culture sounds like a very interesting topic - egalitarianism seems to have become an inherent goal of democracy, but it'll be interesting to see how males especially cope with this.

A particular point of interest for myself is that - if the traditional view be accepted - then male and females in early human cultures had clearly defined gender roles - man the hunter, and woman the social gatherer. With increasing egalitarianism the male gender role becomes increasingly obsolete, and I personally find it hard not to interpret this as leading to a sense of femine ascendency.

While in some views this may be a good thing for modern civilisation, I can't help but wonder how this is going to effect the overall male psyche - how ingrained are gender roles in our biological social programming?

Also, I can't help but see the potential detrimental imbalance with a female ascendency perhaps eventually developing into sustained matriarchal oppression as a mirror of patriarchal dominance over the past couple of millenia.

Just 2c.

 

[KnightoftheRose]

It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of courage and faith for a man to express a feminine nature. It's almost as if, as men, we're afraid that we will lose our masculinity by relaxing in a hot bath of mineral salts or accessorizing with jewelry.

What makes a male "manly", anyways?

Personally, I view men as "manly" when they are responsible, calm, and strong whenever things get rough. If this is true, whether a man is interested in "feminine" things - such as hot baths and jewelry - or not wouldn't affect his masculinity one bit.

I don't mean to denounce masulinity and masculine qualities, but rather I am concerned about an imbalance; the dominance of masculine over the feminine.

Actually, I'd say there is a dominance of immaturity over both masculinity and femininity. (IMO, competition is EXTREMELY childish, and has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity, and lack of compassion doesn't signify a lack of femininity - it signifies a lack of maturity). So, we just need to start acting like adults...

 

[path_of_one]

A particular point of interest for myself is that - if the traditional view be accepted - then male and females in early human cultures had clearly defined gender roles - man the hunter, and woman the social gatherer. With increasing egalitarianism the male gender role becomes increasingly obsolete, and I personally find it hard not to interpret this as leading to a sense of femine ascendency.

While in some views this may be a good thing for modern civilisation, I can't help but wonder how this is going to effect the overall male psyche - how ingrained are gender roles in our biological social programming?

Hmm... well, in many traditional hunter-gatherer societies, men did more hunting, and women did more gathering. But these were not clearly defined gender roles. Men gathered food for themselves when they were out in the bush, and women hunted small game if it showed up during gathering. Infants were cared for primarily by women, because they had to be breast-fed for three to four years due to a lack of suitable weaning foods. But after about three or four, kids went where they wanted. Sometimes with mom, sometimes with dad, sometimes a group of kids went off on their own and watched each other. In the absence of the dysfunctions of urban and industrial life, things were pretty simple and no need to worry that the kids would not be OK. In fact, we know now that much of what kids learned were from other children. We typically have a skewed understanding of traditional societies. Most of both genders' time was free. The average hunter-gatherer of either gender only worked about 20 hours a week, and that included making shelters and tools, cleaning up, and cooking the food. So they had, on average, 20+ hours more than us per week of free time. Both genders spent most of their time story-telling, dancing, gambling and playing games, hanging out with each other and all the kids, and just plain having fun. In most hunter-gatherer societies, men were just as likely to be adorned as women with jewelry, tattoos, paint, etc. and they were just as likely to be tender toward their children, patient, and generous. Men were often cooperative because big hunts required this.

I would say there is some biological programming in people, but it is a lot more complex than most people think. For one, it just doesn't break down into the male vs. female categories Western culture has. The actual hormonal levels that cause what we perceive as "masculine" and "feminine" behaviors is a spectrum, not two polar opposites. It looks like a double bell curve if you graph it. There are a very small number of people who are clearly and extremely "masculine" (with very high testosterone:estrogen levels) or "feminine" (very high estrogen:testosterone levels), and a small number who are completely androgenous (e:t is about 1:1). The vast majority are in a big spectrum of "sort of masculine" and "sort of feminine." What culture does with this is very interesting, and tremendously diverse...

I think that it is very damaging to have the sort of gender roles we have now in U.S. culture, especially for men. Women have, with the Women's Lib movement, at least gotten to a point where we feel relatively secure in being able to be both mother and business woman, compassionate and assertive. It's far from perfect, but at least we feel like we somewhat get a choice and can opt for both. Men are still stuck in a very narrow and rigid set of norms for behavior. It hurts them. I know men who feel effeminate if they cry when they're in pain or grief. Many people have horror stories about their fathers because we don't train boys to be compassionate and nurturing toward children, and men don't automatically just "know" how to father a child. Why is it considered effeminate to enjoy flowers (seems like a basic primate thing to me!)? Why can't a guy order a salad and his wife a steak, and the waiter get the order right? I think the saddest thing is that it seems to be mostly men that keep other men from enjoying their feminine side.

I think the key is that we need to get to a point of balance- recognize that for the vast majority of us, we are indeed both masculine and feminine, and so men and women are much more alike than they are different. We need to honor our entire self, to know ourselves completely. Without this, our spiritual (and I believe social) growth is limited.

 

[Pathless]

The average hunter-gatherer of either gender only worked about 20 hours a week, and that included making shelters and tools, cleaning up, and cooking the food. So they had, on average, 20+ hours more than us per week of free time. Both genders spent most of their time story-telling, dancing, gambling and playing games, hanging out with each other and all the kids, and just plain having fun.

Is this true? Do you mind sharing where you got this information? It sounds fantastic! I often find myself wishing that I lived in a culture like that of the American Indians or the one you described, because it seems to me such a simple and natural way of life--but I kind of figured that I was idealizing it, and that it would be quite rough, in reality. But, if what you are saying is true, then the ideal is the reality.

I think the key is that we need to get to a point of balance- recognize that for the vast majority of us, we are indeed both masculine and feminine, and so men and women are much more alike than they are different. We need to honor our entire self, to know ourselves completely. Without this, our spiritual (and I believe social) growth is limited.

Absolutely.

 

[Pathless]

Actually, I'd say there is a dominance of immaturity over both masculinity and femininity. (IMO, competition is EXTREMELY childish, and has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity, and lack of compassion doesn't signify a lack of femininity - it signifies a lack of maturity). So, we just need to start acting like adults...

This is a good point, and I think what you are hitting on in your post--and what several people have voiced in these replies--is that the particular qualities I labeled as being "masculine" and "feminine" are not confined to one gender or the other, but shared by both. I agree, but, for the sake of my argument, I did assign certain stereotypical qualities to each gender. I think that there is, unfortunately, some truth to those stereotypes.

 

[Pathless]

Also, I can't help but see the potential detrimental imbalance with a female ascendency perhaps eventually developing into sustained matriarchal oppression as a mirror of patriarchal dominance over the past couple of millenia.

You touched earlier in your reply, Brian, on egalitarianism. I think that what I was implying in my original post, but did not make explicit, was that a feminization of culture would have egalitarianism as a goal--a balancing of qualities, not a switch to another extreme. I would agree that that is a possible danger and something to be avoided.

 

[path_of_one]

Is this true? Do you mind sharing where you got this information? It sounds fantastic! I often find myself wishing that I lived in a culture like that of the American Indians or the one you described, because it seems to me such a simple and natural way of life--but I kind of figured that I was idealizing it, and that it would be quite rough, in reality. But, if what you are saying is true, then the ideal is the reality.

A good place to start is with the volume "Man the Hunter," which is a classic that came out of a symposium on hunter-gatherers. "Woman the Gatherer" was written in response to it. The best work specifically on time management among hunter-gatherers was written by Lee, and further research with other societies confirmed his results. If you'd like a more detailed bibliography, just let me know and I'll dig it out of my files. It's somewhat technical, but really interesting reading IMO.

Some hunter-gatherers did have a pretty rough life, and most of these groups were in the Arctic. In most h-g societies (outside of the Arctic regions), women provided 70-90% of the food through gathering. The reliance on plants for sustenance meant that famine was generally not a threat, because h-g populations tend to be very low compared to land mass. Meat is important for its protein and fat. In Arctic populations, meat becomes the dominant food for calories, and this comes with problems because hunting is a very unreliable way to get food. Whether or not life was really stressful depended a lot on your environment. Arctic people had pretty hard lives. Most of the rest of the world had it a lot better.

Whether or not a hunter-gatherer life was ideal depends on perspective. There certainly are a lot of wonderful things about it: a lot of free time and fun, people tend to have a very personal spirituality and be connected to nature, there is next to no crime, you spend your whole life with family and close friends, you get plenty of exercise... Judging by the amount of people who think I'm crazy for "roughing it" when I go backpacking (with my nice comfy hiking boots, propane stove, and zero-rated sleeping bag), though, I'd guess a lot of people today would take our hot showers, antibiotics, and gigantic temperature-moderated dwellings over having more free time and a simpler life. Hunter-gatherers did not have huge problems with a lot of our "old age" diseases like cancer and heart disease, and many lived to 60-65, but there was a much higher risk for death among children under five and women of childbearing age than modern times. Not all changes have been bad, though some ecologists would tell you that it would have been better for the earth had people remained at low population densities.

I myself am torn. Not that it matters, because it isn't really possible to be a hunter-gatherer anymore. There are too many people on earth for that lifestyle now.

 

[Pathless]

I myself am torn. Not that it matters, because it isn't really possible to be a hunter-gatherer anymore. There are too many people on earth for that lifestyle now.

That's true that we can't go back to a hunter-gatherer lifetyle, per se, but perhaps it is still possible for us to have a global culture of cooperation and compassion, rather than one of competition and strife.

Everyone must be involved to effect change and it is slow going. I don't think of it as feminization or masculinization, but humanization, or better yet, becoming more sacred. What is it that we must be? The virtues belong to both genders: nobility, strength, compassion, courage, friendliness, truthfulness, trustworthiness, gentleness, empathy, sincerity, peacefulness, patience. Fruits of the spirit is another way of looking at it. Neither male nor female for all are one.

How we make our individual choices does matter.

If it is an inner revolution of the individual, how do we achieve critical mass so that there can be positive change? Lunamoth pointed to the culture of fear that we live in. Can that be overridden by individuals embracing the virtues that she described? I agree with others who have posted here: truly, we're not speaking of masculine or feminine qualities, but virtues that are universal. It seems to me that the virtues listed are extremely powerful and strong. Are they strong enough that, if practiced by individuals and small communities of individuals, they will be able to override the dominant culture of fear, aggression, and cynicism? Is that critical mass possible? Desirable? Does it matter?

 

[Quahom1]

That's true that we can't go back to a hunter-gatherer lifetyle, per se, but perhaps it is still possible for us to have a global culture of cooperation and compassion, rather than one of competition and strife.

If it is an inner revolution of the individual, how do we achieve critical mass so that there can be positive change? Lunamoth pointed to the culture of fear that we live in. Can that be overridden by individuals embracing the virtues that she described? I agree with others who have posted here: truly, we're not speaking of masculine or feminine qualities, but virtues that are universal. It seems to me that the virtues listed are extremely powerful and strong. Are they strong enough that, if practiced by individuals and small communities of individuals, they will be able to override the dominant culture of fear, aggression, and cynicism? Is that critical mass possible? Desirable? Does it matter?

IMO I believe that the "revolution" you speak of is not a revolution at all. It is in fact a strive for a proper and natural balance of things. And where is all begins is at home. If left to their own devices, a healthy (minded) family or group of people calling themselves family, will for the purposes of maintaining a natural balance between masculine/feminine, provider/nuturer, respector and respected, strive for just that.

However, outside influences begin to immediately apply pressure to the family unit (for what ever reasons), and most of that external influence appears to be detrimental to the family, thus leading to confusion, frustration, rebellion, selfcenteredness, and ultimately a breakdown of the otherwise healthy family unit.

This psychological "warfare" is extremely difficult to defend against, even if all members of the family are aware it is occuring. I present as evidence to this "fact", the current state of the average family in America (for example) today.

As further evidence I present the current state of the average family or tribe dotting the South Pacific Islands, today, for comparison.

I'd be happy to expound, should anyone be interested.

v/r

Q

 

[path_of_one]

That's true that we can't go back to a hunter-gatherer lifetyle, per se, but perhaps it is still possible for us to have a global culture of cooperation and compassion, rather than one of competition and strife.

Absolutely. That's what I'm striving for. And thought we can't be hunter-gatherers once more, if we got off our back-sides and started organic gardens, neighborhood work exchanges, and such... we could get to a much better place. There are small communities who have managed to do it. I think a lot of people in the U.S. are very unhappy, but they don't realize that what would make them happy are things they've trained themselves out of liking: volunteer work, exercise (the human body was made for walking 10km+ per day!), eating healthy, etc. But if people would just try a radically different approach to living for a while, they'd find that all the exercise, good healthy food, and generosity leads to a much better result than Prozac. Though we can't be hunter-gatherers, we can strive to be like hunter-gatherers in the ways our bodies and minds are craving.

If it is an inner revolution of the individual, how do we achieve critical mass so that there can be positive change? Lunamoth pointed to the culture of fear that we live in. Can that be overridden by individuals embracing the virtues that she described? I agree with others who have posted here: truly, we're not speaking of masculine or feminine qualities, but virtues that are universal. It seems to me that the virtues listed are extremely powerful and strong. Are they strong enough that, if practiced by individuals and small communities of individuals, they will be able to override the dominant culture of fear, aggression, and cynicism? Is that critical mass possible? Desirable? Does it matter?

I think we can override the fear and cynicism. It ain't easy, but I guess I'm an eternal optimist. And yes, I think the critical mass is possible and desirable. And I think it matters on so many fronts- not only for personal happiness, but to strive for a world in which violence, poverty, environmental destruction, etc. are lessened. When people are happier and more generous, there is a ripple effect.

Every time I break social norms that are grounded in sucking the joy and love and peace out of life, I feel liberated and it affects others. Before I know it, other people are changing their lives for the day too. Even the little things, like smiling warmly at everyone you meet and thanking customer service people for their help, changes people's days from what I've seen. And then they are happy and change others' days, and so on and so on. I try to work on the "big issues" some of the time, but I think everyone could make a big impact just by their own personal choices each day and the encouragement they give to others.

In your own example, maybe the next time that guy sees flowers, it might nag in the back of his mind that he once did enjoy flowers before he learned to axe one more thing from his joys in life out of fear. For me it's about planting seeds...

 

[lunamoth]

If it is an inner revolution of the individual, how do we achieve critical mass so that there can be positive change? Lunamoth pointed to the culture of fear that we live in. Can that be overridden by individuals embracing the virtues that she described? I agree with others who have posted here: truly, we're not speaking of masculine or feminine qualities, but virtues that are universal. It seems to me that the virtues listed are extremely powerful and strong. Are they strong enough that, if practiced by individuals and small communities of individuals, they will be able to override the dominant culture of fear, aggression, and cynicism? Is that critical mass possible? Desirable? Does it matter?

To cloak this in religious language what we are talking about is the Kingdom of God. As I'm still influenced by my reading of Borg's The Heart of Christianity, I'll add that Jesus' teachings called for two types of transformation, personal (being born again) and social/political (The Kingdom of God). Both are needed. Jesus' ministry was about both.

Q is right, it is about balance. Right now in the US 40% of the total wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population. How can this not be influencing political outcomes and laws? The ratio of wealth between the top one fifth to the bottom one fifth is 11:1, the highest ratio in any developed country (Japan, 4.3:1, France and Canada, 7.1:1). In real dollars the income and net wealth of the bottom 60% of the US population declined since from the '70s to '90s.

How to approach economic justice? It seems people choose one of two ways if they choose to do anythng at all. Some people withdraw from society and try to create an isolated subculture. They join today's equivalents of communes (subsitence farms, eco-friendly co-ops) or sometimes militant groups or religious groups and in a way "drop out" of society. Others become activists or get into politics and try to influence
law and policy.

What is economic justice? I'm certain that also is in the eye's of the beholder. And probably the closer one is to the top one fifth the harder it is to see the injustice (it is very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven). However, just because one has relatively more wealth does not mean that they should feel somehow bad about this. What should be considered is how that wealth is used and how the power gained from that wealth is used. Once again, balance. This is where the personal transformation comes into play. Are we making decisions based on fear and insecurity or are we going to make decisions based in courage, nobility and compassion?

This country really is Rome (please do not stone me, compatriots! I love the USA and appreciate so much that I was blessed to be born here!). We are the dominating empire of the globe right now. We may not be the be-all and end-all of global politics, but we are the 800-lb gorilla to be sure. How are we going to use this influence? How are we as citizens going to voice our concerns to our own government?

This is getting a bit (or a lot) soap-boxish, so I'll euthanize this post before it gets worse. But, my answer is that the critical mass to shift the balance back toward a more equitable society is more than desirable, it is necessary. It does matter, and I pray it is possible.

lunamoth

 

[InLove]

I don't know, but if I needed an employer (and that is highly debatable at this time--I mean whether or not I actually need an employer), and if the present day actually left much room to choose one's employer--hey. you sound pretty good!

Do you think there is still a "glass ceiling"?

InPeace,
InLove

 

[InLove]

Please, someone remove that last post of mine? It was dumb--I was distracted and tired. I can't seem to edit it out myself. Sorry--please? Thanks.

Oh, and after removing that one, please remove this one?

Interesting thread--carry on.

InLove,
InPeace

 

[Geist]

Is a feminization of culture even practical?

I believe it would do us more good than bad. I believe this because as womwn the only job we seem to have in nature is to bring up children and so we are softer and more gentle than men. If there was a major feminisation in our cultures I think there would be alot less conflict and wars.

Why is that?

Its because in Shakespraeian times women weren't aloud to act. THe reason was because men would look up their dresses so the made a law saying that only men could act. However this encouraged homosexuality and the law was dropped because of that and then they moved on to saying homosexuality was wrong blah, blah, blah.

How do we achieve such a thing?

Lets see how about less sexism off men?

Or men and women being treatrd as equals because really men just make it look that way. Women have bairly any control in anything anymore.