Feminine and Masculine
I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to
identify precisely what femininity and masculinity are. The goal and purpose of
this exercise is two-fold: 1) Because, as a man, it helps me to better
understand what kind of man I ought to inspire to be; and, 2) because as a man,
it helps me to better understand what kind of woman I ought to desire, and how
to properly appreciate her.
Growing up, I would find myself being able to appreciate
both “tomboys” and more traditionally feminine women. I think of one of my
favorite anime series, Ranma 1/2 , where the main love interest of the
protagonist is Akane; while, at the same time, many other courters are trying
to gain Ranma’s affection. Like most young men, it was of significant
importance to decide which of these love interests were most representative of
the ideal woman. And while I could easily appreciate a woman like Akane, my
favorite was Shampoo.
Both were presented as formidable martial artists, which is
already diverging from the traditional idea of what a woman is. But Akane was
most clearly a tomboy, and Shampoo was most clearly a lot more feminine. Both
were, none-the-less strong and capable, if not a bit crazy in their own way. But
despite the fact that I had chosen the more feminine choice, there was
something to say about a woman possessing and expressing some amount of
masculine qualities.
The question to propose before one can even go into a
discussion about femininity and masculinity is whether or not these are even
valid concepts. If they are not, then there is little significance in
discussing what these concepts mean.
In the modern era, the idea of masculinity and femininity
have been conceived as aspects of character entirely divorced from the
biological and developmental differences between men and women. Particularly in
light of the “trans movement,” people have come to accept that concepts of
masculinity and femininity are arbitrary, socially-constructed, subjective
ideas.
We can see quite simply why this is not true. That we can examine
that women have a tendency to act and behave in certain ways as distinct
from men, and vice versa. Even were we to take two infants—one male, one
female—and raise them under conditions whereupon we could rear them without any
influence of our cultural understanding of gender, we should expect—if we are
being honest and rational—that some differences would emerge. What differences,
to what extent, and how those differences are expressed is a more complex
question.
Perhaps with one trial, we would not see much of a
difference. But repeated again and again, we ought to expect to see some
divergence of some kind. If, for no other reason, than the fact that men and
women do, in fact, have a different biology.
We cannot dismiss the fact that men have more testosterone,
and women have less testosterone. We cannot ignore the fact that women get
periods, and men do not. We cannot ignore the fact that women have a more obvious
and distressing process of going through puberty. Or that men, on average, have
more physical strength and size.
Whatever the gender theorists want to proclaim as truth,
before we even dive into the psychological differences between men and
women—before we even ask the question of differences in brain chemistry, we
have to acknowledge the fact that men and women do, in fact, have different
biology, and that this is a key difference which will, inevitably, create
distinct differences between how men and women behave, between what men and
women value and choose to pursue, and the choices and actions which dictate how
and by what means each will pursue that which they value.
Regardless, then, of whatever key differences we might
surmise based on a hypothetical of isolated men and women who have no contact
with one another, there is another aspect of the biological differences between
men and women which we have to consider in terms of their interaction with each
other. Namely that—due to biological necessity of the survival of our
species—in order for mankind to have reached this point, the natural
disposition of men and women have to be by necessity that they have some
kind of urge or impulse to reproduce. Even if reproduction is not their primary
goal—and, instead, their primary goal is to engage in sexual activity—the fact
remains that if men and women were not naturally inclined to desire each other
sexually, the species would scarcely have survived up until this point, and
there would be nobody here to ask the questions about the nature of man and of
woman, or to consider them.
The fact is that a man desiring a woman is man’s natural
state; and a woman desiring a man is her natural state. And while not every man
is sexually attracted to women, and not every woman is sexually attracted to
men, it stands to reason that this is the normal sexual development of human
beings. For if this were not the case, the human species would not longer
exist. We would not have progressed to this state in human history. Our species
would have long-ago gone extinct, and there would no longer be such thing as a
human being.
As to whether or not human beings are naturally inclined to
be exclusively heterosexual or whether they are more inclined to be naturally
bisexual is an issue too distant from the point I am seeking to clarify. I do
not believe that human beings are naturally bisexual, and I need no greater
evidence than the fact that human beings overwhelmingly desire a monogamous
relationship. For those who wish to argue that monogamy is not the natural
relationship of human beings, I will not, here, offer any dispute—because it is
simply irrelevant to the discussion. I will, in time, address this question,
but not in this essay. Only that if human beings are monogamous by
nature, then it stands to reason that they are heterosexual by nature
because only heterosexual couples are capable of engaging in reproduction—and
only those whose genes are passed on in fact are representative of,
biologically speaking, the next generation. Those who do not reproduce
end the lineage of their specific biology. And if it is biological reproductive
tendencies with which we are concerned, then it is only the actualization of
passing on one’s biology which has any relevance or significance.
A group of human beings who, for example, were biologically
inclined to not reproduce—who, for example, rather than being inclined
to experience sexual relationships with the opposite sex, were mostly-inclined
to experience exclusively sexual relationships with the same sex, would not prevail
in passing on their specific biological genes; and therefore, as if they hadn’t
engaged in sexual activity at all, simply no longer be a part of the diversity
of the human genome. Only those whose biology was consistent with the
actualization of reproduction would stand any chance of surviving past one or
two generations. And as such, it cannot be ignored that by virtue of the
fact that human beings still exist, there must, by necessity, be a natural
tendency to seek out and engage in sex with the opposite sex.
This is not a moral appraisal, but an appraisal primarily of
biological necessity. As to whether there is anything good or evil about being
heterosexual or homosexual is a question of ethics. And, therefore, it is a
more complex issue than discerning what is normal in human development. To say
that the normal development for men and women is to sexually desire each
other says nothing about what is proper or right in their
development. A connection can be made, but it isn’t obvious or
clear-cut—nor is it relevant to this discussion.
Thus, we can, at minimum, recognize that there are
key biological and developmental differences between men and women. That, at
minimum, the sexual biology of men and women create certain differences in what
an individual must consider in the course of their life.
One of the most obvious differences is that women can get
pregnant, and men cannot. If pregnancy for human beings was simply a swift and
unobtrusive process—such that once a woman got pregnant, the baby would emerge
from her womb within a week without pain or effort—then the difference would
not be so profound. But instead, giving birth to, and thereafter raising one’s
child, is an incredible investment for both the man and the woman. Biologically
speaking, the burden for women is significantly more so than it is for men.
It is a woman’s biological burden to develop the fetus in
her womb, which increasingly consumes the resources her body needs to sustain
itself. As the fetus grows into an infant, it increases in size, and so does
her stomach. In addition to the changes in her appetite, in her nausea, in body
aches and pains, there is also an increase in her heartbeat and physical
activity becomes increasingly more difficult for her. Then, at last, she has
the task of actually giving birth, which any mother will tell you was an
experience which was profound, significant, and incredibly taxing on her body.
The simple fact that women can get pregnant and men cannot,
I would offer, significantly explains why men are physically larger and more
capable. Because pregnancy is so incredibly taxing—a process which men cannot
aid his spouse in except in material support of sustaining her life and
offering comfort—women become particularly vulnerable in the end-stages of
pregnancy, whereupon her capability to engage in the kinds of activities
necessary for sustaining her life become most difficult, and whereupon
biological necessity would suggest that the man is born with the tendency to
attach himself to a woman emotionally, such that he has the proper inner motivation
to support her at the most difficult stages of pregnancy. Such that a man is
inclined to develop a selfish interest in the woman, such that there is no
psychological conflict between the needs of the soon-to-be mother and his
interests of his own survival. Such that he is inclined to develop a vested
interest in her life and her well-being. And then, when she is vulnerable from
the burden of pregnancy, for him to have an in-born desire to see her live and
succeed.
Then, there is another issue to consider, which is: once we
have established that the normal development of men and women is heterosexual
desire, then it stands to reason that the actual gratification of heterosexual
sexual activity is also of some significant importance. If sex was pleasurable
for the man only, then there would be little desire for the woman to engage in
it. And, despite the fact that many men had for centuries overlooked women’s
capacity to experience sexual pleasure—shockingly so—there is, none-the-less a
biological necessity for her to have the physical capacity to experience sexual
enjoyment as well—Particularly when, as technology increases in complexity, and
women are, then, by virtue of such tools capable of defending themselves
against the rape of a man, if women had no desire for sex, the species should
shrink and decrease the more capable a woman would become as a result of tools
she could use to defend herself against men.
It is not necessary that men and women desire sex for the
same reasons and in the same way—only that the perpetuation of the species
requires that men and women do both have their own reasons for desiring sex.
And, as can be seen in women who do not want to bear children, the desire for
sex is not absent. So the “baby craze” does not adequately or sufficiently
account for women’s desire to have sex.
Or, some might offer that women desire sex because offering
sex to a man ensures that he will take care of her and protect her. But if this
were true, a woman who is extremely competent and capable of taking care of
herself would not desire sex either. Rather, I would suggest, that what we see
is that the more competent and self-reliant a woman is, the more
she tends to desire sex with men. She may, then, have higher standards of which
men she chooses to sleep with and why, but her desire for sex doesn’t diminish,
only her desire for weak and unworthy men diminishes.
Having established this framework, we can adequately say
that there are clear differences between men and women, from which the concept
of femininity and masculinity are derived. Some might say that masculinity is
the sum of qualities most-often expressed in men, and that femininity is the
sum of qualities most-often expressed in women.
I, however, do not see masculinity and femininity in this
light. I do not view these concepts as pertaining only to observation of actual
outcomes and probabilities. I hold that masculinity and femininity represent
qualities of characters which are proper and desirable in each sex. It is a
highly abstract projection of that which is the best within men qua men, and
the best within women qua women. That the concept of masculinity is a standard
of judging the quality of a man as a man. Not judging a man as a human being,
necessarily, but judging him specifically in terms of his function and role as a
human being possessing certain biological characteristics. And, as such,
femininity is the standard of judging a woman as a woman—and not judging a
woman as a human being.
It is proper, however, to point out that a man can only be a
man and cannot cease to be a man, any less than a woman can exist as anything
other than a woman. To say that a person is a good and worthy human being is
only to discuss that which is common for both sexes. But, in actuality, a man must
be judged as a man, because he cannot be a human being which is not a
man. Any and every human being is either a man or a woman. One cannot be
a human being without being one or the other. Gender theory not withstanding,
despite the desire to create a third, or a fourth, or a four-hundredth category
of gender. In actuality and in fact, every human being is either a man or woman
as determined by his or her specific biology.
Even the existence of anomalies such as hermaphrodites does
not disqualify this binary view of sex and gender. And while there are men who
“identify” as a woman, or vice-versa—or even those who identify as “agender,”
which the claim to have a gender which is not a gender, an obvious
contradiction; or that there are those who identify as “non-binary,” which is a
concept equally absent of meaning and definition—the actual objective fact is
that any person born a man is a man in fact; and any person born as a woman is
a woman in fact. Human beings do not have the capacity to alter the gender with
which they were born, which is synonymous with their sex, which is synonymous
with important biological distinctions such as which set of genitals they were
born with, and which chromosomes.
This, again, is not to offer any moral appraisal of
transgenderism. I’m sure you can guess with some degree of accuracy what my
views on this would be. But it is not relevant to the discussion, and so I will
leave it to your own judgement as to what you might guess my views to be. What
I am offering is only that the facts of reality are the facts of reality, not
to be altered or wished away by changing one’s perspective of their perception
of reality. That to imagine one’s self as a woman does not, in fact, or in any
significant way, alter the fact that a man is born a man and must remain a man.
Whether a man is masculine or feminine, or logical or illogical, or accepts the
biology he was born with or undergoes expensive life-altering surgeries to
alter his biology, or whether he has a normal amount of testosterone or a
sub-normal amount of testosterone, or whether he chooses to accept the fact
that he is a man or chooses to suppress his testosterone and take androgynous
estrogen to alter the biology of his body to appear to be more like that of a
woman—No matter what he thinks or does, he cannot escape the fact of being born
a man, and the fact that there is nothing else for him to be. Just as a man
does not become a woman because he develops a sexual attraction to other men;
so he does not become a woman by altering and mutilating his body, nor by
virtue of the fact that he begins to wear wigs, dresses, and carry a purse. Just
as a gay man is still a man; so a transgender “woman” still remains a man, in
fact.
What, then, is the significance or importance of the
concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity” in human lives? Are these standards
something that we can define? Are these standards something that men and women
should properly achieve in their character? And what, precisely, are these
qualities and the basis of these qualities? Is it necessary for the proper and
optimal development of a man to be masculine? Or is it equally valid for him to
develop a more feminine personality? Is it necessary for the proper development
of a woman to accept and embrace her femininity? Or is it equally as valid for
her to develop herself as a masculine personality? Regardless of whether or not
the concepts of masculinity and femininity are valid concepts derived from and
pertaining to the sex of the human being, is there any necessity, function, or
benefit in adhering to these biologically-derived concepts?
First, let us just briefly discuss what the Objectivist
philosophy offers as a view of man. More broadly, what the Objectivist offers
as a view of a human being. That is to say that the Objectivist philosophy is
not merely a prescription for those of the male sex; but, despite the common
use of the masculine in explaining its principles, it is to be understood that
the same principles of action which apply to men equally apply to women—whenever
no specific distinction is offered.
There are three cardinal values which the Objectivist
philosophy offers as the proper ruling principles of man’s existence: Reason,
Purpose, and Self-Esteem.
Reason as man’s only tool of survival, his only means of
knowledge, and his only proper guide to action.
Purpose as the values and goals his tool of survival is to
achieve.
Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that he is competent
to live and worthy of living.
Self-esteem consists of the certainty that man is competent
to live, and worthy of living—meaning competent to achieve his values, and
worthy of enjoying his values; which can be expressed as “Self-Confidence” and
“Self-Respect.”
Self-Confidence means his conviction that his mind is
capable of judging what values he ought to hold, is competent to deal with the
facts of reality by the authority of his own first-hand judgement, and is
competent to deal with the facts of existence adequately to achieve his
specific values in action.
Self-Respect means his capacity to value the beneficiary of
his action, namely himself. Self-Respect means the belief that he is morally
and existentially right for existence, and that he has the capacity to earn
the values he achieves, which means the conviction that whatever values he
achieves, he has a proper moral right to the enjoyment of those values. The
belief that his capacity to achieve his values does not diminish or damage his
enjoyment of the character of himself. That there is no conflict between his
values and his character.
These three values are equally applicable to men and women.
Women, no less than men, can only acquire knowledge by the
faculty of reason.
Women, no less than men, need reason to guide their choices
and actions if they are to succeed in achieving them.
Women, no less than men, need values to serve as the source
of their life and their happiness, and have no less need to discover by a
process of reason which values they ought to hold and for what purpose.
Women, no less than men, need purpose as a guiding principle
of their life and existence, the corresponding virtue of which is the virtue of
productiveness. Meaning that women, no less than men, need a guiding purpose in
their life of creating values in their life, of acting productively towards the
maintenance of their life and happiness.
Women, no less than men, need the recognition that their
mind is capable of dealing with the facts of reality, and achieving their
chosen values in reality.
Women, no less than men, need the inviolate certainty that
their character is consistent with their values, to know that their person is
worthy of happiness, to know that their person is something that they can
value, can fight for, and can live for.
Women, no less than men, have to act towards the achievement
of their own values, and therefore, their own happiness. And, as such, they
have no less necessity of valuing the beneficiary of their actions, of valuing
their self.
What is essentially different between men and women, then,
is the difference between the specific values a man and woman choose to pursue
qua man or qua woman. The difference in values between men and women from the
basis of that which in them is specifically a man or specifically a woman. Not
the broader values which are proper to all men and all women. The values of
Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem are fundamental to human beings in general,
regardless of their biological sex. The difference emerges in the details—of
that which is uniquely proper to a man, versus that which is uniquely proper to
a woman, within the more broad generalization of what is proper to all living
human beings.
Having established this foundation, I will offer to suggest that
masculinity and femininity are defined by those qualities of men and women
which are optimally necessary for self-actualization. That a man who is not
masculine or a woman who is not feminine can still, never-the-less, lead happy
and fulfilling lives; but that these qualities of character are necessary for
the optimal capacity to achieve that final end. Optimally necessary with
respect to the unique aspects of our lives which are specific to what sex we
are born with, and what that necessarily implies.
Foremost, it is worth noting that sex is not an unnecessary
aspect of our lives. It is, in fact, psychologically a normal, healthy, and beneficial
celebration of our existence. Sex can become a self-destructive pursuit and
activity. But properly, rationally, it is an expression of affirmation of our
existence, and a celebration of the fact that we exist, and are right for
existence. Just as love and companionship are basic human needs, so is sex. But
just as one can live a happy and fulfilling life even without having a partner,
so one can live a happy and fulfilling life without the experience of sex. But
in order for a man or woman to optimally and fully experience the
greatest sense of self-fulfillment and self-actualization, love and sex are
both necessary values worth pursuing.
And, because sex is such an important value to our lives, it
makes an incredible amount of difference how and by what means we experience
it. And, in this respect, there are biological differences between men and
women, purely based on the kind of genitals one is born with, which establishes
by what means one is capable of experiencing sexual enjoyment.
But further, there are also other considerations which are distinct
between men and women with regards to the consequences of sex. For one, women
can get pregnant; men cannot. A woman who gets pregnant has no choice about the
fact that her body will begin developing a baby within her; and, if no action
is taken to abort the pregnancy, she will eventually give birth to a child.
For a man, the same is true, except that it is her
body, not his which is forming the baby. It is her physical body which
will be affected and impeded, not his. It is her who will experience the
pain and hardship of pregnancy, not him. And she cannot easily run away
from that responsibility, but he can—particularly when it is not
definitive that he is, in fact, the biological father of the baby.
Thus, promiscuity for a man is not a very good policy,
particularly when he is reckless in careless about potentially getting a woman
pregnant. At worst, if he runs away from the responsibility of being a father,
he will have to pay child support—but need not be directly or meaningfully
involved in the child’s life.
The woman, on the other hand, may put the child up
for adoption, but is so intimately connected to the child (by virtue of having
developed the child in her womb and given birth to it), that it is far more
difficult for a woman to make this decision. To abandon one’s child, for a
woman, is very much like abandoning part of one’s self. Whereas this may be
true for a man to some extent, the connection is less obvious and less
intimate. That the man, seeing the infant emerge from the woman, has to
establish that connection on his own.
Thus, a man who takes no measure to avoid getting women
pregnant may not have his life changed in any meaningful way; whereas for a
woman, pregnancy almost always means assuming the responsibility of parenthood
unless she chooses to have an abortion, which itself is a difficult and
demanding decision. If she is not prepared to make that decision, there is the
emotional frustration she must endure in making that choice to consider as
well. And, if she does not know which man got her pregnant, she cannot
reasonably rely on the support of a partner in her responsibility.
And as such, in this basic sense, a woman, by necessity of
her biology, must be more thoughtful, careful, and considerate about her
decisions of whom to have sex with and for what reasons. Sex is a meaningful
activity for both men and women, but it is an activity that, for women, comes
with much more considerations.
And, these kinds of considerations will, necessarily, shape
how men and women view sex differently. And, as such, it is not merely that men
and women have different genitals which cause them to experience sex
differently, but also the deeper, life-altering considerations which frame such
considerations.
When two partners are cautious and careful about such
potential consequences, there is one more major factor to consider, which is
the union and biological compatibility of the two sexes. More specifically, in
the realm of sex in particular, the man is the dominant initiator and the woman
is the submissive receiver. A man penetrates the woman, and the woman must be
penetrated.
This, properly, forms the basis of a healthy disposition
between the sexes and towards the opposite sex, such that a man should properly
desire to be the dominant sexual initiator, and the woman should desire to be
sexually submissive. Not submissive in every respect—not obedient! But
submissive.
In other words, a man has a basic sexual urge to, in a
sense, “dominate” a woman sexually. To be in control. While a woman has a basic
sexual need to be able to appreciate and enjoy his domination—which means, not
that she should be able to enjoy being dominated however and by whatever means
she is dominated. There is no basic necessity for a woman to, for instance,
enjoy being physically forced into sex such as in rape. Instead, a woman should
feel a deep sense of hatred, and perhaps a response of violence and revenge,
should she ever be raped by a man. It is not hyperbole to say that a woman who
is raped should feel a desire for the death of any man whom has raped her.
That, I hold, is moral and proper. She should, if she is a woman of
self-esteem, want a man’s life to end should he ever violate her in that
manner. (And we in society should hold a similar disposition towards this
violation, whenever and to whatever extent an instance of rape has been proven
by irrefutable evidence.)
What I am speaking of in terms of a woman properly being
submissive in sex, and of a man dominating her in sex, is a mutual desire—a
mutual understanding—a mutual end. An act which is voluntary in nature and understood
as the desire for both. An act in which the submissiveness of the woman is an
act of her giving into the ecstasy and enjoyment of the man’s strength and
confidence. An act whereupon the woman is enjoying the value of the man by
allowing her to be taken by him—not an act of him taking her against her will.
Now, because there are biological differences between the
sexual fulfillment of men and women, there are differences in attitudes and
desires between men and women—between what they seek and want to experience
from one another. And, in contra-distinction from the religious or
“naturalistic” view of the man-woman relationship, I would offer that the
differences in goals and desires arises primarily as a result of the desire for
sexual (and, therefore, emotional) fulfillment.
Both the religious view and the animalistic (or
“naturalistic”) view of man holds as the primary foundation of sexual
differences between men and women the necessity of reproduction from a
biological standpoint. The religious view holds that the purpose of sexual
relationships is achievement of being “fruitful and multiplying,” in keeping
with God’s commandments. The more “scientific” perspective is that men and
women desire sexual relationships because their biological purpose in existing
is to reproduce—and that this is the consideration which ought to be the
foundation of sexual experience.
However, a brief analysis of thought should tell us that
reproduction is not an end in itself. Reproduction may be, evolutionarily
speaking, an explanation of why we have developed to seek sexual
pleasure; but this is discounting the fact that human beings are a species
which are not born with innate values, and which must choose their
values by a process of conscious decision-making. That our capacity to choose
our values makes it possible for us to act against our nature, and because we
are capable of choosing our values, we are capable of acting according
to the decisions of our conscious judgement, and not merely acting according to
base instinct and necessitated responses. That, in other words, we are endowed
with the capacity for free will, which means endowed with the capacity to
choose which values which want to hold, and for what reasons.
What a man values in a woman, or what a woman values in a
man—but also what a man values in himself as a man, and what a woman values in
herself as a woman—depends heavily on how each perceives their proper (and
desirable) relationship with the other.
Therefore, the expression of masculinity in a man and
femininity in a woman is properly an extension of the goal or purpose of that
relationship—a large part being their sexual attraction to each other—meaning a
desire for sexual fulfillment from each other. And whilst a man and woman can
desire each other’s affection without sex being their basic motive, it is at
least, in part, understood that sex—the celebration of their love—is part of
the goal.
Thus, even if they both mutually agree that they want to
remain abstinent for the time—even if they agree that what they want to focus
on primarily is their spiritual and intellectual connection and growth without
the complication of sex—they still maintain a connection to the fantasy of
enjoying each other sexually. This is, at least, the case for a proper romantic
relationship—because sex is the ultimate act of self-celebration, and the
ultimate celebration of the person of another—the ultimate affirmation of the
non-futility of human existence, and an affirmation of the achievement of all
of one’s other values.
Therefore, because a man is the sexually active partner and
a woman is the sexually submissive, the dynamic between men and women tends to
be a reflection of this relationship—such that a woman typically desires a man
who is a confident initiator or leader in their potential partnership, and a
woman is most-often the final judge or final decider as to whether a
partnership can or will be formed. That a man most-often has the responsibility
of making himself into the kind of a man that a woman is capable of
appreciating; and a woman is often met with many suitors, but most act
discriminately and contentiously about who she chooses to experience love,
romance and sex with. That it is most-often the man who impresses the woman,
and a woman who reciprocates by showing the man that he is appreciated.
And this is a distinct difference in the approach of men to
women and vice versa. That just as in sex the man is the initiator and the
woman the willing receiver, that so, too, in the realm of expressing affection,
the man is most-often the driver, and the woman is the navigator. The man
presents his character to the woman, and he leaves it to the woman to recognize
and approve of him. That a man offers the value of his intimacy, and that a
woman has to accept and invite him to be intimate.
This does not describe all romantic relationships fully and
consistently, but it describes the underlying principles at work. And moreover,
it describes how the spiritual connection of men and women are formed from the
viewpoint of the simple, undeniable fact of each of their biology. And that is
the proper framework on which to understand and identify the root of
masculinity and femininity—and to decide what qualities are properly masculine,
what qualities are properly feminine, and to recognize the fact that masculinity
and femininity are achievements of character with respect specifically to man’s
relationship to women, and vice versa; and, in particular, that relationship in
terms of romantic love and sexual experience.
Thus, the next question to answer is: what, then, is an
expression of proper masculinity, and what is an expression of proper
femininity? There are things of each that we can recognize and appreciate—but I
hold that most of the things that people think of as masculine or feminine are
merely secondary factors arising from the primary factors.
For instance, we understand that physical strength and
prowess are often regarded as being masculine traits; while physical weakness
and vulnerability is often held to be feminine in nature.
In fact, when you think about what most people in society
regard as masculine and feminine, you may observe that femininity is almost
exclusively defined as the antithesis of masculine traits.
That society holds that masculinity means confidence, and
that femininity means indecisiveness. That masculinity means being strong, and
femininity means being weak. That masculinity means being a leader, and that
femininity means being a follower. That masculinity means dominance, and
femininity means obedience. That masculinity means rationality, and femininity
means driven by irrational emotional impulses.
But, as should be clear from the cardinal values of
Objectivism, there is a contradiction here. The most obvious contradiction is
the belief that femininity means “driven by irrational emotional impulses.” If,
as Objectivism offers, it is proper and necessary for both men and women to be
rational, then if femininity means the optimal achievement of character as a
woman, then this would entail that a woman should be both rational and
irrational, which is a contradiction in terms.
Rather, what there error is is in what people conclude
femininity means. Masculinity is most-often better understood than femininity;
and I would suggest that femininity is so sparsely understood that it
represents a confession of ignorance of those who often offer their opinion
that everything they regard as feminine is merely a negation of that which they
mean to be masculine.
And here, I will offer what I have come to decide is the
proper basis of understanding the two. For both men and women, one of the
cardinal requirements of rationality and of the successful development of one’s
character is the value of self-esteem—the value of recognizing that one is
competent to live, and worthy of living—the development of the integration
between self-confidence and self-respect.
And here, then, is the key difference between masculinity
and femininity. Both sexes require the achievement of a radiant,
authentic self-esteem. Both sexes need the value of productive work and
of the capacity to be the dictators of one’s own survival. Both sexes need
reason in order to identify their values and goals and to achieve them. But the
distinction between masculinity and femininity lies in the difference between
self-confidence and self-respect.
Since self-esteem is properly an integration of self-confidence
and self-respect, one cannot have self-esteem without having a healthy measure
of both. A man of self-esteem is attracted to a woman of self-esteem; and vice
versa.
The difference, then, is not as to whether or not a man or a
woman has self-esteem. Properly speaking, they should. The difference is that
masculinity is predominantly derived from the expression of a man’s
self-confidence; and a woman’s femininity is predominantly derived from the expression
of her self-respect.
What do I mean?
Well, consider again the role that each generally plays in
the courtship. A man, in order to attract a woman, first makes himself worthy
of her. He does not plead with her or beg her to accept him and to bond with
him. Such begging and sympathy would be unattractive in a man. The woman is not
attracted to his need of her, but to his confidence, his ability, his
intelligence, his integrity, and his self-reliance. She is attracted to
his self-sufficiency in practical matters, in emotion, in morality, and in the
total integration. She is attracted to that which he is by virtue of
that which he is capable of, which is why a woman is most-often found
fantasizing about marrying a doctor, or a lawyer, or some man of some other
profession that she admires and respects. She is attracted to men of a specific
profession because this is a symbol of that within him which makes him
capable of adequately and competently succeeding in those professions. Not
because she is attracted to his success, but that she is attracted to
those qualities of character which makes such success possible. She is
attracted foremost to his capacity to perceive the world and act rationally
in the achievement of his own values. And this is a source of her
pleasure, and the cause of her admiration for him as a man.
Conversely, femininity is the expression of a woman’s self-respect,
which we can understand quite clearly in the fact that a woman is quite-often
tasked with the responsibility of choosing her partners, and is not primarily
the pursuer. Whom she chooses to share her affection with, and more
specifically, whom she chooses to have sex with, is an incredible indication of
the degree of her self-respect.
This does not mean that a woman is deficient in self-confidence,
only that self-confidence has less to do with her femininity than does
her self-respect. And her femininity is an expression of her
self-respect which a man is predominantly attracted to.
A woman of radiant self-esteem is attracted to a man she views
as a hero; and a man of self-esteem is attracted to a woman who is capable of
admiring his heroic qualities. A woman is attracted to a man who is capable of efficacious
action; while a man is attracted to a woman who is critical, discerning, and
can judge him correctly. A man attracts a woman by ruthlessly making himself
into the kind of man worthy of earning the affection of a woman; whilst a woman
attracts a man by ruthlessly shaping her mind into being capable of sufficiently
distinguishing between virtues and flaws. While both sexes have a selfish need
to be rational, to be productive, to have a fully integrated authentic
self-esteem—in the realm of relationships, sex, and attraction, this
distinction between self-confidence and self-respect forms the fundamental
basis of masculinity and femininity, which leads to all of the subsequent
distinctions between the qualities which less critical and superficial people
recognize as masculine and feminine traits.
A man, for example, focuses a lot more attention on his
career than he does his appearance, though, properly, he should have some
concern for how he presents himself to others. While women are often far more
concerned than men are with their physical appearance, with fashion, and with
beauty than are men, regardless of how invested a woman is in her career.
A career woman will, necessarily, be less concerned about
superficial beauty than will a woman who views herself as a housewife that
needs to be taken care of. But unmistakably, female vanity—the pleasure a woman
takes in taking pride in her physical beauty—is a uniquely proper and healthy
expression of her femininity.
The reason is because men take pride in their capacity to
fully express their self-confidence—the actual capacity to understand and deal
with the facts of reality in action. While women take pride in their sense of
self-respect, the pride of self-appraisal, of self-appreciation, and of having
the qualities of character which makes one able to enjoy and appreciate the
values one has achieved and earned.
And, thus, as a result, men are attracted to the woman’s
self-respect predominantly (but not exclusively); whilst women are attracted predominantly
to a man’s self-confidence (and not exclusively). But that these aspects of
self-esteem are the fundamental basis of drawing the distinction between
masculine and feminine qualities, and represent the achievement of the best in
men, and the achievement of the best in women, of that which men and women of
proper authentic self-esteem aspire to be, and what they are properly attracted
to in each other.