Masculinity: Who Has Claim?
Masculinity: Who has claim?
Throughout the course of history, the social concept of the hunter and gatherer remained unprovoked. The responsibility of the hunter fell on the shoulders of men while the responsibilities of the gatherer burdened the women. Men were born to lead, protect, and fight while women were born to be submissive, serve, and care for the home. Over time, society defined the roles of the two genders. Men were attributed as “the head of the family” and “the provider”; women were attributed as “the supporter” and “the care-taker”. Then human culture predominantly adopted those ideals. The recent past century was an age where men wielded power and was a time when equality did not exist until the civil rights movement. Men dominated society to the brink of the twenty-first century. The norms of human culture label men with masculinity and reckon women with feminism. Is society justified to predetermine how an individual must act and behave according to his/her gender? Does masculinity belong to one but not the other?
Masculinity cannot belong to a single group. Germaine Greer establishes that masculinity is a social, not a biological, construct (891). Masculinity cannot be biological. The traits of masculinity are dominant, fearless, courageous, etc., but none of those traits are seen in children. Regardless of whether a child is male or female, children exhibit weaknesses. If masculinity was genetically planted within male children during conception, then half of the children in the world would be independent and would never shed a tear. Therefore, masculinity is not defined by gender but by how individuals act along the line which make them appear masculine. The confusion lies in gender typing.
Gender typing attempts to make distinctions made between males, females and other genders as defining characteristics of society. Though societies differ in which roles they assign to each gender, roles are often assigned on the basis of gender, and its
Throughout the course of history, the social concept of the hunter and gatherer remained unprovoked. The responsibility of the hunter fell on the shoulders of men while the responsibilities of the gatherer burdened the women. Men were born to lead, protect, and fight while women were born to be submissive, serve, and care for the home. Over time, society defined the roles of the two genders. Men were attributed as “the head of the family” and “the provider”; women were attributed as “the supporter” and “the care-taker”. Then human culture predominantly adopted those ideals. The recent past century was an age where men wielded power and was a time when equality did not exist until the civil rights movement. Men dominated society to the brink of the twenty-first century. The norms of human culture label men with masculinity and reckon women with feminism. Is society justified to predetermine how an individual must act and behave according to his/her gender? Does masculinity belong to one but not the other?
Masculinity cannot belong to a single group. Germaine Greer establishes that masculinity is a social, not a biological, construct (891). Masculinity cannot be biological. The traits of masculinity are dominant, fearless, courageous, etc., but none of those traits are seen in children. Regardless of whether a child is male or female, children exhibit weaknesses. If masculinity was genetically planted within male children during conception, then half of the children in the world would be independent and would never shed a tear. Therefore, masculinity is not defined by gender but by how individuals act along the line which make them appear masculine. The confusion lies in gender typing.
Gender typing attempts to make distinctions made between males, females and other genders as defining characteristics of society. Though societies differ in which roles they assign to each gender, roles are often assigned on the basis of gender, and its
Cited: "Gender Typing." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2012. Jouvenel, Bertrand De. On Power, Its Nature and the History of Its Growth;. New York: Viking, 1949