Skip to main content

Masculine

Typical Definition of Masculinity: possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.

Wikipedia Definitionattributes, behaviors and roles generally associated with boys and men.

Proposed Definition: Behavior caused by a combination of pessimism and self confidence


The first issue I have with the typical definition is that I don't believe people actually use it in such a broad way. It would be much more accurate to say "qualities traditionally associate with men and not women." It's technically true that "eating" and "breathing" are usually associated with men, just because they're associated with everyone and men are a subset of that group. This highlights a common problem I have with the ways many definitions are historically constructed - they really only make sense if you already understand the meaning of the term.

The second problem is that often definitions will exempt biological differences between sexes as being amongst the attributes that can be masculine. So, having and X and Y chromosome, or having the ability to grow a full beard aren't masculine, but actually having a beard is. This distinction seems somewhat arbitrary unless we realize that all the physical attributes that remain will be the result of choices or behaviors. For example, choosing to grow a beard results in a full beard, and choosing a challenging physical profession will lead to a developed physique and potentially even scars. The physical attributes that are considered masculine show that the person has made a certain kind of choices or engaged in certain behaviors. Therefore I think it makes the most sense to just say masculinity is kind of behavior, and people can associate certain physical characteristics with that behavior.

Lastly relying on ideas like "traditionally associated with..." doesn't attempt to dig into the idea that there could be underlying factors from early human culture or even evolutionary reasons why some behaviors are considered masculine. It's easy to say "masculine is just whatever people have said it is, whenever and wherever it is", but I feel like that misses an opportunity for exploration and introspection.

If we look at the archetypal male hero's from stories and movies they're often portrayed as being very masculine, and something that's incredibly common is that they'll be placed in similar circumstances. They face a challenge which seems overwhelmingly difficult or even insurmountable, but feel that they have to tackle it even though they don't have a good chance. Ultimately they have to believe in themselves and through that confidence they're able to succeed, and even if they don't the act of facing difficult odds while being self confidence is often viewed as its own kind of success. I think we can see similar motivations of expecting bad things, but being self reliant or self confident under the stereotypical masculine behaviors in many times and cultures, even ones that are seemingly completely opposite:



If we look for reasons why there could be some underlying themes common in most or all ideas of masculinity, we should look at early human societies or even human evolution. I think given the biological differences due to pregnancy and child rearing that it shouldn't be surprising that males often took on tasks that were potentially riskier and more likely to be solitary. A view of the world as being dangerous and difficult and a need to rely primarily on yourself in some difficult situations could be an accurate and useful perspective to have. Ultimately though it does seem to contain a contradiction, that "things are going to go well for most people, but I'll be OK". 

The obvious next step would be to define feminine as the opposite of being masculine - an optimistic view of the world, but without self confidence. I'm not sure that entirely works or rings true. There might be something to the idea of it being a stereotypically feminine to put group success over individual success, but that's not the same thing as lacking self confidence. However, that might be OK, I don't think that masculine and feminine necessarily have to be complete opposites in every way as long as they don't have overlapping definitions. 

Popular posts from this blog

Intelligence

Typical Definition of Intelligence : the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Wikipedia Definition: the ability to perceive information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Proposed Definition: A measure of the ability to make comparisons To define intelligence what typically happens is that we start with intelligent behavior, which essentially just means acting like a human. Animals that act more like us are more intelligent, and things that act less like us are less intelligent. People who can solve the kinds of problems humans can solve, but can solve them faster or can solve more difficult versions are deemed to be more intelligent. Then, working backwards, we assume there's some quality of 'intelligence' that causes or enables this kind of behavior. One of the biggest problems with this very vague definition of intelligence is that it's hard to nail down. Is someo...

Animal learning as data compression

Instead of the more general kind of learning , let's look at what kind of qualities animal learning has, what mechanisms actually make brains work. I think that there's undoubtedly at least part of our brains (and other animal brains) that work this way. They connect stimulus to response and are able to be adapted over time, which would qualify as a form or learning. If we accept that learning is an unconscious way of storing stimulus and response pairs, then we can think of the different ways that could be accomplished. We can imagine a very simple animal that just has one set of sensory receptors and each individual receptor is simply hardwired to stimulate a particular response - when triggered it flees light for example. And we can imagine more and more of these simple 1-to-1 sensory-to-response connections being made, each working independently of each other. Eventually though for animals with a lot of detailed senses and a lot of possible responses, they would end up wi...

Learning and Intelligence

Additional thoughts on learning and intelligence In previous posts I've looked at the idea that learning is the process of connecting responses to stimulus , and that the actual way that learning happens in animals is essentially a form of data compression.  If we think of learning like this, then we should ask how the data compression works, what process or rules does it follow if any? The key to good data compression is to find patterns in the data and take advantage of that, and the world we live in comes ready made with rules that govern how it works, the physical laws of the universe. It would seem that it would be possible for our brains to take advantage of this to compress responses to stimuli efficiently, and that that process could have the beneficial side effect of making the prediction of physical processes easier. The learning process would not only be encoding individual responses, but also patterns in those responses and the rules that determine what shape those...