Masculine vs Feminine.
For more than 20 years, the traditional principle of masculinity and femininity has been worn down and been ridiculed, disconcerting both men and women. The revision of “obsolete” patterns of behavior has even introduced some sort of awkwardness into the relationship between the sexes. Should a man get up when a woman enters the room? Will he please her by opening the doors? Should he cede his place in a crowded bus or subway? Have all these rules changed? Is there something predictable and defined in the new order?
At first these questions of public etiquette may seem superficial, but they can hardly be called trivial. They reflect a much deeper approach, which entails serious consequences. After all, most of the society is still heterogeneous beings. Everything that we do is dictated by the purpose of our sex. The first element of self-identification in childhood is caused by the division into boys and girls. Any confusion in this matter or in the relationship between the sexes should be considered as a threat to the stability of society as such.
New Femininity Meaning.
One anthropologist at the City University of New York studied more than 2,000 different cultures that existed in world history. He found that only 55 of them blur the line between masculinity and femininity. He concluded, no one society, based on the principle of “unisex”, lasted longer than a few years.
Why? Because society cannot be stronger than the viability of its constituent families, and the family depends on how representatives of the opposite sex relate to each other. Masculinity and femininity are not predictable social subtleties that have evolved over time. If the customs vary from one culture to another, then the connection between the sexes depends on a powerful force that is deep within the human spirit. Everything that for thousands of years was known as “femininity” is now exposed to ridicule and being despised.
It’s amazing how productive a small number of radical feminists can be (remember the first “burners of bras”?) Could it redefine the role of women and change relations between the sexes. These instigators have long been discredited, but do not underestimate the changes that have occurred in the public discourse as a result of the ideas inspired by them. In just one decade, for example, the image of a housewife became a symbol of exploitation, oppression, and – sorry for the insult – stupidity.
Since the very beginning of human existence, in most cultures, women have identified themselves as responsible for the upbringing of children. This was an honorable occupation, which did not tolerate any excuses. How did it happen that the household turned into such a heavy burden in the Western world? Why do women, while remaining at home in the company of young children, feel such disrespect from the society in which they live?
“New kind of thinking”
A partial answer to this question can be found in the never-ending bombardment of the mass media on all traditional values. Radio, television, the press and the entertainment industry literally (and willfully) change the way America thinks. Since then, as Barbara Walters and Tom Snyder led a three-hour television program for women, it’s been many years. Broadcasting was conducted on the NBC channel at a convenient time, capturing the attention of the whole country for the entire evening.
They tried to assess the world of women by studying the diversity of their activities and employment. The show was a powerful propaganda of what is called of a “new kind of thinking.”
Women were portrayed in a variety of work situations, from owning a business to mastering non-professional occupations. Not once in a three-hour program they mentioned the role of a housewife, with the exception of indirect appeal to this “old-fashioned duty” in vague and derogatory terms. Perhaps 14 million housewives lived at that time in the country, but they did not appear once in the entire program dedicated to the world of women. I’m sure the audience caught this idea.
Attempts to redefine the role of women were carried out on the large scale, touching every aspect of society. In order to completely redefine their role hundreds of books were taken from the shelves of every local library during the Cold War. And that was taking place in America.
Yes, that is right – all books depicting men and women in the traditional context were eliminated. If a woman was portrayed cooking dinner, and a man working in a factory. Such a book was removed. Obviously, not a single pebble remained in its place during the revolutionary campaign to change nation’s ideas, although no one had the courage to call it censorship.
New masculinity meaning.
The revolution occurred not only in self-identification with respect to the feminine gender; masculinity is also turned upside down. In addition to elements of public etiquette mentioned earlier, deeper questions were raised. What does it really mean to be a man today? We know that being “macho”, whatever that means, is unacceptable, but we do not know exactly how they should act. Consider how a young husband can evaluate his new role at the beginning of family life. Is he expected to make a living for himself and his wife? Well, maybe not. She can make much more money than he does…
Raising this issue in some circles is the right way to start a dispute. Should he be persistent and strong or gentle, sensitive, emotional? Is there anything that would distinguish his role from his wife’s role, and where should he turn to find out what is required from him?
Historically, married men have not been so insecure; they intuitively understood that two types of responsibility in the family surpass all others in terms of their significance: they had to ensure the protection and provide all necessary for their wives and children. You can be sure – they were firm in their obligations.
If you insulted a woman in the 19th century or earlier, you would have a short conversation with her enraged husband. He would not hesitate to abandon his life for her, if necessary. He was the protector of her honor, and she felt confident by his side. He is at the same time was satisfied with the material and non material contribution he made to his family for her well-being. His self-identification with masculinity combined with the love of his wife and children gave him a sense of pride and achievement of his goal as a man.
One of the most fundamental threats to the institution of the family these days is the destruction of this role of the defender and provider. This is the “contribution” that has reshaped men physically and emotionally. After all, their obligations and masculinity characteristics in the face of wives and children are jeopardized.
Let me revive this concept. I know one "mid aged, kids are grown american" friend. And those are his words: “Throughout my life, full of responsibility and professional vocation, I drew tremendous satisfaction from the care I had given to each member of the family for more than 30 years. I worked very hard to provide the family with not only everything necessary, but also some luxury. I took care of them in time of danger. I dedicated myself to their well-being. My self-identification is inseparably linked with family responsibilities. If I had been deprived of such role of provider, much joy would have left my life.”
I would like to be able to emphasize how much understanding of masculinity is decisive for stability of a family. Sociologist George Gilder talks about this in his brilliant book “Sexual suicide.” He explains that single men (like a class) are often a threat to society. Until they accept responsibility for the family, their sexual aggression is rampant and potentially destructive.
He writes: “Men commit more than 90% of serious violent crime, 100% of rapes, 95% of thefts. Among them are also 94% of drunken drivers, 70% of suicides, 91% of offenders of the family and children. Single men are included in the percentage between 80 and 90% of most categories of social pathology, and in general, they earn less than any other category of society: yes, even less than unmarried or working women. Any insurance agent will also tell you that single men are less responsible for paying their bills, driving a car and other personal responsibility. Along with the collapse of the family, they constitute the leading communal problem for us. “
Gilder continues, saying that women, in contrast, by nature more prone to achieve long-term stability. Their propensity for motherhood (it exists and is reflected in all cultures around the world) makes them want a home of stability and a sustainable source of income. They need security for themselves and their children.
Beauty of the divine plan.
When a man is in love with a woman, devotes himself to caring for her, protecting and supporting her, he suddenly becomes the basis of public order. Instead of using his energy to fulfill his whims and desires, he builds a house sweating and saves money for the future, looking for the best job. His selfish impulses are inhibited. His sexual urges is ordered. He discovers a feeling of pride – yes, male pride – because he needs his wife and children. Everyone benefits from such relationships.
If the society is composed of millions of individual families, established in this idea, the nation becomes strong and stable. Marriage makes a huge contribution to civilization. Nevertheless, in case of its absence, the collapse is inevitable. If it makes no sense for men to use their energy to support a family, one can expect an uncontrolled jump in drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual abuse, instability in terms of work, aggressive behavior throughout the culture. And for all of us: self-awareness begins with an understanding of our sexuality. It should not be washed away by anyone’s own avant-garde ideas.