Masculin, féminin: The pernicious politics of gender

It is so difficult to combat Western metaphysics, particularly as it pertains to male chauvinism, because it is so very abstract. The problem is that it has been allowed to define ontological sources, such that "masculinity" and "femininity" are definitions made to emerge not from any material origin or set of actual behaviour patterns. Rather, they derive from a psychological disposition to see the world in terms of opposites.

As a simple formula, "masculinity" comes to represent "all those positive human characteristics that I covet and lay rightful claim to as one who has been born biologically male." "Femininity" then comes to mean "all those characteristics that I wish to deny about myself, finding them to be offensive, trivial or dull." This psychological approach to gender is also, as I have said, metaphysical, since it is based on an abstract categorisation of humanity into diametric opposites, whether or not humanity is actually constructed that way.

That a metaphysical approach to gender necessarily ascribes little significance to concrete reality is significant indeed. It causes gender to have function in society that is overwhelmingly political, rather than being related to one's biology, or one's cultural conditioning, or suchlike.

This political function of gender can be understood best in terms of the rhetorical device that is "framing".[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences ]

Framing is so effective because it is a heuristic, or mental shortcut. According to Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, human beings are by nature “cognitive misers”, meaning they prefer to do as little thinking as possible[4]. Frames provide people a quick and easy way to process information. Hence, people will use the previously mentioned mental filters (a series of which is called a schema) to make sense of incoming messages. This gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to use these schemas to influence how the receivers will interpret the message [5].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

So it is that the same behaviour (when viewed concretely, and hence objectively) can be interpreted as having a diametric opposite meaning, depending on whether the prior frame of reference for the behaviour is deemed to be "masculine" or "feminine". As a rule, an interpretive frame of "feminine" will be attributed to anything that women (biologically speaking) do. Similarly, and interpretive frame of "masculine" will be attributed to anything that males (biologically speaking) do.

Let us take as an example the very human (that is, not specifically male or female) emotion of anger. When the expression of this emotion is framed as "masculine", it is always rational and justified. A "masculine" frame suggests that a man is wanting to attack useless and negative things around him, by expressing his righteous indignation.

Give a "feminine" frame to anger, however, and we are encouraged to see the same behaviour as having the totally opposite motivation to that of male anger. "Feminine" anger is always against righteousness, against positive developments, and even against reason itself. This is not because there is any qualitative difference between a man's anger and a woman's anger. Not at all. Rather, it is a function of metaphysical category of "the feminine" to render all things in a negative light.

Metaphysical interpretations render actual behaviour thoroughly meaningless: Meaning is only to be found via the process of framing.

Indifferent to understanding actual behaviour, but always intent on assuring that all behaviour receives a rhetorical frame, metaphysical interpretations are nearly impossible to fight. One can hardly bring forth actual evidence to counter its claims, since any and all evidence can simply be reframed positively or negatively depending on the gender politician's own needs.