Stop Defining Masculinity Wrong
A New Perspective using the Day and Night Theory
In the new century, we have defined pink for girls and blue for boys, as gentleness, giddiness, and humility for girls while harshness, stoicism, and what could be described as borderline savagery for boys. We could see that the light-hearted, boisterous, and impulsive girl is considered very feminine and the stoic, calm, and composed boy is considered very masculine. But wait a minute, didn’t we just say that being gentle means being feminine and savagery is meant for boys? How is it that both gentlenesses and boisterousness are feminine as well as savagery and composed are both masculine when these adjectives are both opposites? It’s because we’ve been looking at it wrong. For a while now, we have been looking at masculinity and feminity as two-dimensional when there is actually more to the story. It should be by definition, the state of being feminine or masculine, but we can see that there are conflicting qualities for both masculinity and femininity.
In addition, if we look at the definitions of masculinity and femininity from different cultures we can see the same results. For example, in the middle east, it is generally more expected of women to be more gentle, calm, and composed to be feminine while in the west it is expected of women to be more giddy, playful, and expressive. At first glance, they will seem like completely different people with nothing in common but they are both still considered extremely feminine.
So that begs the question. What exactly is the definition of masculinity and femininity?
To find the answer, we must first look at the long history of what defines a man and a woman.
Pink, the charming color, was originally not for girls
First, let's start at color psychology and its symbolism as well as the colors society associates each gender with. To start off, the two colors that we associate with each gender are pink and blue. Pink has the undertones equivalent to friendly and playful while blue is serenity and calm. Since we associate pink with girls and blue with boys, each color gives each gender its corresponding traits to the color. This means that playfulness is associated with girls and calm with boys. However, this was not always the case.
In the 1800s, pastels were introduced as the colors used for baby’s clothing. Neither colors blue nor pink were assigned to a certain sex until the early 1900s when stores began marketing clothes of a certain color with a designated gender. The first recording of this could be found in the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infant Departments claiming that ‘pink is for boys and blue is for girls in 1918.
“The generally accepted rule is pink is for boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girls.”
— Earnshaw’s Infants Department¹
In addition, a 1927 Time magazine included a chart within that magazine with suggested ‘sex-appropriate’ colors telling to dress boys in pink.² This spread over to large-scale department stores including Filene's from Boston, Best & Co from New York City, Halles in Cleveland, and Marshall Field in Chicago. It wasn’t until the 1940s, just before world war I, that the color pink became the color for girls. During this time, little boys were expected to dress like their fathers and little girls like their mothers. The idea sparked the trend of making gender-specific clothing for little children where they then made pink the new color for girls. This change, however, had a catch: the traits associated with girls and boys changed along with their respective colors.
It changed ever so slightly with the events throughout history slowly moving the definitions of masculinity and feminity toward something new. What was once associated with boys being strong through being bold like the shining day (like the color pink), slowly turned over to being strong through being composed and aloof like the night (like the color blue). Girls, on the other hand, were once expected to be more passive, delicate, and calm like the night but are now leaning over to being more bright and vibrant like the day to show femininity.
From two-dimensional to three dimensional
Now let’s look further back in history to examine the shift in masculinity. Back to the age-old story of what people typically use to define masculinity and femininity. The stone age.
Typically you'll hear the same story repeated when asked what defines masculinity and femininity. ‘Men were hunters and women were the gatherers/child caretakers. The role of men is to provide the means to live for the family while the women generally stay home and care for the children. This means that men must assume the traits of aggression, dominance, and competitiveness in order to hunt while women must be passive, cooperative, and submissive in order to nurture the family.’ While that may seem true at first glance, the reality is that masculinity and feminity originate from increasing goods in the economy and not because each gender is limited to a certain task. In addition, since civilization is always evolving, our approach to things is as well.
When it came to traits associated with each gender, the change of how to provide for the family spun around the definition of masculinity and femininity. Survival of the fittest and providing for the family is no longer how much physical or mental work you could do but also an increase in how developed your interpersonal skills were. Those who are able to use their wits, charm, and charisma were also able to provide as much as those who used their physical efforts. This doesn’t necessarily mean being able to communicate with your family members as much as it meant communicating with the people in the individual’s work environment. For men specifically, this meant an increase in their ability to influence the people around them using their charm, wit, and charisma.
Undoubtedly, this meant that masculinity and feminity started to evolve to being less two-dimensional and more three-dimensional. Being masculine and feminine would start to resemble more than just the original roles assumed in prehistoric times and more of what they could provide to their community with their respective approaches. They both evolved to match contributions with the slight difference being in mannerisms and approaches for each gender. It was no longer primarily about how ‘strong’ you were physically for hunting, gathering, or childbirth but how strong you were in character as well. This gave a rise to the type of masculinity considered much more charming and warm. However, due to multiple factors, the ‘charming man’ slowly started to be seen as less masculine and in place came the rise of the ‘consumer stoic’ type of masculinity.
The last time the ‘warm’ type of masculinity would have its spotlight was in the 1950s to 1960s. The period in time when the ‘charming’ man was still considered masculine and all the rage. In the 1950s, the age of rock and roll introduced the themes of young love and rebellion against authority. It was seen among famous individuals such as Elvis Presley, Paul Anka, and Frank Sinatra who charmed women by singing out their hearts and expressing their emotions. It could be seen in pop culture through music titles that describe how they are ‘hurting’ for the woman or how they can’t help but fall in love with them. This era was the time when the ‘charming’ and romantic man who rebelled against authority was considered masculine and very attractive. The stiffness and straight-lacedness found in the other men, which also resembled the ‘consumer stoic’ type, were considered too rigid and not masculine enough for this time period. The ‘consumer stoic’ type was considered beneath them and was seen as a trait generally seen among ‘nerds’ and those who had ‘a stick up their bum’.
As the ‘charming’ type continued to evolve, it slowly turned into what we know today as the ‘Casanova’ or the ‘womanizer’ and for the kinder types the ‘romantic’. This type generally is able to seduce women with their charm and use of emotional expressiveness in a civilized manner. They are able to use their emotions to express their love or pain in a way that is dignified and compelling. It wasn’t until the revival of stoicism in the 2010s³, before the idea of expressing your emotions in such a way became repulsive and against the idea of masculinity. The stigma that you couldn’t express your emotions in a certain way was still there since a long time ago, however, the idea of even expressing yourself at all became against the new principles of ‘consumer stoicism’. In a claim by The Swaddle, the ‘consumer stoicism’ was supposedly influenced by the ‘Keep Calm’ cliche.⁴
In 1939, the slogan ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ created by the British Government, was propaganda meant for those in the areas that were likely to be bombed.
‘Keep Calm’, is to remain level-headed in times of turmoil. ‘Carry On’ is to act normal and rise above all the bad that may be happening’
— point to point education⁵
The slogan was never published but in 2001 it was rediscovered and became an internet sensation for its ‘memorable’ aspect. It could generally be found in the context of when a person has to bear with circumstances that could be considered stressful. It is believed that the slogan reinforced that men should ‘grit their teeth stoically’ which would further enforce the idea that masculinity revolved around being ‘consumer stoic’. However, since this is only stated by ‘The Swaddle’, it is a weak argument with no solid evidence to back it up. In addition, some claim that the slogan could be used to resolve stress and psychological welfare, not for showing no emotion⁶. Others argue that the keep calm and carry-on slogan is not best since anger has its use⁷. As to whether it is actually true or not, is to be determined through research that should be conducted by professionals.
In contrast to this idea of being based solely around a slogan, the idea of ‘consumer stoicism’ as a form of masculinity didn’t fully emerge until the 2010s. This is around the same time when the ‘Red Pill’ and ‘men’s rights’ movements came along in 2012 so it is possible that there is a correlation⁸. The revival of Stoicism came along and transformed from a philosophy of self-control and justice to resembling being emotionless and apathetic despite its original ideals. Once a great philosophy created by the philosophers who had ideals that also believed women were to be treated with respect became that of treating women with carelessness and disregard through apathetic treatment. The irony of this so-called ‘empowerment’ through ‘stoicism’ that possibly came from the movement, became a trap to ensnare the vulnerable man and become a cage of their own making. The best part about it is that while ‘consumer stoicism’ does not assist in the creation of masculinity, true stoicism does. What is even better is that true stoicism is also part of what forms femininity as well.
The evolution of Femininity
In order to explain how true stoicism compares to ‘consumer stoicism’ and creates feminity and masculinity, we have to look at the feminine aspect of things. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, it can be found that the best way to explain something is by looking at it from a different angle.
To start off, we have to look at the history of what defined femininity starting with the Victorian Era. It was around this time that women were expected to be dainty and reserved. The trait of temperance and modesty, a trait valued by the original Stoics, was considered very feminine in these times. In fact, the rule of never chasing a woman considered by the modern ‘stoics’, was considered a rule of practice for the women of these times instead of the men.
Lets not love begin on your part
— Moral Encyclopaedia for women⁹
This implied that the belief of this time was that men were supposed to pursue women first not the other way around. Not only were they expected to be like the modern ‘consumer stoic’ through their modesty and indifference, but the thought of even being boisterous or expressing your emotions was considered deranged for a woman at the time.
Luckily chlorofoam and ether were particularly effective on ‘boisterous’ women and therefore used to quiet them… Every genuine emotion had to be stifeled. Every act of difference from society’s prescribed model of feminity had to be suppressed.
— Times Article¹⁰
Since being expressive was considered very unladylike, we can conclude that the modern stoic ideals for modern masculinity were originally considered feminine. It wasn’t until the 1920s when the age of the flappers came around that feminity started to have a new face.¹¹ As time progressed, the banished thought of a woman being animated, giddy, or even expressing herself started to become a common feature found in femininity. It all started with the prohibition in 1919, a ban on alcohol that would cause people to rebel and start underground nightclubs. This started the culture of dance, partying, and music to form the flapper. The flapper was a young party girl who would dance and embrace her sexual freedom. Their newfound freedom encouraged the use of her sex appeal as a method of getting attention from her male peers. This was found to be outrageous and shocked the Victorian morals of their parents. It wasn’t until the stock market crash in 1929 that the parents could have ease of mind as flappers died out. However, despite the death of the flappers the advertisements using sex appeal lived on and so did the animated style of femininity.
As time went on, the days of the more modest ideals in femininity were slowly dying out, and in came the more expressive nature of modern femininity. It was around the same time that there was the song ‘think pink’¹² and movies with women who were feminine also have a more playful nature. They were now expected to have a more charming and vibrant nature about them to be feminine. This was reinforced by the advertisements that would push the narrative of the lively woman who supports the man and is too ‘giddy and dumb’ to think about anything else other than her work in the house.
In addition to the reinforcement through the narrative and the creation of making the color pink the color for girls, there was the creation of the bimbo and the ‘other girl’. The creation of this type is what led to the idea of what stereotypical femininity looks like. Starting in the early 20th century, the word bimbo was described as a ‘foolish man’ as well as a ‘foolish yet attractive woman’.¹³ (The most likely reason that it was also associated with being attractive for women is due to the fact that being ‘foolish’ was considered attractive for women back then.) It wasn’t until the late 1920s that the word became popularized as being an attractive yet unintelligent woman only.¹⁴ The word had a resurgence in the late 1980s for the series of scandals that involved supposed ‘bimbos’ where the year 1987 was labeled as ‘the year of the bimbos’. Before this occurrence, there was the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s that sought equal rights through radical declarations. This movement, while important in the progression of women’s rights, did start a division between the ‘bimbo’ or stereotypically feminine girl and the ‘other girl’.
Author’s Note:
Please do not use this article for any purposes that may be detrimental to the well-being of another person or persons. This article is meant to be primarily how I define masculinity and femininity, not a set standard. I am not a doctor or expert for now so my words do not have any substantiality to them. It may be seen that there is possibly usable evidence in this article for later scientific studies, but for now, it is just one person’s opinion. Use my passed-down knowledge wisely. Thank you and have a good day my fellow knowledge pursuer. :D
Go check out the second article!
