WHAT EXACTLY IS MASCULINE OR FEMININE?

Dan Blocker, who played Hoss Cartwright in the Bonanza series of the 1960s

When I was growing up, one of the shows the family watched regularly was Bonanza. Of course, we didn’t have much choice since we could only get two channels. Yes, that’s the way it was in those days, but I digress. For those of you who are much younger than I am, I invite you to look up Bonanza on YouTube, because that’s why God made YouTube. As a kid, I was enamored with Hoss Cartwright, the character on the show played by Dan Blocker. In my mind, he was the absolute epitome of perfect masculinity. He wasn’t one of the handsome brothers, but he was the best brother in my book. Here is a post about him I came across on Facebook:

Dan Blocker (Hoss) Hometown  · 

Cheryl Robb ·April 14 ·

Dan Blocker's enduring legacy as Hoss Cartwright on Bonanza

Titles are generated by AI from Meta

Dan Blocker didn’t just play a gentle giant — he was the heartbeat of the frontier, the rare kind of strength that made the West feel human.

As Hoss Cartwright on Bonanza, he became the soul of the Ponderosa — warm, loyal, honest, and guided by a moral compass that never wavered. In a world filled with gunslingers and bravado, Hoss stood apart. He didn’t fight to prove himself; he stepped forward because it was right. Blocker brought a tenderness to the role that made every laugh, every moment of doubt, every act of courage feel deeply real. He showed that a man could be powerful without being harsh, and kind without being weak — a balance few actors have ever captured so naturally.

To me, the character Hoss Cartwright depicted exactly what masculinity stood for, but it seems rather the opposite of what is defined as masculine today. Recently, there has been a lot going on in America about gender roles, what does and does not define a man, the flexing muscles of the white patriarchy. Unfortunately, the most recent definition of masculinity equates to bullying. I was inspired to write this while noting Ken Paxton’s attacks on James Talarico in the Texas Senate race, accusing him of being unmanly for being vegan. What? If you don’t eat meat, you aren’t masculine? However, he does eat meat, and that is irrelevant to the definition of masculinity. Then there was an attack by Stephen Miller, saying that Talarico is transgender. Oh no! Say it isn’t so! … It isn’t so. I have recently been appalled by the blatant lies that are thrust upon some politicians in order to discredit them in the public eye, and gender roles and a strictly binary definition of male and female appear to be all the political rage. However, what does that have to do with how the country is run? All this got me thinking about the definitions of "masculine" and "feminine".  When I looked up "masculine" and "feminine" in the dictionary, even it seemed to have difficulty defining them.

Masculine:

adjective

about or characteristic of a man or men

masculine attire

having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, such as strength and boldness.

And what exactly is "masculine attire?" If you go back to the days of King Louis XIV, you see men considered masculine, with long, styled hair and wearing outfits that would at least be considered gender-bending today. Of course, we have to consider that what a person wears has absolutely nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and apparently, by modern definitions, if you are not 100% heterosexual, then you are not considered to be a "real man," and that's something else that is difficult to define. I remember when I was a teenager, my abusive uncle told me that if you don't work construction (like he did...sometimes) you weren't a "real man." My response was, "If you are a shining example of manhood. No thanks."

Google AI went a bit further with the word masculine:

Modern definitions look at masculinity as a dynamic concept rather than a strict binary.

Experts often categorize it into different social roles:

• Hegemonic Masculinity: Dominant, idealized cultural ideas of what it means to be a man.

• Healthy/Positive Masculinity: Traits like protectiveness, confidence, and emotional intelligence.

• Toxic Masculinity: The rigid over-performance of masculine traits that can result in emotional suppression or harmful aggression

Hmm. Let's examine that, shall we? First, we have to consider that what has been considered masculine or feminine comes from exactly what it says: a cultural perspective. The definitions have changed over time. It was once absolutely considered masculine for men to wear pants, hence the phrase, "Who wears the pants in the family?" In other words, who is in control? So, throughout history, masculinity has been associated with control, and that was true in the days of King Louis XIV, despite the men's frilly outfits. It has only been in the last 200 years that it has become acceptable for women to wear pants. Let's also consider that there was also a time when the swimsuit cover of Sports Illustrated would have been considered totally scandalous. So, times change, and people, as a general rule, tend to resist change. The changes may occur slowly, and there is often a backlash against them, but they tend to occur anyway. Oh, and one more thing. I might have considered "emotional intelligence" would have been classified as a feminine trait. Nonetheless, there it is.

When I looked up the definition of "feminine," the dictionary had a little more to say.

Femine

adjactive

associated with women and not with men

 “feminine intuition”

being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop

befitting or characteristic of a maiden

Use of competitive activities in which only women take part

befitting or characteristic of a fully mature woman

Okay, here is another thing that the current society is obsessed with: feminine means competitive activities in which only women take part. People don’t seem to be able to wrap their heads around a transgender woman not being a real woman. Yet when HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) is administered, the body responds accordingly. Somehow, people can’t seem to comprehend that it is possible for someone to grow up feeling like a male or a female when they are in the opposite body from birth. Nonetheless, people have a hard time wrapping their heads around anyone who doesn't fit into the binary category they deem correct. Consider the controversy in the most recent Olympics. According to Google AI, “This brief match led to widespread internet speculation, cyberbullying, and false claims that Khelif and Lin were transgender women or biological males. Both athletes were born female, raised female, and have always competed as women.” All this proves is that very few people fit into societal concepts of what constitutes masculine or feminine, or even what constitutes a man or a woman.

Google AI had this to say about feminine:

·  Traditional Traits: Often linked to qualities such as gentleness, gracefulness, sensitivity, and collaboration. 

·  Energetic/Archetypal: In wellness and psychological contexts, it represents a state of "being" and receiving, focusing on intuition, creativity, and connection. 

·  Appearance & Style: Historically expressed through delicate features, specific clothing choices (like skirts or dresses), and aesthetics.

Okay, hold on there. Gentleness, gracefulness, sensitivity, and collaboration. So that implies that if you want to go by a strict binary, men should not be gentle, but in the 1960s Bonanza series, Hoss Cartwright was a very gentle man. He was also strong. He didn’t cause trouble, but if trouble came to him, he took care of it. He had a gentle strength that did not require bravado or bragging. In fact, I would contend that men who have to brag about their masculinity don’t really feel all that masculine. Those who are confident have nothing to prove. There is no need to brag. Hoss Cartwright also had sensitivity and compassion. Yet, Dan Blocker, the actor, was heterosexual, and so was the character he played. According to the above, Hoss would be considered feminine. Yet, that’s a perception of him that I never had. The word collaboration ", when it comes to women, usually means being submissive to men. Intuition would imply that men don’t have intuition. However, they do, and one of the things that applies to intuition is emotional intelligence. Creativity would imply that if a man is creative, he must also be feminine. However, what about the creativity of architectural design, or mechanical engineering, which have traditionally been considered as male jobs? Then, we come to specific clothing choices, and, as I have said earlier, these vary from generation to generation and culture to culture. The bottom line is that there is no clear-cut definition of masculine or feminine. Human beings are complex. None of us really fit into neat little categories.

So, what’s all the hoopla about in American politics? Let’s go back to the above definition of Toxic Masculinity: The rigid over-performance of masculine traits that can result in emotional suppression or harmful aggression. Let’s start with emotional suppression, which research in psychology has deemed an extremely mentally unhealthy activity. I’ve equated it to the difference between squeezing a tomato until it bursts, versus neatly slicing it. Emotional suppression squeezes back emotions until they explode in a big mess. Learning to allow and regulate emotions is like having nice, even slices for your sandwich. Unfortunately, emotional suppression has become too much a part of American society. Who hasn’t heard the phrase, “boys don’t cry”? Yes, they do. In fact, until boys are indoctrinated into believing that having any emotion other than fun or anger is unacceptable, they tend to be more emotionally expressive than girls. Therefore, emotional suppression is unhealthy, but so is not knowing how to regulate your emotions. Most men have struggled with this. I absolutely have struggled with it for the majority of my life. The “harmful aggression” part of defined toxic masculinity is what happens when emotions are suppressed, when boys are told that they aren’t allowed to be themselves and must conform to a certain standard of behavior or be considered an outcast from manhood. I’ve also said earlier that this has nothing to do with whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual. There is toxic masculinity in homosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men. Sometimes, I think it is more important for men to conform to rigid concepts of masculinity than to conform to sexual norms. Some gay men are extremely masculine, and some heterosexual men have feminine traits, and being Gay does not limit one from “harmful aggression.” What I wonder is why everyone is getting so caught up in this, especially when the definitions are and always have been in constant flux.

Those people who began gender bending back in the 1960s & 70s started putting a mirror in the face of society, asking the question, what difference does it make what someone wears as long as it’s covering what needs to be covered and is not somehow dangerous? However, human beings like categories and labels. We don’t want to open a can labeled “Green Beans” only to find pumpkin. We want to know what we are getting. We want to be able to categorize each other by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, culture, career, nationality, etc. The problem is that human beings are complex. We are not that simple, and although one label may fit, the other labels may not describe us at all. Unfortunately, some want to force their labels on others and somehow think that’s okay. It’s not. I am never who you think I am. Your definition of me exists only in your head. The flipside of this is that you are never who I think you are.  There may be traits we get used to in one another and therefore build trust on, but we are not here to define each other, and we are absolutely not here to try to force each other into the category we want. Why should anyone have to walk around fearing that they might get beaten up, shunned, or screamed at for wearing anything that covers what needs to be covered and isn’t somehow dangerous? Why should anyone have those fears just because someone believes they are LGBTQIA+? Even if someone is LGBTQIA+, they have a right to live in peace without persecution for being who they are. Whether it matches the current definition of masculine or feminine is irrelevant, and if the clothing covers what needs to be covered and isn’t dangerous, it’s nobody’s business what they wear. If they are not raping, pillaging, burning, and stealing, they have a right to exist as who they are.

Unfortunately, it seems that toxic masculinity is attempting to take over the whole country, and it certainly seems to have found a place in the American government. Yet I would propose that true masculinity is what was expressed by the character of Hoss Cartwright on Bonanza all those many years ago. True masculinity is strong, but gentle, protective, and compassionate, yet it will also not back down from a fight. It will never throw the first punch, but it will absolutely do what is necessary to finish the fight. Yet, here is the kicker. Femininity can be strong. Femininity can stand its ground. Just because someone sashays into a room doesn’t mean they are weak or a pushover. More than anything else, it’s time people got over this whole pile of BS in which we try to define ourselves by someone else’s beliefs or try to make others live up to the beliefs that we think they should. If we truly examine those beliefs, we may discover they don’t really fit.  After all, where did those beliefs come from? Were they not indoctrinated into us during our upbringing? After a while, if we don’t question beliefs, it becomes increasingly difficult to define whether they really are our beliefs or those we adopted from someone else.  The truth is that there is no exact definition of masculinity or femininity, and whether we are deemed masculine or feminine by anyone is irrelevant. We are who we are.