Is it immoral for a man to be effeminate?

[Schefflera Arboricola]

What is that point? Which men have it in their nature to be effeminate, and in what ways? I can understand a fellow not having a deep voice, but that is a form of handicap as far as I know: and I don't agree with those who embrace their disabilities.

How is that a handicap? Not in the romantic arena, surely. I find a clear, light, precise voice to be extremely sexy. Much sexier than a subsonic rumble.

This isn't to say that I don't think "castrato" when I hear boy bands...

--Schefflera

[Inspector]

This isn't to say that I don't think "castrato" when I hear boy bands...

--Schefflera

That's the essence of it right there. Having something higher than an Isaac Hayes voice isn't necessarily a handicap. But at some point it does become one since men have deeper voices than women. It's a secondary sex characteristic.

[tnunamak]

I just came across this article and it answers a lot of my questions about the nature of sexuality.

http://www.amberpawlik.com/Gender.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roots of Gender: Defining Femininity and Masculinity

Just as Rand based the conclusions in philosophy on man’s nature, so the conclusions in sexuality must be based on the nature of man and the nature of woman. Masculinity is designed based upon the nature of man, and femininity is designed based upon the nature of woman.

The current cultural mantra is that gender, the sexual psychology of a person, and sex, the biological sex of a person, are irrelevant to each other. Masculinity and femininity, it is preached, have no connection to being male or female – men can be feminine, masculine or both and women can be feminine, masculine or both.

By definition, this is illogical. . . .

[Edited to trim down quotation--Matt.]

Edited October 3, 2005 by Groovenstein

[hunterrose]

Men, who do not carry the “burden” of childbearing, are designed for one purpose: mastering reality.

My god, that was long!!

While I don't agree with all of the (Amber Pawlik's?) article, it does make for good discussion perhaps. Here, for example, does this mean that woman's purpose is not to master reality? How exactly does this mesh with life being the ultimate purpose of living beings? Just to make a few other comments:

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to a man.”

But any rational person desires greater persons worth looking up to, right? Ignoring for a moment whether man is "greater" than woman, is this really the essence of feminity? Not just asking tnunamak, but anyone who may post.

A man who is strong, able, masculine will excite her. Being in his presence will make her feel feminine.

But I could say the opposite:

A woman who is strong, able (and heroic?) will excite me. Being in her presence will make me feel good - and if admiring the heroic is feminine - make me feel feminine. I don't regard that as wrong, but of course I disagree with this definition of femininity.

I know some people don't like literary examples, but was Eddie feminine in his relationship to Dagny, and she masculine??

But men and women aren’t metaphysically designed to be equals.

"Metaphysically designed?" I shouldn't nitpick, but wouldn't "physically" or "socially" designed be more appropriate?

I imagine that there is some proper definition of feminitity, despite my questions. For example, I would find it highly ...odd if I dated a woman, and she constantly opened doors for me, pulled out chairs for me at tables, tried to pay for all our outings, etc.

I can't exactly resolve that, or tnunamak's post, but I still question hero-worship being the essence of femininity.

[Pancho Villa]

The genomes of males and females are mixed with each generation. So I would expect each person to exhibit both male and female characteristics. It is only intense natural selection (for fertility, which requires that one function as either male or female) that can prevent the two sexes from collapsing into one.

Women need nipples to nurse their babies. But men do not nurse. So why do men have nipples? Only because women do.

As a side note, physically, the difference between male and female is a product of hard times. Genetically, the physical differences between men and women are (gradually) becoming less and less. Eventually there will be no 'masculine' or 'feminine' looks (though this is far, far down the line,) at least none significant enough to really say "x is femine" and "y is masculine." The two are on their way to converging, due to the fact that modern science has made life far easier on both sexes and each ahs to be far less specialized in order to succeed.

At some point in time, child bearing was such a traumatic issue that women had to be geared specifically for the ordeal - big hips, breasts, etc. This left her, if not helpless, than significantly less efficate than she could be.

Enter man. Specialized, only in the opposite; not equipped at all to nurse or feed the offspring, very well equipped to go out and grab a wolly mammoth or two for dinner.

In the context of those times, such traits (and roles) were masculine/effeminate. Changing contextes, however, mean a change in the concepts of masculinity/femininity as applied to specific people. As technology progresses to the point where child-bearing and rearing becomes easier and easier on the woman, and specific traditional 'manly' traits are no longer required for the success of the male (hairy, very muscular, etc etc) the psyiological differences between the two sexes will decrease until, while the two will always (I think) be able to be told apart (even without the obvious genetalia references,) the difference between what it means to 'look' masculine and 'look' feminine will be more of a function of accessories/clothing/etc than actual physical traits (ie, cultural icons rather than actual physical traits corresponding to a specific role.)

To this end, I think such data lends credit to the concept of masculinity/femininity being centered on attitudes towards the opposite sex rather than on specific physical traits. The essence of femininity depends on the context of the female. To the women of primitive times, who's role as child-bearer overwhelmed many other things, hero-worship is most certainly appropriately feminine. To empowered women who will (eventually) not be weaker than men, psyiologically? Then I think it would be more appropriately along the lines of intense admiration - I am female, this man is male, and good to boot.

Rand was right, the nature of sexual relationships stem from the nature of the sexes. But, given genetic drift and the continuing convergence of male/female roles (and thus male/female body structures,) to set such a thing in stone, for all women, everywhere, for all time, is a wholly unhealthy and irrational mistake. Women of yesteryear (in general) had no reason to be strong, hulking brutes - men did. Women had every reason to have big hips (ease of childbirth, less chance of complications, less chance of death,) large breasts, etc etc and thus these traits were very much considered attractive.

Though culture lags behind, you will note of course that such traits are becoming less and less 'attractive' over time - even unattractive in some circles. Large hips and breasts are no longer as big a deal as they were years ago, and of course big, hairy brutish looking guys are no longer the standard of masculine attractiveness (in general.) This points to a convergence of physical traits.

Thus, to act masculine or feminine is to be male or female and act in accordance with one's nature. However, evolution tells us that our natures in some senses (and in particular in this sense) are not fixed. They may change over time, speaking in terms of a society (not of the individual.) While an irrational man cannot survive, is conisdered a fluke, a freak, and does not gain dominance within a society (well...not genetic irrationality, ie people genetically able to work on the level of animals,) traits like being strong or having big hips become less and less important as our rational minds reduce the pain and danger of childbirth and the physical effort needed to accomplish life-sustaining work.

Finishing this train of thought (thinking on this as I type,) the only metaphysical aspects of femininity/masculinity here are, as JMeganSnow said, the attitudes towards people of the opposite gender. To be feminine is to enjoy the company of men, enjoy the role of the female during sex, find men desirable, etc etc. To be masculine is to enjoy the company of women, enjoy the role of a male during sex, and finding women desirable.

I still have a problem with homosexuality in the context of today's realities, but my question now becomes: is the objection I (and, similarly, Rand) had with homosexuality a nature of the divergence of male/female structures, and thus their appropriate roles (form follows function, after all,) or masculine/feminine metaphysical realities (ie, their natures,) of all men and all women, even in some far-off future when you or I would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a similarly clothed man and woman?

It is troubling to say the least. But I have yet to discern the usefulness of speculating on how things will be when men and women are significantly different. So I think I have an answer that works for us, given current realities.

What say ye?

[Kathleen]

"Camp" is a very vague term. Moreover, to act effiminately is too simple of a defintion for the term.

[Dan Bidewell]

Masculinity and homosexulaity two different things. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of one member of a sex to another of the same sex. Masculinity the concept of being a manly man. It is more than possible to be a manly man (e.g. Alexander the Great) while being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

How is it not manly to sleep with another man?

Believe me - I do it on a regular basis - it takes a man.

And it is interesting that amongst the gay community there is now an increasing adulation of the masculine man.

Men have always ('though not sexually) admired other men - bringing sex in to it simply makes this adulation more personal.

I read Ayn Rand when I was younger - after I had come out before I knew the full significance of her work - and I read her more than anything as an anthem to individuals - and if those individuals are gay then all the better for them.

There is no disability in my homosexuality - there is only the problem of the prejudice of others. The way an individual choices to live his life is his business. I should not, and will not, conform to other's ideas - I will only follow what I KNOW to be the truth. The rational way to live.

It is not rational for me to be straight - I know that.

[Inspector]

Dan,

This thread is about foppish behavior, not homosexuality.

As you are a homosexual, I'd like to ask you a question: is there anything about being a homosexual that ties to foppish behavior? (I suspect not, but I figure I should ask)

[Melior]

An Objectivist i know said Ayn Rand believed 'men should behave like men and women should behave like women'. (He than mentioned that she thought women should 'hero worship' men). How do you interpret this and is it correct? Is it immoral/wrong for a man to behave 'camp'?

In this particular case the word man is genderless. Men as well as women should "hero worship" (wo)men, not dipsomaniacs, thieves, murders, etc.--which is exactly what our governments and school systems (Canadian and American alike) are currently promoting.

I hope this answers your question?

[Inspector]

In this particular case the word man is genderless. Men as well as women should "hero worship" (wo)men, not dipsomaniacs, thieves, murders, etc.--which is exactly what our governments and school systems (Canadian and American alike) are currently promoting.

I hope this answers your question?

The only way to answer his question, as phrased, is to provide actual quotes from Ayn Rand that reveal her opinion on the matter. I know you're trying to help, but your answer is inaccurate.

[Dan Bidewell]

Dan,

This thread is about foppish behavior, not homosexuality.

As you are a homosexual, I'd like to ask you a question: is there anything about being a homosexual that ties to foppish behavior? (I suspect not, but I figure I should ask)

I think there is a lot less now that links homosexuality to effeminate behaviour - but there once was. For example, if a boy who knows he is gay is unable to identify with traditional male role models (squiring fair maidens etc) he will feel closer to female role models. Or perhaps a mother may have a stronger influence over her son than the father. But of course that is all just pop psychology. Personally speaking, I think that the fact a lot of gay men grew up "gay" (and I really do not know enough about whether we are born or made gay, so I cannot get in to that debate, I just know that everyone else knew I was gay when I was little) feel that masculine role models are not accesible to them, so they adapt to more feminine modes. But I did once read in interesting essay on gay voices. Apparently, the gay voice (I don't know if there is one in America, but certainly in England there is a distinctive gay way of speaking, and I don't just mean slang) is influenced by men trying to adapt their naturally deeper voices to the pitch of femal voices.

More and more this is having less and less of an influence, as more and more people are able to come out. People who for years would have succesfully been able to hide their homosexuality no longer have to - for them, they have been able to acheive the the example given to them by masculine role models.

[Inspector]

Interesting, and deserving of its own topic, perhaps.

As for heterosexual males and effeminate behavior (which is the topic of this thread), I would say that it is contrary both to their biological nature and to their "romantic role," if you will.

[Dan Bidewell]

Interesting, and deserving of its own topic, perhaps.

As for heterosexual males and effeminate behavior (which is the topic of this thread), I would say that it is contrary both to their biological nature and to their "romantic role," if you will.

Perhaps, but if you think of the millions of choices we make every day, and the millions of choices others make for us (our parents when we are little) - then if some of these have the by product of leaving a man with a little wiggle in his walk, and a little lilt in his speech, I would hold that they as nothing to the rest of his life.

And then of course (and this is a whole new topic, again one on which I know very little) there are the poor people who are born in the wrong body. Not people who go mad when their wife leaves them, change their name to Brenda and start wearing crinolene, but the genuine cases of people who truly are transgendered.

[Inspector]

Perhaps, but if you think of the millions of choices we make every day, and the millions of choices others make for us (our parents when we are little) - then if some of these have the by product of leaving a man with a little wiggle in his walk, and a little lilt in his speech, I would hold that they as nothing to the rest of his life.

And then of course (and this is a whole new topic, again one on which I know very little) there are the poor people who are born in the wrong body. Not people who go mad when their wife leaves them, change their name to Brenda and start wearing crinolene, but the genuine cases of people who truly are transgendered.

For paragraph 1, it looks like you have a bit of a typo there, so maybe you could clarify?

For #2, I'm not really familiar enough with biochemistry and such to comment. If gender determines, through genetics and such, not merely the shape of one's body, but also the structure of one's mind in terms of one's sexual orientation, then it might be possible for a person to get a mismatched set. I certainly don't know, and if that existed then a whole different set of behaviors would be appropriate.

[Dan Bidewell]

For paragraph 1, it looks like you have a bit of a typo there, so maybe you could clarify?

I don't think I have made a typo - I just mean that there are a million different things that make us who we are - millions and millions, too many to count. And some totally outside our control (for example, it would not be my fault if my parents had decided to rear me in the North Pole or something) - and these will have an effect on us. If they affect our speech, the way we walk or perhaps our choice of colour scheme for the bathroom, what does it matter as long as we are fundamentally good men who do what we know to be the right thing. If it simply does not come natural to us to swagger down the street, then what does it matter? In the great scheme of things?

I am not saying we should forgive every little weakness (that makes every man basically a good guy once you get to know him) - and the archetype of any man (I think even a gay man's ideal man) is a strong, masculine man in the traditional role. But when it is all added up, surely the way we walk and the way we talk comes so far down the list compared to where we walk to go and what we talk about.

[Inspector]

For the typo I meant this:

I would hold that they as nothing to the rest of his life.

Sorry, I should have bolded that.

Nobody's saying these are MAJOR parts of a person, as important as, say, the ideas they hold about ethics and rights and reason and reality.

But that doesn't mean that we can't be interested in self-improvement. And if it is better, more consistant with a man's nature to be masculine, then that's what I'm going to advocate. I believe in leading a "conscious life," where the things you do are chosen by you consciously and for a reason, and not to simply drift through life with the habits and methods that you "picked up" here and there.

There have been plenty of times when I've had to stop and ask myself the questions, "wait, why am I doing this?" and the answer was, to my dismay, "because that's how you did it before." This demands the question, "well, WHY did you do it before and does that reason still apply right now?"

Every time I've confronted myself with such questions, I've improved my life. I became happier, more confident, more purposeful. I'm not saying you need to yell and scream at people who don't; a simple "I don't agree" will do.

So for those heterosexual men who have let feminine traits creep into their demeanor I say: "I don't agree." (and vice versa women with masculine traits)

Edited November 22, 2005 by Inspector

[Dan Bidewell]

So for those heterosexual men who have let feminine traits creep into their demeanor I say: "I don't agree." (and vice versa women with masculine traits)

I certainly take your point

But I cannot see the masculine/feminine prescription is as simple as I think you are saying.

There are too many variables, not just in the things that make us (and I concede your point about not just letting ourselves slip into habits and ways of being just because "that is the way we have always done it"). For exampl, what about the six foot two, seventeen stone woman, who just happens to be born with a very un-feminine body?. She is heterosexual, and does not want to be a man, but it is not natural to her to be very feminine. Indeed if she were, she would look strange. It is more natural for her to be a little more masculine. I canno really think of an example of an actual person, but I am sure we have all met someone who fits the bill.

And if it is natural for her, then why not for the next woman. Surely we do not want a society which allows certain people certain behaviours based solely on their physiognomy (sic?).

BUT - I will say (even though it may seem I am advocating a complete dismantling of sexes), there do seem to be some people in open revolt against their sex. And this is shame. We should be proud of what we are. That these people are more prevalent amongst the gay population might be (and I am no sociologist, just your average homo) simply because masculine role models have for so long been denied to them. That is changing now.

[softwareNerd]

Inspector, You seem to imply that (inter alia) women who have some "male" mannerisms are at least ever-so-slightly immoral, at least in that small way. Am I reading that right? If so, is it just mannerisms, or do you extend that to women who do not seek to compensate for aspects of their physique that are less than averagely feminine?

[Inspector]

But I cannot see the masculine/feminine prescription is as simple as I think you are saying.

What I mean is that only the PRINCIPLE is simple. "Men should be masculine and women should be feminine." It's the APPLICATION of this principle that isn't quite so simple. As with any statement I make here, it isn't meant to be interpreted as an out-of-context absolute.

At a given moment, might a woman's career be more important than putting on that extra bit of makeup? It might. Should a man ever deliberately attempt to act feminine? No, I would say not. Nor should a woman ever deliberately attempt to act masculine simply for the sake of it.

But if the situation is such that she needs to grab a shotgun and Rambo it up in self-defense, then it would be suicidal to hold back on account of being feminine. I certainly am not advocating that.

Inspector, You seem to imply that (inter alia) women who have some "male" mannerisms are at least ever-so-slightly immoral, at least in that small way.

That would depend on why they are acting like men. If it is to fulfill some rational purpose, then it is simply a matter of values-heirarchy, where they still value being feminine, but maybe not as much as [x]. I'd be really, really careful about making a statement like "a woman with mannish behavior is necessarily immoral to some tiny degree." That kind of statement badly risks dropping context. What if a woman is living in a frontier society where everyone must be able to participate in "hardy" activities as a matter of their survival? Context is, as always, vital.

[RPalmer7]

An Objectivist i know said Ayn Rand believed 'men should behave like men and women should behave like women'. (He than mentioned that she thought women should 'hero worship' men). How do you interpret this and is it correct? Is it immoral/wrong for a man to behave 'camp'?

It is absolutely wrong for men to behave like women...now why on God's green earth would a man want to behave like a woman? A man cannot be a woman if he was born a man even with all the surgical options available. Is it cool for a Horse to behave like a donkey? I dont think so. It contradicts the nature of the man to behave like a woman i dont care about observation and all those other crap man is man, woman is woman...Man up!

[FeatherFall]

It is absolutely wrong for men to behave like women...now why on God's green earth would a man want to behave like a woman?

I don't know about "God's green earth," but here in reality there might be a values context that requires it. For instance, it might be seen as a bonus in the fashion industry (this is just conjecture; I have very little knowledge of the industry).

[Dan Bidewell]

there might be a values context that requires it.

I agree entirely, and I think that Inspector has also said this (I may be wrong). Graves have been found of Saxon warrior women (I know this for a fact because they were found in the park opposite my house). These women were big girls. Now their manly genes were unlikely to have been passed on, because they seem to have died in battle. Surely it was right, morally right, indeed essential for these women to be a warriors. For them to have demeured on the battlefield, because it was not ladylike, would surely have been anti-life.

And in the Victorian age, an exagerated idea of feminity became desirable. So exagerated that it lead to women squeezing themselves and their vital organs into sixteen inch corsets. So exagerated it led to a whole series of lunacies (viz Freud's patients). It seems that this "value" is still affecting many people.

And no, it is not right for horses to act like donkeys - so that is why man made the mule (or the ass or whatever it is called, when they cross a horse and a donkey).

[Inspector]

I agree entirely, and I think that Inspector has also said this (I may be wrong).

No, you're right. That's what I've said. Context!

[KevinD]

How is it not manly to sleep with another man?

Believe me - I do it on a regular basis - it takes a man.

Does it "take a man" to sleep with a woman? Or can any random guy do that?

[Dan Bidewell]

Does it "take a man" to sleep with a woman? Or can any random guy do that?

Men can sleep with women - I hear it's rather a popular past-time.

My point was that there is nothing less manly about a man sleeping with a man than there is with a man sleeping with a woman.