Main Edition
US
FR
Mark Rylance as Olivia in Royal Shakespeare Company’s Twelfth Night (RSC)
“A man in his natural perfection is fierce, hardy, strong in opinion, covetous of glory, desirous of knowledge, appetiting by generation to bring forth his semblable. The good nature of a woman is to be mild, timorous, tractable, benign, of sure remembrance, and shamefast.”
The diplomat Sir Thomas Elyot wrote these words in 1531 but, with a little tinkering, they could pass for the kind of rigid assertions currently gaining traction among a handful of prominent conservative commentators. Social media influencer Andrew Tate, for instance, has gained a huge online following for promoting conventional roles for men and women, equating male success to wealth, physical strength and a duty to protect a timorous and tractable wife.
It is no coincidence that such views are enjoying a resurgence at the same time that, conversely, certain Left-leaning activists are doing their utmost to advance a social constructionist view of both sex and gender. The result has been a curious theoretical alliance between gender ideologues — for whom outmoded stereotypes are taken to signify an authentic self — and traditionalists who similarly feel that male and female behaviour ought to be strictly defined.
But that Elyot’s ideas about men and women do not seem out of place is a striking reminder that we have been here before. In early 17th-century England, debates about gender proliferated, largely due to a combination of the rise of Puritanism, concerns over cross-dressing, and the accession of a king (James I) who would openly kiss his boyfriends at court. The Puritans were particularly exercised by the influence of the theatre, perceiving it as a decadent distraction from the worship of God and liable to corrupt the soul.
Most famously, the lawyer and polemicist William Prynne produced his Histrio-Mastix (1633), in which he condemned the theatre as the “chief delight of the Devil”. England was unusual in banning women from the stage and Prynne dismissed actresses as “notorious whores”. He saw the male actors in women’s attire as “an inducement to Sodomy”, an affront to scripture and natural law. As for theatregoers, they were “adulterers, adulteresses, whoremasters, whores, bawds, panders, ruffians, roarers, drunkards, prodigals, cheaters, idle, infamous, base, profane, and godless persons”. Who knew the theatre could be such fun?
Inevitably, these anxieties found their way into the work of dramatists. In John Fletcher’s Love’s Cure (c. 1612), the boy Lucio is raised as a girl to protect him from becoming the victim of a vendetta between feuding families. Lucio’s manner of speech approaches what we would now call “high camp”, and one cannot help but imagine a young Kenneth Williams in the role. Here Lucio is complaining to the family servant Bobadilla:
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Such findings suggest that many of the achievements of feminists and gay rights activists over the last 50 years have been reversed.” Is this Titania McGrath or Andrew Doyle speaking? Hopefully the pendulum is indeed decelerating on its leftward swing, but these social changes are very far from being reversed.
While I appreciate the nods to 16th century gender debate, I can’t agree with the interpretation given them here. There has always been give-and-take at the edges of biologically-rooted gender norms in every society, and those conflicts no doubt serve as proxies for more complex religious, political, ideological, etc. disputes. But what they were debating in the 16th century – broadly speaking, the merits or demerits of feminine men & masculine women – is a far cry from the kind of mania that has swept through our society today. We’re comparing (a) women embodying masculine attitudes, habits, social roles, etc., with for example (b) men insisting that they be treated as women for all purposes, even on their medical records when admitted to the hospital! These are not merely differences in degree; something much deeper is at work. Indeed, I think it is an open question whether or how these phenomena are even related to one another, whether they spring from similar causes, etc.
Setting aside the 16th century references, what’s at stake in this debate is social attitude towards naturally-occurring biological similarity and dissimilarity. While humans in general have most things in common, where they have things not in common, the differences are very often correlated with sexual difference. And so women in general are more likely to have those things in common with other women than other men – even though some men are more like women than some other men. So if you assert “men are taller than women,” these days you are likely to be met with the objection: “not always!” Indeed, not always – but generally. And generally is enough to help us develop inter-personal expectations, form social policies, etc. Hence stereotypes’ persistence: they are useful guideposts to navigating the world.
What’s new – and completely unlike the kinds of 16th century debates referenced above – is that now society is arguing over not the edges of sexual difference but its core, whether it should even be acknowledged. We literally have respectable and credentialed intellectuals making the argument that “birthing person” is a better way of describing a certain category of human than “woman.” What is the motivating power to these arguments? How can their destructive effects be explained? These are the pressing questions of our day, unfortunately.
I agree that Andrew’s initial interpretation seems slightly askew here, and it took him the entire length of the article to get to what i believe is his key point – which is that it’s time we moved on.
It seems to me that the gender wars probably have something even more fundamental underlying them, which is – what does it mean to be human? Now that religious belief – and hence the belief that our nature is the product of some kind of divine experiment (for that is what it would amount to) – is waning, we find ourselves confronted by explaining how we come to be the way we are, and therefore also the possibility of being less ‘fixed’, as in ‘made in God’s image’.
Andrew alludes to the way in which females have historically been seen as subservient, as secondary humans. That’s something which not only needed to change, but is changing. Much of the noise surrouding the gender wars involves male discomfort with that change. We’re now exploring our common humanity as never before, and whilst there are ventures into the extremes of our natures, this can be seen as a prelude to understanding ourselves better. I therefore take a generally positive view of these cultural shifts, whilst deploring some of the side channels which people seem to wish to veer towards, as if to reimpose the straightjacket of former certainties. Biological sex is fixed at the chromosomal level; beyond that, acceptance of ourselves requires tolerance on all sides.
I can’t agree with that. The history of sexual norms does not, IMHO, reflect that women “were seen as subservient, as secondary humans.” It reflects that in every society the sexes have always occupied the roles that best suited their natural abilities in the circumstances of that society – and these have varied as the boundaries of biological difference intersect with the contours of each society (and of course as outlier individuals challenged those norms). So in some societies men and women work alongside each other in the fields, but it is almost always men who have been underground in mines. In some societies women have traveled with armies to nurture and nurse the soldiers, but it is almost always men who actually swing the swords. There are obvious reasons for this that have nothing to do with prejudice and everything to with our natural differences.
One reason this is gotten wrong now is because of the tendency to reinterpret past eras through the new economic and technological glasses of our era. But changes in science, finance, business, medicine, etc., have radically changed what men and women *can* do. Nowadays a pregnant woman can keep working her desk job throughout much of her pregnancy… but in 1600 does it really make sense to have a woman lead your expedition, when pregnancy is debilitating and often deadly? This is not evidence of subservience, but acknowledgement of our obvious, inherent differences.
You might think it subservience, of course, if you thought that leading expeditions is a better human pursuit than birthing children. Should that be society’s attitude? It is an open question whether these social changes have resulted in generally happier men and women. Personally I think there’s virtually zero evidence that it has – the journals, diaries, correspondence and other evidence of personal attitude and feeling from prior centuries reflects people grappling with their own set of limitations and problems, but generally not less satisfied with life than today (indeed, usually more satisfied).
I understand your point, but many of the societies which have existed with an historical record have been based upon Abrahamic religions, which take – literally – as gospel that Eve (woman) is a secondary product of man (Adam), with his “rib” as the mechanism for her coming into being. Therefore, the secondary nature of female humanity was assumed whatever they were required to do in contribution to their society. Hence my point about the waning of religion requiring a fundamental reappraisal of our humanity.
Not so fast, Steve. I’ll refer here only to Judaism and Christianity. In Genesis, you’ll find not one but two stories of our primeval ancestors. In one of them, God creates a man and then a woman from one of his ribs. Whether one is primary and the other secondary in any sense but chronology is debatable. The man is called “Adam” (from the Hebrew for “earth”), after all, and the woman “Eve” (from the Hebrew for “life”). In the other story, however, God creates not one man and one woman but humans (following the pattern of creating birds and other species).
Moreover, you need to explain why so many cultures, including our own at one time or another, have associated women symbolically with producing life by giving birth. They associate men symbolically, on the contrary, with taking life by killing predatory animals or humans. Both functions are necessary for communal survival, but the former is emotionally positive and the latter emotionally negative. In more than a few societies, including our own to judge from one episode of I Love Lucy, men experience the symptoms of pregnancy–a symbolic phenomenon that anthropologists call “couvade.”
This is a huge topic, and not only because it requires us to account not merely for a few words in one text but for many centuries of interpreting them in a wide range of circumstances. It’s nonetheless worth noting briefly here that both Judaism and Christianity, each in its own ways, have found it helpful either to deny the “maleness” of God or to ascribe both “male” and “female” attributes to God. Unfortunately, the “waning of religion” has obscured the richness of these traditions.
That’s a well-thought through response, and i take your points about the more nuanced historical interpretations of the origins of men/women – even whilst they are all, of course, fables.
I’m just about old enough to remember I Love Lucy, or certainly its re-runs in the UK but don’t recall that particular episode. Couvade is indeed a real and interesting phenomenon, and worth further research. If it should be attributable to entirely psychosomatic instead of some underlying biological basis, one can’t help but wonder what the root cause of that might be.
Incidentally, it’s also worth remembering that all mammalian embryos begin as female, and only differentiate after about the second month when sufficient androgens are produced for maleness to develop.
It’s the episode in which Ricky envies Lucy for being pregnant, which she then was both on the show and in real life.
I Love Lucy, season 2, episode 14, “Ricky Has Labor Pains,” written by William Asher, Jess Oppenheimer, Madelyn Pugh and Bob Carroll, Jr., aired originally on October 31, 1952.
I’m old enough to remember the original date!
It’s the episode in which Ricky envies Lucy for being pregnant, which she then was both on the show and in real life.
I Love Lucy, season 2, episode 14, “Ricky Has Labor Pains,” written by William Asher, Jess Oppenheimer, Madelyn Pugh and Bob Carroll, Jr., aired originally on October 31, 1952.
I’m old enough to remember the original date!
That’s a well-thought through response, and i take your points about the more nuanced historical interpretations of the origins of men/women – even whilst they are all, of course, fables.
I’m just about old enough to remember I Love Lucy, or certainly its re-runs in the UK but don’t recall that particular episode. Couvade is indeed a real and interesting phenomenon, and worth further research. If it should be attributable to entirely psychosomatic instead of some underlying biological basis, one can’t help but wonder what the root cause of that might be.
Incidentally, it’s also worth remembering that all mammalian embryos begin as female, and only differentiate after about the second month when sufficient androgens are produced for maleness to develop.
Not so fast, Steve. I’ll refer here only to Judaism and Christianity. In Genesis, you’ll find not one but two stories of our primeval ancestors. In one of them, God creates a man and then a woman from one of his ribs. Whether one is primary and the other secondary in any sense but chronology is debatable. The man is called “Adam” (from the Hebrew for “earth”), after all, and the woman “Eve” (from the Hebrew for “life”). In the other story, however, God creates not one man and one woman but humans (following the pattern of creating birds and other species).
Moreover, you need to explain why so many cultures, including our own at one time or another, have associated women symbolically with producing life by giving birth. They associate men symbolically, on the contrary, with taking life by killing predatory animals or humans. Both functions are necessary for communal survival, but the former is emotionally positive and the latter emotionally negative. In more than a few societies, including our own to judge from one episode of I Love Lucy, men experience the symptoms of pregnancy–a symbolic phenomenon that anthropologists call “couvade.”
This is a huge topic, and not only because it requires us to account not merely for a few words in one text but for many centuries of interpreting them in a wide range of circumstances. It’s nonetheless worth noting briefly here that both Judaism and Christianity, each in its own ways, have found it helpful either to deny the “maleness” of God or to ascribe both “male” and “female” attributes to God. Unfortunately, the “waning of religion” has obscured the richness of these traditions.
Women were constrained by a lack of contraception, safe abortion and economic independence. We no longer are. We are not going back in that box.
What is ‘happier’? Most people aren’t ‘happy’ for much of the time but independence, self-determination, pride in achievement and the availability of privately owned solitude goes a hell of a way towards it.
Yes, the female readers of Unherd – generally more educated, more affluent, more relationally stable, more capable of making long-term decisions, etc. than the general population – are likely to view the sexual revolution as empowering. But should society make rules that benefit the favored few at the top at the expense of those at the bottom? Because the sexual revolution has resulted in a massive increase in stressed-out exhausted single mothers working multiple jobs while raising multiple children alone. Their jobs are unlikely to be satisfying, their children are unlikely to develop well, and their futures are unlikely to be easy. For those people the gains of feminism weren’t escaping a box, but being cast off the pier into the storm.
I for one don’t think the solution is more government hand-outs, more abdication of parental duty, more selfishness (from men or women). The solution is to recast human sexuality from an adult playground back to the more complex ecosystem it actually is. This is the essential divide in Western society today: is sex supposed to be meaningful? And if so, what is that meaning? Should it be treated as entertainment? Or does it entail mutual support and obligation (for men and women)? This is the path to fuller, richer, happier lives for men and women.
Women will do and become whatever they like. Whether society will benefit from their choices is another matter, so be careful what you wish for.
Every society since we came down from the trees (and even before that to judge from related species), has ensured communal survival by promoting the inter-dependence of men and women for the good of everyone–notably of children. Some societies have been more successful than others in maintaining genuine reciprocity, it’s true, but the goal has remained inter-dependence. Neither sex has ever had it all, and neither should have it all. Here’s a thought-experiment. What would happen if either sex were to go it alone? The answer would be not two independent human species, I think, but no human species at all (not unless the transhumanists can dream up some technological fix).
We can agree on that.
Feminism has been a huge benefit for men, clearly even more than for women.
Feminism as a benefit? Not so sure anymore.
The rise of feminism has been good for men; primarily by revealing true female nature and shining a light on the jealousy, resentment and misandry with which many women view men. There are many other ways in which feminism has benefitted men:
– Men are no longer expected to be the family breadwinner because feminism says that women should be self sufficient and not rely on a man. If a man isn’t supporting a family he doesn’t need to work as hard or put in the long hours. He also has more freedom to choose a less arduous job.
– Men have been freed from the expectation of marriage because feminism tells women it is good to delay having children so they can have a career. Before the age of 30, women have all the power in relationships because young men want sex. When women are in their 30’s, men have all the power because women want a relationship because their biological clock is running down and their SMV is heading to zero. Men have way more time than women so by delaying serious relationships until their 30’s women are ensuring that men get a much better deal.
– Men find it easy to have one night stands without obligation because feminism tells women that hookup culture is for women too and it is alright to have casual sex with as many men as they want. Any man who is presentable, has a modicum of game, and is prepared to splash a little cash on a women can now find himself a new bed partner every night of the week.
How good was it for children?
Artificial contraception, a feminist sacrament, led the way to this modern enslavement of women.
How good was it for children?
Artificial contraception, a feminist sacrament, led the way to this modern enslavement of women.
The rise of feminism has been good for men; primarily by revealing true female nature and shining a light on the jealousy, resentment and misandry with which many women view men. There are many other ways in which feminism has benefitted men:
– Men are no longer expected to be the family breadwinner because feminism says that women should be self sufficient and not rely on a man. If a man isn’t supporting a family he doesn’t need to work as hard or put in the long hours. He also has more freedom to choose a less arduous job.
– Men have been freed from the expectation of marriage because feminism tells women it is good to delay having children so they can have a career. Before the age of 30, women have all the power in relationships because young men want sex. When women are in their 30’s, men have all the power because women want a relationship because their biological clock is running down and their SMV is heading to zero. Men have way more time than women so by delaying serious relationships until their 30’s women are ensuring that men get a much better deal.
– Men find it easy to have one night stands without obligation because feminism tells women that hookup culture is for women too and it is alright to have casual sex with as many men as they want. Any man who is presentable, has a modicum of game, and is prepared to splash a little cash on a women can now find himself a new bed partner every night of the week.
Feminism as a benefit? Not so sure anymore.
Yes, the female readers of Unherd – generally more educated, more affluent, more relationally stable, more capable of making long-term decisions, etc. than the general population – are likely to view the sexual revolution as empowering. But should society make rules that benefit the favored few at the top at the expense of those at the bottom? Because the sexual revolution has resulted in a massive increase in stressed-out exhausted single mothers working multiple jobs while raising multiple children alone. Their jobs are unlikely to be satisfying, their children are unlikely to develop well, and their futures are unlikely to be easy. For those people the gains of feminism weren’t escaping a box, but being cast off the pier into the storm.
I for one don’t think the solution is more government hand-outs, more abdication of parental duty, more selfishness (from men or women). The solution is to recast human sexuality from an adult playground back to the more complex ecosystem it actually is. This is the essential divide in Western society today: is sex supposed to be meaningful? And if so, what is that meaning? Should it be treated as entertainment? Or does it entail mutual support and obligation (for men and women)? This is the path to fuller, richer, happier lives for men and women.
Women will do and become whatever they like. Whether society will benefit from their choices is another matter, so be careful what you wish for.
Every society since we came down from the trees (and even before that to judge from related species), has ensured communal survival by promoting the inter-dependence of men and women for the good of everyone–notably of children. Some societies have been more successful than others in maintaining genuine reciprocity, it’s true, but the goal has remained inter-dependence. Neither sex has ever had it all, and neither should have it all. Here’s a thought-experiment. What would happen if either sex were to go it alone? The answer would be not two independent human species, I think, but no human species at all (not unless the transhumanists can dream up some technological fix).
We can agree on that.
Feminism has been a huge benefit for men, clearly even more than for women.
The word “subservience” immediately needs to be challenged. It’s too full of imagery.
I understand your point, but many of the societies which have existed with an historical record have been based upon Abrahamic religions, which take – literally – as gospel that Eve (woman) is a secondary product of man (Adam), with his “rib” as the mechanism for her coming into being. Therefore, the secondary nature of female humanity was assumed whatever they were required to do in contribution to their society. Hence my point about the waning of religion requiring a fundamental reappraisal of our humanity.
Women were constrained by a lack of contraception, safe abortion and economic independence. We no longer are. We are not going back in that box.
What is ‘happier’? Most people aren’t ‘happy’ for much of the time but independence, self-determination, pride in achievement and the availability of privately owned solitude goes a hell of a way towards it.
The word “subservience” immediately needs to be challenged. It’s too full of imagery.
I can’t agree with that. The history of sexual norms does not, IMHO, reflect that women “were seen as subservient, as secondary humans.” It reflects that in every society the sexes have always occupied the roles that best suited their natural abilities in the circumstances of that society – and these have varied as the boundaries of biological difference intersect with the contours of each society (and of course as outlier individuals challenged those norms). So in some societies men and women work alongside each other in the fields, but it is almost always men who have been underground in mines. In some societies women have traveled with armies to nurture and nurse the soldiers, but it is almost always men who actually swing the swords. There are obvious reasons for this that have nothing to do with prejudice and everything to with our natural differences.
One reason this is gotten wrong now is because of the tendency to reinterpret past eras through the new economic and technological glasses of our era. But changes in science, finance, business, medicine, etc., have radically changed what men and women *can* do. Nowadays a pregnant woman can keep working her desk job throughout much of her pregnancy… but in 1600 does it really make sense to have a woman lead your expedition, when pregnancy is debilitating and often deadly? This is not evidence of subservience, but acknowledgement of our obvious, inherent differences.
You might think it subservience, of course, if you thought that leading expeditions is a better human pursuit than birthing children. Should that be society’s attitude? It is an open question whether these social changes have resulted in generally happier men and women. Personally I think there’s virtually zero evidence that it has – the journals, diaries, correspondence and other evidence of personal attitude and feeling from prior centuries reflects people grappling with their own set of limitations and problems, but generally not less satisfied with life than today (indeed, usually more satisfied).
I agree that Andrew’s initial interpretation seems slightly askew here, and it took him the entire length of the article to get to what i believe is his key point – which is that it’s time we moved on.
It seems to me that the gender wars probably have something even more fundamental underlying them, which is – what does it mean to be human? Now that religious belief – and hence the belief that our nature is the product of some kind of divine experiment (for that is what it would amount to) – is waning, we find ourselves confronted by explaining how we come to be the way we are, and therefore also the possibility of being less ‘fixed’, as in ‘made in God’s image’.
Andrew alludes to the way in which females have historically been seen as subservient, as secondary humans. That’s something which not only needed to change, but is changing. Much of the noise surrouding the gender wars involves male discomfort with that change. We’re now exploring our common humanity as never before, and whilst there are ventures into the extremes of our natures, this can be seen as a prelude to understanding ourselves better. I therefore take a generally positive view of these cultural shifts, whilst deploring some of the side channels which people seem to wish to veer towards, as if to reimpose the straightjacket of former certainties. Biological sex is fixed at the chromosomal level; beyond that, acceptance of ourselves requires tolerance on all sides.
“Such findings suggest that many of the achievements of feminists and gay rights activists over the last 50 years have been reversed.” Is this Titania McGrath or Andrew Doyle speaking? Hopefully the pendulum is indeed decelerating on its leftward swing, but these social changes are very far from being reversed.
While I appreciate the nods to 16th century gender debate, I can’t agree with the interpretation given them here. There has always been give-and-take at the edges of biologically-rooted gender norms in every society, and those conflicts no doubt serve as proxies for more complex religious, political, ideological, etc. disputes. But what they were debating in the 16th century – broadly speaking, the merits or demerits of feminine men & masculine women – is a far cry from the kind of mania that has swept through our society today. We’re comparing (a) women embodying masculine attitudes, habits, social roles, etc., with for example (b) men insisting that they be treated as women for all purposes, even on their medical records when admitted to the hospital! These are not merely differences in degree; something much deeper is at work. Indeed, I think it is an open question whether or how these phenomena are even related to one another, whether they spring from similar causes, etc.
Setting aside the 16th century references, what’s at stake in this debate is social attitude towards naturally-occurring biological similarity and dissimilarity. While humans in general have most things in common, where they have things not in common, the differences are very often correlated with sexual difference. And so women in general are more likely to have those things in common with other women than other men – even though some men are more like women than some other men. So if you assert “men are taller than women,” these days you are likely to be met with the objection: “not always!” Indeed, not always – but generally. And generally is enough to help us develop inter-personal expectations, form social policies, etc. Hence stereotypes’ persistence: they are useful guideposts to navigating the world.
What’s new – and completely unlike the kinds of 16th century debates referenced above – is that now society is arguing over not the edges of sexual difference but its core, whether it should even be acknowledged. We literally have respectable and credentialed intellectuals making the argument that “birthing person” is a better way of describing a certain category of human than “woman.” What is the motivating power to these arguments? How can their destructive effects be explained? These are the pressing questions of our day, unfortunately.
Any organisation which says, “there is no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body” is not a women’s rights group.
’Gender’ roles are entirely socially constructed but some behaviours are sex-based. They are those that also exist in other mammalian species and are entirely related to mating, reproduction and the survival of young.
Young males fight over females in fields and woodland and in city centres on a Friday night. A human female would kill a threat to her baby just as a cow would one to her calf. Cows do not wear clothes, paint their hooves ridiculous colours, give their offspring language-based names or engage in pointless byre-titivating activities. Those are human social constructs and are clearly not inherent because they vary between cultures and over time.
Work with other mammals for any length of time and the differences between sex and ‘gender’ become very simple and obvious.
Any organisation which says, “there is no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body” is not a women’s rights group.
’Gender’ roles are entirely socially constructed but some behaviours are sex-based. They are those that also exist in other mammalian species and are entirely related to mating, reproduction and the survival of young.
Young males fight over females in fields and woodland and in city centres on a Friday night. A human female would kill a threat to her baby just as a cow would one to her calf. Cows do not wear clothes, paint their hooves ridiculous colours, give their offspring language-based names or engage in pointless byre-titivating activities. Those are human social constructs and are clearly not inherent because they vary between cultures and over time.
Work with other mammals for any length of time and the differences between sex and ‘gender’ become very simple and obvious.
Cross-dressing used to be such innocent fun. Now it is the basis of an entire culture.
Cross-dressing used to be such innocent fun. Now it is the basis of an entire culture.
[Southern, McConaughey-esque drawl] “They say Time is a flat circle..”
Why are so many adherents to Black identity politics and trans rights activism in positions of power ( heads of museums , colleges , Human Resources etc ) white women ? Could it be women have a tendency to want to conform to whatever social movement is in fashion , and furthermore wish to please people and be popular and thus find it difficult to stand up to bleating activists parading their so-called ‘lived experience’ ?
OMG – what did I just read?
It’s rare that you post something that isn’t dismissive or ranting–but at least this one is brief (yeah, I ain’t the most succinct poster either).
It’s rare that you post something that isn’t dismissive or ranting–but at least this one is brief (yeah, I ain’t the most succinct poster either).
OMG – what did I just read?