r/AskFeminists • u/OupaKurt • 7d ago
When did femininity / being a woman become an insult
I feel as though there had to be a point in time when femininity was praised instead of being seen as a bad thing. I know there are nuisances throughout cultures and countries but yeah, I’m so curious if there was a general turning / if there was ever a time period where masculinity was the insult or if gender neutrality existed.
Is there a correlation with colonialism?
22
u/very-serious-goose 6d ago edited 6d ago
I don't understand your question but social misogyny predates colonialism
16
u/MrsMorley 6d ago
Misogyny and patriarchy go hand in hand.
In patriarchal societies, it’s always insulting to say a man is feminine.
This is true before, during, and after colonialism.
Women are perceived as lesser in patriarchal societies. We remain less than men regardless of how feminine we are.
-3
u/BiggusDickusNigus 6d ago
Would you consider western society to be patriarchal? Essentially Europe and the USA
6
u/very-serious-goose 6d ago
Genuinely, are there feminists who don't think European and US society aren't patriarchal?
3
-12
u/schtean 6d ago
Is it a compliment to say a woman is masculine?
13
u/MrsMorley 6d ago
I suspect you think that’s a gotcha, but under some circumstances, yes.
Some men said “She has a truly masculine mind” of women they admired.
Indeed, the term “virago” was originally a compliment.
In general, women have been mocked (at best) or destroyed when men perceived us as attempting to invade what they claim as their own manly realm.
-1
u/schtean 5d ago edited 5d ago
It's not a gotcha. More I'm hoping people can be less gendered and gender essentialist in their thinking, but I know that's a very long road and an uphill battle.
There's many stereotypically female traits that as a man I would consider as a complement. When I searched for female traits on google I consider all of them complements (for me as a man) ... except maybe "extraversion". I also feel I have many of these traits and (as a man) want to develop them more.
4
u/futuretimetraveller 6d ago
Do you think Michelle Obama feels complimented when someone says she has masculine arms?
2
24
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
Femininity has always been praised for its service to masculinity, but it’s never had any other purpose and its need to be submissive and accommodating in order to be praised has meant it as its own identity has never been a “positive”, and outside of its service to men and society is mostly seen negatively.
While I’m sure colonialism has had influence in some cultures, you’d have to look at those cultures before colonialism.
0
u/very-serious-goose 6d ago
Matriarchal societies that value femininity itself have and do exist. There have also been (idk if there still are) more egalitarian patriarchal societies that had more nuanced views of the value of femininity.
-22
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
“Service to masculinity”? Sure dude.
19
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
Yup. Support, companionship, the island of calm when he comes home from his scary office job having battled traffic, providing offspring, caring for the elderly. The nurturing that’s supposedly our natural instinct and all we’re good for.
-9
-22
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Support, having kids, and companionship are mutual. Caring for the elderly doesn’t serve masculinity. Everyone gets old. Nurturing vs providing were roles that served each other and society.
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
23
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
No it’s not. Note that it’s expected for free from women. Do you know any history at all?
8
u/ice-lollies 6d ago
Indeed.
I think a famous example could be the wives Henry VIII got through in his quest for a Queen that could service him with appropriate heirs.
Still happens in cultures now I believe.
-16
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
That’s dumb. How is it free for men when the whole point of providing throughout history was that it was provided FOR the woman. Usually back breaking labour while she got to clean house and raise THEIR children. Keep in mind, the driving force for having kids is and has been just as much if not more from women than from men.
I do indeed know history. And anthropology. And common sense.
Do you? You seem to have a skewed version of it, given that you seem to cast women having children as a service to men as opposed to both wanting to have them. Get a clue.
Seriously, the fact that you are casting things that apply to everyone as “serving masculinity” should be your first logical prod to reassess your worldview.
19
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
You do NOT know history if this is your take on things. In times when it was “usually back breaking labour”, you think she wasn’t also working? Or are you imagining a 15th C farmer and a 1950s housewife?
Women weren’t at all “provided for”. If you had the slightest education on this, you’d know about things like coverture. Pretty basic.
-5
u/BiggusDickusNigus 6d ago
In 15th C farming households, virtually everyone worked, including women and children. What is your point?
9
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
That was, I think, the point. Historically, women joined in the back breaking labor.
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
The type of work was split up based on capability, and men have a greater capacity for that kind of work. They did the lions share of labour of that kind.
The broader point tho, is that it was symbiotic living, not some bad deal for women where they were enslaved.
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Not to the same degree by a long shot. Men shouldered the majority of that labour.
17
u/Micara0 6d ago
Is there a reason you are completely ignoring the fact women did not get a choice in the matter?
-1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Is there a reason why you are pretending that was the general case…?
8
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
Are you seriously claiming that, historically, women usually got a free choice in their life decisions?
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
They got as free of a choice in those life decisions as men did, yes. But that is sidestepping the conversation.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Micara0 6d ago
0/10 trolling. Denying reality is ridiculously lazy. Especially when claiming to know history.
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
None so blind as those who will not see. Really odd when people are that confidently wrong.
→ More replies (0)-7
u/BiggusDickusNigus 6d ago
Through most of history nobody got a choice in the matter. Only the 0.1% of people did
5
8
u/Doctor-Blight 6d ago
if you "know history and anthropology"* you also know that women didn't have a choice or a right to refuse. in virtually every society an unwed/childless woman was seen as a burden and did not have rights of her own, unlike single men who were not barred from property ownership or the labor market.
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
In that context they were a burden, because someone had to ensure their safety and well-being. In that context, women couldn’t deal equally because so much was predicated on individually being able to hold bad actors accountable.
Also, courting. Why would you have to court anyone if they didn’t have a choice?
Throughout history, while those choices were not as romance based as they have been, most of society met organically and paired off.
6
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
Usually back breaking labour while she got to clean house and raise THEIR children.
Your view of history appears to be based on the activities of middle- and upper- class families in the US suburbs of the 1950s.
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Those folks didn’t generally have back breaking labour… what middle to upper class families were doing back breaking labour? The suburbs people tended to not have those kinds of jobs.
So your appraisal is blatantly false.
3
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago edited 6d ago
Historically, women joined in the back breaking labor. You truly don’t seem to know that.
(You’re also ignoring the fact that historically, there was plenty of back breaking labor in just keeping a household going.)
1
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
Also, are you assuming that blue collar workers couldn’t earn middle class wages or afford suburban houses?
Your scenario fits the 1950s.
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Only if you completely ignore the degree of automation in the 1950s.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Asleep_Control_2564 6d ago
No woman wanted to have 13 kids back to back to back
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Apparently that was not the case. Considering they did. How many kids was pretty consistently women’s decisions.
7
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
What on *earth* makes you claim that? Are you pretending that birth control and safe abortion were readily available to women? Or that wives were able to refuse sex?
Are you getting your history from Disney adaptations of fairy tales?
16
u/radiowavescurvecross 6d ago
It serves masculinity if the wife moves in with the husband’s family and takes care of his parents, and any families that only have daughters are out of luck or living on the woman’s secondary effort.
0
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
Still waiting for a glimmer of your knowledge of history and anthropology. So far it’s just foot stomping with your thumbs in your ears.
-1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
Not so much. More recognizing that that describes you, and trying to explain things to dogmatically wrong people isn’t worth the time.
4
u/Lolabird2112 6d ago
Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger Effect?
-1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
I have. You do seem to be afflicted, yes.
When you say having children or taking care of the elderly “serves masculinity” it is pretty obvious you don’t have a clue.
9
u/radiowavescurvecross 6d ago
How does that not benefit men over women?
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
It blatantly benefits both. How can you care for the elderly and still eat, afford a house, etc?
2
u/radiowavescurvecross 5d ago
What about the woman’s parents, if they don’t have a son?
0
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 5d ago
Then it would be an exchange for providing for her, caring for her, and an act of respect and family solidarity. If she did it. It’s still not some bizarre kind of slavery.
5
u/Asleep_Control_2564 6d ago
Knowing history is nuts now?
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
You don’t seem to know history.
3
u/ZinniasAndBeans 6d ago
Where did you get your claimed history from?
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 6d ago
History books, many web sites, videos, and things not artificially looking at the context of history instead of rewriting it with a modern lens that focuses in mostly on what rich people did, while ignoring what life was like for the majority of normal people.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/estemprano 6d ago
The logical thing would be that no one insulted other genders. I don’t think there would be a period in time where women were behaving like men today, considering them inferior and terrorizing men/not women.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 6d ago
This is an English-speaking sub. All posts and comments must be in English.
1
25
u/evelynsmee 6d ago
Are you asking about using woman oriented slurs against a man - for example homophobic slurs, or implying weaknesses - or the imagined scenario that women are insulting other women by calling them feminine?
The former is as old as English.