"One is not born a woman; one becomes a woman. "
- Simone de Beauvoir
What is a woman? That depends on whom you ask. Definitions of "woman" are as bountiful as unwanted insects at a summer picnic. And just as cumbersome. For feminists, the notion, idea and/or definition of a woman is paramount to, perhaps the very foundation of, the entire feminist movement. For it is our femaleness that is the core of our oppression. It is our femaleness that is in peril. And with the ever-encroaching idea of "femininity" beguiling and coercing women and girls at younger ages every decade, feminists are powerlessly watching an entire planet of women discard their potential freedom for an embraced prison of curls, liposuction and push-up bras. So I ask again, what is a woman? The answer to that question can and should be found in nature and human biology: A woman is a female homosapien; she is a female mammal. And though biology has been used as the basis of a cultured definition of femininity—which in turn has been prescribed as the "natural" condition of a woman—it is critical to understand that to be female is not the same as being feminine—or a woman.
Webster's dictionary defines female as 1) designating or of the sex that produces ova and bears offspring and 2) a female person, woman or girl. A person, whether male or female, is a mammal. When studying people, then, we must begin from the biological grouping of mammalia. Every school child is taught the four characteristics of mammals: Mammals are warm-blooded, give birth to live young, nurse their young with mother's milk, and have hair all over their bodies. To be a female mammal is to have all of these characteristics in addition to producing ova. That is the biological definition of a woman—A female mammal. Any other definition is usually a perception, a cultural manifestation or desire. Yet, these cultural manifestations are so ingrained that when we think of the meaning of "woman" we hardly ever conjure up images of female mammals, and certainly not hairy ones.
The importance of "femaleness" in the context of the nature of woman is often overlooked by western culture, all civilization in fact. Long ago it was decided by the powers that be—men—that to be female was to be disadvantaged, to be weak. It was our nature, our destiny to be the "weaker/fairer" sex. It was our biological condition. Men were stronger; this was an undeniable fact. Women were smaller, limiting their physical ability; women bled for a week every month, draining their bodies of crucial energy; women carried babies, requiring less strenuous lifestyles; women were incapable of logical thought. And on and on and on.
Thus, the "feminine" was invented; it was created in romantic language and dreamy ideas. Women were soft, gentle, timid; they were genteel "creatures of the heart."(1) Oh, how sweet, how lovely. It is not surprising that women welcomed this idea. How wonderful it was to be pampered and adored. We embraced the mystique, excelling in the art of allurement, beauty and gentility. We shaved, cut, poked, prodded, painted, squeezed and tweezed our bodies into a sub-human form that became the "ideal." We left men to their world while we imagined one for ourselves that never really existed, except in our "illogical" minds. We found meaning where there was none—or very little. We dreamed of princes and love, knights and adventure, tender, loving husbands and children that gave our life meaning, beauty and perfection. Then one day, as all sleeping beauties must, we woke up.
But it was too late. After centuries of marvellous play-acting and acquiescence our role as "woman" had been defined. We were no longer female; we were feminine. To be feminine is to "[have] qualities regarded as characteristic of women and girls, as gentleness, weakness, delicacy, or modesty…suitable characteristics of a woman, womanly." (Agnes, 1999) Consequently, we were no longer born women; we became them. We were born female; we became feminine. But, as society tells it, that was and still is the natural evolution and condition of women. Biology has dictated it as such. Or has it?
Notes:
(1) The quote was taken from the movie A Walk In The Clouds. Anthony Quinn's character is describing the difference between men and women. He says that "where men think, women feel; they are creatures of the heart." (Twentieth Century Fox, 1995.)
REFERENCES
Agnes, Michael (Editor In Chief). Webster's New World College Dictionary. Fourth Edition. New York: Macmillan USA, 1999.
Beauvoir de, Simone (1949). The Second Sex. New York: Penguin, 1986.
Part II
If femininity is weakness and women are weak—weaker than men anyway—we
can see how the plague of femininity infested women: The proof of the so-called
"weaker sex" legitimacy was found in biology, a proven fact, as it were;
men's bodies had more muscle and were larger; therefore, they were stronger.
This lead to the widespread acceptance of the statement "men are physically
stronger then women," which in turn keeps women in the role of the weaker
and subordinate sex, defining "woman" as weak. But, is it true? Are men
stronger than women? And if so, does it really matter?
In her article, Do Men And Women Have Different Jobs Because of Their
Biological Differences, Karen Messing tackles what she calls the 'weaker
sex' myth. In it she cites the work of Snook & Ciriello, two ergonomists
that conducted studies comparing the strength of men and women. They claimed
six components were included in our overall strength: "raising, lowering,
pushing, pulling, carrying, and walking." They then asked men and women
to carry certain load weights while performing these six tasks. Messing
summarizes the results as follows:
The average man accepted 1.5 times the weight accepted by the average
woman. For pushing and pulling, the figure was 1.2 times as high; for walking,
the sexes accepted equal weights. The longer the effort was sustained,
and the faster the speed, the more the two sexes resembled each other.
Messing continues,
A few points should be noted here. Even where the differences were
most pronounced—in lifting—the weight acceptable to 50 per cent of women
was too heavy for 20 per cent of men.
So, actually, not all men are stronger than all women. In fact,
if we keep things in perspective, the 'weaker sex' myth becomes downright
silly. Using the above statistics, let's say the average woman lifts fifty
pounds. The average man would then be able to lift seventy-five pounds
(or sixty if he's pushing or pulling, and fifty if he's walking). The difference
between the two sexes would then be zero to twenty-five pounds. If we used
a larger number, the result changes slightly. If the woman lifts one hundred
pounds, the man lifts one hundred and fifty pounds (or one hundred and
twenty if he's pulling or pushing, and one hundred if he's walking). So,
now the difference would be zero to fifty pounds. This hardly seems overly
significant. We must also remember that there will be women lifting weight
amounts that some men are not strong enough to lift.
"But," echoes a unanimous male chorus, "the strongest man is still stronger than all women." Yes, he is. But, let's not forget, gentlemen, he's also stronger than all men.
The most interesting outcome of these results is the fact that women fared so well even though we have been playing the role of the 'fair maiden' for so long. Women are not encouraged to be strong; muscles are considered unattractive on a woman. Imagine what the results of the study might have been if society encouraged women to develop strength and 'strong muscles' as much as it does in men.
In fact, when Messing observed Olympic athletes she noted D. Chester's The Olympic Games Handbook, and found that, "in 1924, when women were first allowed to compete in the 400 metre swim, the best man's time was 58 seconds faster than the best woman's; in 1972, women's time had come to equal that of men in 1956 and was only 19 seconds slower than that of the men in the 1972 competition. Similarly, in the 100 metre run, men improved by 0.66 seconds between 1928 and 1972, while women improved by 1.13 seconds."
Again, keeping matters in perspective, let's observe the difference, shall we: 19 seconds. 19 seconds is the difference between strong and weak, is it? Interesting. What is more interesting, however, is the indication that as women become more comfortable with building strength and being strong, the gap between the sexes begins to disappear. That is, if women become more comfortable with strength…
Society still dictates "what a woman is." It will continue to do so for as long as we allow it to. Society deems 'strength' and 'power' as the ultimate conditions a person can attain. These are traits and/or privileges often allocated only to men. The myth prevails: Men are strong; women are weak.
So, what are women to do? Do we become as strong as men, accepting their oppressive system of muscles, power, fear, war, and intimidation as all-powerful, choosing to accept strength as an indication of natural dominance? Or do we simply begin to define "woman" on our own terms, utilizing our own language and value system to grow, nurture and develop into complete and whole beings, and yet, refusing to be afraid of our own strength at the same time? Do we continue to live out the male-created myth of weak, powerless, Barbie-doll imitations, or do we defy society and become human?
The choice should be easy; the choice also should be obvious. And it is. But, never underestimate the power of conformity and acceptance. For many it is perceived as "better" to be an imitation and accepted than to be real and burned at the stake.
What is a woman?
Like I said, that depends on whom you ask. But perhaps it's time we began asking women.
REFERENCES
Chester, D. The Olympic Games Handbook. New York: Scribner, 1975.
Messing, Karen. Do Men and Women Have Different Jobs Because of Their Biological Differences? Women and Men: Interdisciplinary Readings on Gender (Edited by Greta Hofman Nemiroff). Canada: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited, 1987.
Snook, S.M., and Ciriello, V.M. Maximum Weights and Work Loads Acceptable To Female Workers. J. Occup. Med. 16: 527-534, 1974.
These articles originally appearred at:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/feminism_revisited/87107
re-printed with permission.
Bio:
Chantelle Dooley is the Feminism editor at www.suite101.com