What do you think of the fact that there is no inverse to "emasculated."

Hamakua · 2011-08-11T06:44:44+00:00

Emasculated implies being "less than a man".

The inverse isn't in our culture because it is viewed that a male needs to "earn" his manhood (coming of age, putting in a good days work, being honorable, etc. etc.) where as the inverse you are looking for is a version pertaining to women.

There is no cultural standard for women to really "earn" their womanhood. To suggest a female starts off "less than" a woman is "oppressive and patriarchal" and that a female might have to earn her "womanhood" is simply a foreign and irrelevant concept.

Different gender expectations by most of society makes any concept of the inverse of "emasculated" as irrelevant.

[edit]

The above is what I can mentally derive from the equation you present, as for opinion, it can break two ways.

One way you could claim to be "considered a man" in society is merit based earned, where not being a "woman" is merit based lost. The two genders have two different starting positions, and only one needs to run the race to earn their accepted or revered identity.

The other way it could break is that being a "woman" the essence of female, is a more passive trait, it is descriptive and specific, but it only embodies an essence that is limited to "being" not "doing". Where as being a "Man" really means "doing as a man would". Since actions are not gender specific, "being a man" could theoretically be achieved by women, but being a "woman" could not be achieved by a man as the essence isn't derived from "doing".

Another aspect, the thing that defines women the most is the concept of childbirth, an "essence" that is nigh impossible for men to "earn".

-There you have it.

kloo2yoo · 2011-08-11T16:23:59+00:00

male:man::female:lady

I'm sure I've heard "she's no lady".

Calling someone a "woman" instead of "a lady" used to be a greater insult.

Thisacc · 2011-08-11T07:23:56+00:00

Femininity doesn't depend on all these external things. Basically to be a woman, all a female has to do is reach puberty.

ExpendableOne · 2011-08-11T15:13:55+00:00

Women don't have to earn "womanhood", they are accepted and embraced as women the moment they reach sexual maturity. Men, on the other hand, are still treated as boys and face harsher expectations when it comes to virtually all aspects of life in order to be socially and sexually perceived, or accepted, as a "man"(And far harsher consequences for not fitting into this preconceived notion of what a man is supposed to be or for not meeting it's associated expectations). Masculine women and feminine women alike will still be socially supported, regardless of their personal lifestyles, and will still be accepted and considered romantically/sexually valuable no matter what.

The closest things to "emasculation" that women can experience are either public defacement(which men experience as well), where a woman's perceived social worth may be diminished through some sort of public humiliation, or having some traditional values being put into question(like not being to cook, clean or be nurturing); though these few expectations also became taboo decades ago and are no longer really expected from women(sexually or socially).

ghebert001 · 2011-08-11T14:49:15+00:00

Efemulated? Women's liberation has allowed them to define what it means to be a woman as whatever the hell they want, while men are still expected to be beasts of burden, providers and protectors and women feel entitled to shame us for not fulfilling those expectations. "Be a real man!", "Man up!" and "You whine more than most women" are just a few of the ways women shame us into being the men they want us to be instead of letting us choose for ourselves.

Bobsutan · 2011-08-11T16:26:34+00:00

If the loss of masculinity is emasculated, then I guess the female version of it would be getting called "butch", as in lack of femininity or higher than normal masculine traits.

older_than_lolcatz · 2011-08-11T15:16:20+00:00

i automatically thought of ''Effeminate'' but that's also an affliction on men. ugh.

jeannaimard · 2011-08-11T11:19:22+00:00

Well, you can't really rip-off a hole, right?

2011-08-11T08:31:53+00:00

effeminated?

bigskymind · 2011-08-11T09:50:11+00:00

It's an interesting question and reminds me of one I posed here on reddit under a now deleted account - that there is no gender equivalent for females of the phrase "to man up". Somehow it's only men who bear a cultural expectation to take responsibility, be strong and own the consequences of their actions.

pcarvious · 2011-08-11T20:11:18+00:00

I think one of the important things to keep in mind is that we are talking about two distinctly subjective concepts. While there are a lot of traits that overlap in defining what is feminine or masculine, there are also distinct cultural queues that must be considered.

Historically one wouldn't be considered a full fledged woman until they had born a child. By turn men had to go through a grueling right of passage in their own right. In other cultures owning property is the mark of a man. While in still others becoming a women meant having a certain number of brass rings around their necks.

In modern society the rights of passage differ based on religion, on location and on age. The lines between being a man and being a woman are blurring a great deal. So it may not be accurate to look at the definition of masculine or feminine as concrete objects.

2011-08-12T03:20:10+00:00

Feminist theory holds that since being a woman, being "feminine," is already derogatory, there's no reason to consider losing female identity as important--in fact, not being a "girl," a "sissy" or a "wussy" (pussy) is considered part of being a man.

While I don't dispute this reading, I think advancements in women's self-identity have changed the game a bit; whereas in previous generations, a woman who didn't have children was considered "barren" and thus less of a woman, having children no longer signals full womanhood for women. In fact, there really isn't any one particular way for women to "be" women--they are a cultural baseline, sometimes derided, but inexorably existent, "material" in all the senses of the word.

Men, however, are far less material; their masculinity can be taken away at any time; in this sense, the submissive gendering of women actually works in their favor, since there's no point at which a woman can move out of her own gender category and thus lose status--she can't even be a slut anymore with derogatory connotations. Men, however, can be called homosexual slurs, can be derided for not being strong/tough/wealthy/powerful/smart enough to do X or Y, can be called upon to protect, defend, or sacrifice and yet not be given any special regard for such an act (the Titanic effect), and can be personally attacked (usually with shaming tactics) as being part of a larger, systemic problem with men in general. Women, in general, simply aren't considered problematic.

So while I understand that womanhood receives its fair share of derision, it is nonetheless stable as a gender category; transwomen in particular understand just how rigid the defense of traditional womanhood is even to radical feminists, and how unassailable those beliefs are in public discourse. Just try being a 6 foot tall pre-op transwoman attempting to use a woman's bathroom and you'll see just how much women disapprove of anybody else usurping their gender category. Men, on the other hand, are like Rodney Dangerfield--no matter what they do, they get no respect. Women can dress like they do, or not; children can act like them, or not; societies can be run by them, militaries led by them, movements started by them, diseases cured by them, starvation itself beat back by them, but none of those advancements are men's advancements, as a gender. Men are, in many senses of the word, entirely on their own for coming up with their own self-identity.

xVarekai · 2011-08-12T06:54:39+00:00

Defeminized, I think. But it's not as derogatory a word and it's not used nearly as much. There isn't the same feeling of shame wrapped up in it--I can't think of a scenario where I would feel defeminized but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Any ideas?

2011-08-12T09:48:57+00:00

I suppose there is no direct comparative term for women. But there are indirect similar words, or situations.

Women who are unable to have children may feel "less of a woman" due to the expectations of society, just as a man who was unable to have children may feel "less of a man".

In the UK, women who act in an "unladylike" way are known as ladettes. By "unladylike" I mean they drink a lot, have lots of one night stands, swear, fight etc. And ladette, comes from "lad", a term for the type of man who acts like this. I think this comparison is derogatory to both genders.

I saw a film once where a woman lost both breasts to breast cancer, and asked if she could still be a woman without them. And i think in Erin Brokervitch a woman asked the same after losing her uterus. That was sad. It similar to the unable to bear children point, so I wish I'd typed it there, but I can't seem to move this paragraph on my phone... Darn.

ammerique · 2011-08-11T06:56:27+00:00

How about empowered? It's gender neutral but I believe it would be the opposite.

Bobsutan · 2011-08-11T07:20:11+00:00

The opposite to an emasculated man is a feminist woman. Or an ugly woman.

Title	What do you think of the fact that there is no inverse to "emasculated."
Author	Elonine
Upvotes	15
Comments	24
Date	August 11, 2011 6:22 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jfg0p/what_do_you_think_of_the_fact_that_there_is_no/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-do-you-think-of-the-fact-that-there-is-no.1036038 https://theredarchive.com/post/1036038

Comments