I learned that, to be considered a man, your static and unchanging role or uniquely masculine calling is to:
- Provide
- Protect
- Lead
- Love
Now, granted, there are some characteristic normal distributions of certain traits along a continuum which have tended to be more masculine than feminine - like weightlifting, this is true - but it is no more true than saying because the average height of a man is greater than the average height of a woman therefore height must be a masculine trait. Not so! I'll even include a picture to demonstrate the ridiculousness of this fallacy (even though we make these gender assumptions all the time). Height is a continuum upon which both men and women fall into a bi-modal (two hump) normal distribution like so:
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be had is: height is a human trait - and generally speaking, men are taller than women. This conclusion does not negate the fact half of the male population is taller than 84% of all women - that's a fact from the US Dept of Health. Still, this fact does not support the conclusion that, "since most men are taller than women, therefore tallness is a masculine trait," nor is it accurate to conclude that, "a tall individual could be defined as male sinply because of their height [or female if short for that matter]." These are both very inncorrect assumptions generalities which serve to confuse the question "what defines a person's gender?" Yet, as obvious as it is to see the fallacy in this argument, our society makes theses same kind of sweeping, gender-specific generalizations all the time - on the street they're called stereotypes. And many a person has been confused about the nature of his or her gender simply based on what percentile a well-developed or highly-visible trait landed along the continuum. Tisk, tisk!
And believe it or not - a few quick quantitative searches will show that this same continuum-distributive phenomenon is observed in almost every trait that either men or women can have. There is always a distribution, often characterized by the bimodal shape. It is essential to remember: these bimodal humps - or stereotypes - whatever you want to call them, do not define gender. They simply define what traits are commonly found among a group - not what defines the group.
Yay for science debumking cultural myths and coming to aid us in our discussion of gender roles and gender definitions. Isn't it sad that I resorted to terms like bimodal and normal distribution during a semester where I don't have to take any math classes? A most undeniable certainty.
*hangs head in shame* ;-)
~AK