Ellemental

So Keri mentioned she wanted to hear more about the Definition of Femininity from my list the other day. It’s not really all the exciting, but it IS something I’ve been thinking about, so here goes:

This weekend I was reading an articled required for a class I’m taking. The article, regarding Ambition in Women mentioned a study that was done in the 70’s (I think. I’m too lazy to get up and go get the article). The study asked people to read over a long list of attributes, and label them either feminine or masculine. Not surprisingly, the “feminine” list included words like nurturing, shy, gullible, cheerful, etc. The “masculine” list included words like strong, stand up for cause, forceful, etc. Not really earthshattering, eh?

What WAS interesting to me, and it is truly something I’ve never considered before, is that the study revealed that almost every attribute on the feminine list was relational – one has to nurture someone else, be fooled (gullibly) by someone else, be shy around someone else. The masculine attributes were more stand-alone. A person can be strong all by themselves. I don’t know how I could have gotten through 40 years old without ever considering or even knowing that the theory exists that people perceive femininity can only exist in a relationship or in a group of people. Perhaps this is a common theory – a cornerstone of the feminist movement and I somehow didn’t get the memo. Whatever. I have no idea how I feel about it. Do I agree? Disagree? I have no idea. I need to roll it around in my head for awhile.