‘Feminine Identity’

In Plant’s article, the notion of a ‘Feminine Identity’ is brought up in her discussion of Mead’s research of the industrialization of textiles, which she writes, “shatters the scenery of female identity”.  In the article, Plant discusses a specific sort of work as ‘feminine’ due to its manifestation within a historically gendered labour system (in which textiles were made by women), and analyzes the ways in which patriarchal systems act to economically and culturally (esp in the canonization or historicization of ‘western civilization’) exclude ‘women’.  This brought to mind the question of female identity in a contemporary context. Contemporarily in the west, few, if no, jobs are considered ‘inherently’ or ‘naturally’ women’s work (though of course there still is a gender divide in many industries, this divide is not considered to be ‘natural’).    Aside from looking at historical actions which were considered feminine, what can be characterized as a contemporary ‘feminine identity’?  Women and men who might be termed ‘essentialists’ often describe what they purport to be an ‘inherent difference’ between men and women.  While the discussion of ‘sexual difference’ is often brought up and fiercely debated in class, seldom discussed is what a ‘feminine identity’ actually consists of or what the ‘feminine traits’ actually are.  Those who do provide examples of gender difference often uncritically suggest only ridiculously stereotypical conceptions of gender difference; men as more ‘rational’, women as more ‘emotional’ or ‘sensitive’, etc. 

There are many, however, who believe that gender constructs, rather than biological sexual difference, account for perceived differences in men and women.  Personally, I, as a woman do not ascribe any of my identity traits to my ‘woman-hood’.  I often wonder what is meant contemporarily by a ‘feminine identity trait’.  Moreover, I often wonder why it is that people seem so passionate (and often narrow-minded) about asserting sexual difference.  Within a paradigm of ‘gender difference’, women and men who perceive themselves to be naturally more ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ are not excluded from conceptions of ‘the natural’; ‘girly-girls’ and ‘macho-guys’ are considered as ‘normal’ as women and men who do not believe their subjectivity to be defined by gender-specific traits or qualities.  Within the framework of essentialism, however, categories are being assigned to people who often find these categories oppressive, or inadequate in characterizing their experienced subjectivities.  When people suggest that they believe that ‘men and women are inherently different’, they are suggesting that women who do not identify as ‘feminine’, or even as ‘women’, are excluded from a ‘real’, ‘normal’, or ‘natural’ understanding of sexual difference.  An outlook which suggests that all gender constructs are equally constructs, on the other hand, is completely inclusive.  Why is it then, that people seem so adamant about asserting sexual difference?  Furthermore, as was mentioned before, while people often suggest that difference ‘exists’, they never seem to point towards ‘real’ traits or qualities which account for this difference.  I’d be curious to see if you can think of any ‘feminine’ traits which no one in the class finds offensive?  Is the assigning of qualities to a group without their consent inherently violent, oppressive and/or offensive?

mm