The Ashoka and the Oak — An Exploration of Masculinity and Femininity: An Essay

Are masculinity and femininity just ideas? Are they natural behaviours that divide the human race into a simple duality (“Men from Mars” and “Women from Venus” binary, oppositional, always-at-war, thinking)? Are they behaviours that emerge from often-vague biological tendencies?

Introduction to the Analogy

Picture the Ashoka tree and the Oak tree. How do trees generally behave when it’s windy? The leaves sway, fruits (if any) shake a little, the trunk mostly remains steady but in some cases, like the species, or if not properly rooted, or if severed, it may also groove a little. The frequency of the movement, its speed, and other variables, depend on the wind, and other agents of movement too. For instance, if a slender tree is held in place by a human when it’s windy, it’s likely that it remains fairly stable relative to other trees in its vicinity. This is where detailed examination introduces the often overlooked layer of complexity, which isn’t too “complex” — by definition — but simply, a product of normalised whimsical thinking paired with the ease that comes with skimming the surface and floating the familiar waters of the “general.” In fact, upon close examination, to understand what the “general” is, is a task that requires a natural embrace of complexity as the go-to approach.

Now, let’s treat the tree example as an analogy to understand what femininity and masculinity truly are. Are they just ideas? Are they natural behaviours that divide the human race into a simple duality (a duality because most deeply align with the “Men from Mars” and “Women from Venus” binary, oppositional, always-at-war, thinking)? Are they behaviours that emerge from often-vague biological tendencies (remember the previous usage?)? Yes and no.

On Masculinity Masculinity gets to be uncovered from the curtains of misunderstanding and partial understanding first, not because men are better. In fact, it’s another misconception to think that masculinity equals men and femininity equals women. It’s a normalised misconception to think that men are masculine and women are feminine. Often, men have to become masculine and prove it constantly. The same applies to women. Masculinity comes to be understood — truly — first here, again not because “patriarchy still flows in the veins of ‘mankind’ (when did men become kind?).” It does, in fact. Not in our veins though. Fairly and generally not in our behaviour (remember the previous usage of “general”?). But in our thoughts, not directly (generally) but indirectly. An explanation to this gets a mention later.

Masculinity, finally, gets to be uncovered first, here, because of how less uncovered it already is. In other words, it is misunderstood by both men and women.

Go back to the analogy of the Ashoka and the Oak. Masculinity would be the general tendencies of behaviour shown by the Oak when the wind blows. We fairly understand what “general” is. What are tendencies? Tendencies — in this context — are predispositional, often genetically-determined traits. They are often dormant. It is the environment (nature vs. nurture battle in Psychology) that decides how those tendencies are expressed, or if they are even expressed at all. For instance, person A is out of tendency aggressive. In other words, easily reactive to environmental stimuli. Now it is environmental rearing, nurturing, that determines how that aggressiveness expresses itself. If person A is put to learn the martial arts, they might (generally) be able to channelise their aggression into it and through it. Or their aggression might find its expression through high-risk and adrenaline-arousing sport. Or it may manifest as an ambitious personality (Type A personality). Or it may even find its way through breaking a vase at home, every time they find themselves disappointed.

Now, masculinity gets labelled as “remaining steady when the wind blows”, “appeal for high-risk sport”, “proclivity to break vases”, “soaring ambition”, and more such fatalistic, deterministic, shallow, and overly generalised labels. Remember the questions. So, what is masculinity truly?

Is it fair to reduce masculinity to a set of behaviours calling them “natural” when they are more a product of environmental conditioning than biological tendency? Of course, testosterone creates aggression. But remember that is dormant hormonal activity contingent upon external environmental conditioning. Yes, most men are into sport. But so are women. Many men are into leadership. So are women now. Previously, and even now to a great degree, women are assumed to not have a flair for leadership. Many say “women are conflict-avoidant”. Many studies reveal that women — on an average — can handle conflicts better before they escalate into physical violence. Is this biological? Or a cultural idea, a product of male hegemony? In Ancient Greece, women were assumed to be incapable of voting. But now, it is illegal (in most parts of the world) to prevent a woman from voting. What has biologically shifted in a woman’s ability to vote? The ideas have.

Similarly, if men and boys are a mere product of testosterone then for all of them wrestling would have been a common sport. But is it? Sport is a common category (generally) for most. But the kind of sport isn’t. Where does the variability come from? Environmental conditioning, nurturing, and vague social ideas about “playing such and such sport makes a man manly.”

Masculinity is not completely biological. Not completely ideological. But a mixture of both. But not equally. The scale drops (heavier) lower on the side of ideology. It is for a reason. The human ability to repetitively do the unnatural to make it natural. Unnatural here refers to anything that isn’t biologically guided. Natural here refers to what eventually becomes natural or a part of social human living, once there’s enough conditioning and repetition. It is not “natural” in the biological sense. Agriculture isn’t natural. But it is. Ponder over the wordplay.

On Femininity Femininity would be the general tendencies of behaviour shown by the Ashoka when the wind blows. With the basic ideas in place, it becomes relatively easier to understand the nuances of femininity. Except when we compare it to the recent rapidly evolving idea of what it means to be a woman. Not a female. Going by feminism, modern femininity is a woman’s culturally-gifted ability to do whatever she wants to, especially what once was restricted to the “prince in a fairytale, always right in time to save the maiden who isn’t biologically deprived of the ability to save herself.”

As much as we like to say that the pandemic of patriarchy has left humans, it hasn’t ideologically left us. In indirect ways especially. Every time we want a woman to be shorter than the man she wants to get married to, we are slaves to patriarchy, in our “natural” desire to yearn for the “perfect couple.” The man steps out to earn. Today, the woman too does so. But once the woman steps into the doors of her household, she must perfectly know what the children want for dinner and prepare it too, ensure that their homework is done, the clothes are dry and back into the cupboard, and if there were an unexpected guest to drop in at that moment, she should be all ready for a battle that’s considered to be only hers. Yes, traditionally and even evolutionarily women have picked up the tasks of nurturing, caring, and household responsibility. But that doesn’t deprive them of the ability to do anything else. Every time we laugh at a boy playing with a doll but appreciate a girl playing with a toy truck, we reinforce patriarchy. We still believe that feminine ways of being are somewhat inferior. We are quite willing to send little girls to taekwondo classes but how willing are we to send little boys to knitting clubs?

As long as we frown upon fathers who choose to be stay-at-home-dads, we reinforce patriarchy in ways we think we are being perfectly “just.” As long as we think a woman needs a man to accompany her to places, that she needs to lift the tray for the guests, that she needs to be the harmoniser, that she needs to obsess over her looks and prioritise that over her authenticity, that she is somewhat more responsible for the child than the father (this isn’t about the biological maternal instinct), we reinforce ideas we think we have abandoned.

Femininity and masculinity are not just general ideas fuzzily borrowed from behavioural tendencies. They are valid only if they are repeatedly performed. They have to be enacted almost like actors acting for a stage play. This takes us back to the idea introduced in the beginning — the performative aspect of masculinity and femininity.

Gender: A Performance

If it is true that femininity and masculinity are more ideas and less biological tendencies (although biology does play an important role), then they have to be believed in. And beliefs flutter away once you stop believing in them. They are ideas, the mind’s creations, which may be based on reality as we know it, or not. Therefore, the strategy employed to hold on to them is to repeat them, practise them, and if someone chooses to deviate then they have to be corrected in real time (yes, it sounds rigid and limiting).

This reminds me of the poem “The Glove and the Lions” by Leigh Hunt. An important theme it touches upon is how masculinity expects men to prove their love (the classic rose and the kneeling) to women and the vanity in love often associated with femininity.

Performance is central to femininity and masculinity. If femininity were so natural then why would society reiterate “profound” lessons on what makes a “good” mother, wife, sister, among others. India isn’t ignorant to the not-so-far-past (and even today in some regions) when a good and pious woman was a woman who “proudly” hid her face behind the veil and walked with her head down. This was an expression of dignity, whatsoever the reason behind the practice may be. Every social event becomes a platform where a woman must prove her femininity by an extravagant display of fashion, eloquence, mannerisms, and how well-kept her household is.

If masculinity were so natural then what would be the reason to “man up” and “grow chest hair”? Why would the pressure to win a competition, especially when it was against a girl, exist? Every restaurant visit instills pressure in the man to take the lead, place the orders, and pay the bills. The funny part is even if the woman earns, her socially-imposed femininity expects her to shy away from paying, and the man’s socially imposed masculinity expects him to strain himself into paying. If there’s scarcity, it must not be disclosed.

What happens if one refuses to obey the “natural” laws of masculinity and femininity? They are called impractical. That’s it. It justifies everything.

Then, one day a reform comes about. Women begin earning. Men are encouraged to be emotional in public (other than anger which is masculinity’s honour) and speak about their feelings. People all over the world (mostly) speak about such changes. They become beliefs. They become the “normal” and “natural” way of living. This is no longer impractical. Then suddenly someone says “If women are given a choice whether to work or not, then give men a choice too. Promote the practice of the stay-at-home dad.” Someone says “Give women the option to not know how to cook.” The response is — “It’s impractical. The world does not work this way.” Yes, the world does not work this way, which is why change is being aspired for.

Flip through the pages of history and get a glimpse of the attire of medieval Indian kings. From necklaces, to grand and colourful robes, to artistic shoes, to even decorative earrings, doesn’t every little clothing detail remind one of femininity, at least from the perspective of today? Wear black and grey, occasionally blue, not many accessories, and voila! You are an aesthetically minimal modern man! But this would make a rather dull man back in the medieval world.

Flip back to almost a century and the popular idea of “blue for boys and pink for girls” finds a “strange” reversal. In the late 19th to early 20th century, blue was treated as a “girl’s colour” and pink as a “boy’s colour.” This was not as rampant as the colour divide today but it did exist. And was completely normal. Before American mainstream advertising took over and used a flipping of colour to blue for boys to pink for girls to promote so-called boy and girl toys.

Conclusion — Trusting the Idealist’s Voice

Trust the idealist’s voice. Real world constraints matter but they come later. The idea, rather the possibility of the idea cannot be denied just because many present conditions make its quick applicability difficult.

In conclusion, masculinity and femininity as we understand it commonly, is a complex multifaceted concept that resists general labels. It is necessary to embrace the complexity of the topic to become more accepting of differences and similarities in gender and performance. This is not just necessary for maintaining conceptual clarity because then it would be limited to academia. It is necessary because it affects how we think about the humans around us, how we treat each other, what opportunities we give and what we withhold from others. Finally, how we choose to look at ourselves. The underlying guide, however, is openness. Openness to think, explore, change, adapt, and destabilise preconceived ideas about the world.

While the very basis of masculinity and femininity emerges from biological abilities and constraints, a greater aspect of it is cultural reinforcement and ideation. Ideas about what it means to be non-binary, a woman, or a man, are often exaggerated claims about biological capacities and limitations. They are more a work of the brain’s genius, the brain child of the brain, than genetic encoding. However, that does not completely eliminate the role of biology.

The Ashoka sways when the wind blows. So does the Oak. The Ashoka may not sway. The Oak may not sway too.

As you (hopefully) continue to ponder, do take sometime to also visit Mind Tales *(https://mindtales2024.blogspot.com/)*, my personal blog on Blogger, a “personal library” for anyone who relishes “philosophical and reflective essays”, “short stories”, “poems”, and undertones of “literary psychology.” Also do share insightful views.

The farmer observes the undergrowth green,

She studies the quickly invading weed.

The semblance of earthly green fur is seen,

To let it flower, the riskiest deed.

She must erase it all and leave no trace,

Lest she wants her crop to die a slow death.

The weed exiled to the wild Forest’s race,

Away from pruning, the land of tamed breath.

Visit https://mindtales2024.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-invasive-weed-dialectic-poem.html to find out what happens next in “The Invasive Weed”.

Gaurav Chandra Tuli

Bengaluru, India.