Masculinity in linguistics

Now that the class has moved from talking about femininity to talking about masculinity, we are once again trying to define the term. Just as when we were defining femininity, I thought it was strange that despite the word's widespread use, we can argue about its definition so long it seems there is no real concrete answer. I think this is a matter of linguistics.

And this is what Marriam Webster says: "having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man"


The use of "Characteristic" and "Usually associated" in these definitions leaves the definition un-concrete. What is usual is determined by society, which could never be truly decided on because people share different opinion. It's understandable then that we fail to completely agree on the definition. It's possible to look into it even more though. Of the word 'usual', Webster says it means "accordant with usage, custom, or habit." This choice of wording really tiers 'usual'. Usage is a pretty universal thing, custom is a cultural thing, and habit is a personal thing. Masculinity, then, is defined in these tiers: there is a non-specific but concrete definition of it worldwide which is mostly biological; there is a cultural definition which relies a lot on media and history; and there is a specific but fickle personal definition that is defined by experiences.