So this morning I came across a phrase in this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/marco-rubio-not-proud-donald-trump-attack/index.html
in which Mr. Trump's male bits are referred to as his "manhood."
I know that this is a common euphemism. But what I'm wondering about is why "manhood" has anything to do with one's anatomy. If for some reason a person with a Y chromosome were to not have said bits, would that reduce his "manhood"? Or eliminate it altogether?
m-w.com defines "manhood" as -
Full Definition of manhood
1 : the condition of being a human being
2 : qualities associated with men : manliness
3 : the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female
4 : adult males : men
5 : penis
So we're defining men by their anatomy. I'd like to submit that this is both inappropriate, and damaging. By equating or defining a sex by their anatomical distinctiveness, it seems to ignore the other complexities of being a man (having a Y chromosome).
I don't know. I just think it's inappropriate. Men and women are biologically distinct, and I'm not ignoring that. But the condition of being a man - or true "manhood" - is separate from the size or even existence of one's anatomical configuration. And I dislike the implication - both in Mr. Rubio's and Mr. Trump's remarks - that the relative size of one's anatomy equates to more prowess, power, or other significance. Again, if someone were to have this removed, would that mean their prowess, power, or whatever, is diminished? I hope there's more to being a man than that.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/marco-rubio-not-proud-donald-trump-attack/index.html
in which Mr. Trump's male bits are referred to as his "manhood."
I know that this is a common euphemism. But what I'm wondering about is why "manhood" has anything to do with one's anatomy. If for some reason a person with a Y chromosome were to not have said bits, would that reduce his "manhood"? Or eliminate it altogether?
m-w.com defines "manhood" as -
Full Definition of manhood
1 : the condition of being a human being
2 : qualities associated with men : manliness
3 : the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female
4 : adult males : men
5 : penis
So we're defining men by their anatomy. I'd like to submit that this is both inappropriate, and damaging. By equating or defining a sex by their anatomical distinctiveness, it seems to ignore the other complexities of being a man (having a Y chromosome).
I don't know. I just think it's inappropriate. Men and women are biologically distinct, and I'm not ignoring that. But the condition of being a man - or true "manhood" - is separate from the size or even existence of one's anatomical configuration. And I dislike the implication - both in Mr. Rubio's and Mr. Trump's remarks - that the relative size of one's anatomy equates to more prowess, power, or other significance. Again, if someone were to have this removed, would that mean their prowess, power, or whatever, is diminished? I hope there's more to being a man than that.
Comments