How is creativity feminine

That logic stems from the whole "dumb man" stereotype, that you see especially in sitcoms, and the "smart but loyal wife" doing all the thinking.

Also, decorating is seen as a feminine thing. If a man says he likes to decorate, people assume they're gay. It probably doesn't help that interior decorators on television actually perpetuate this. People expect women to be fashionable and expressive, and all that good stuff.

 

I always took it that it came from what we've seen more in females and males, and where their strengths wind up. I remember textbooks saying males tend to be more driven toward logic, and females tend to be more emotional, and thus stronger in the arts.

Of course, there's a definite social shift here, when it comes to that.

 

It's not feminine. There are plenty of creative males such as Paul Cezanne, Pablo Picasso, Claude Monet, Salvador Dali and many, MANY more.

 

I think it comes from the right-brain/left-brain thinking... which has actually been debunked, haha~ Another stereotype of "women are good at staying inside and painting their feelings while men go out and get money with their big brains"

>.>

 

Creativity is NOT feminine. It can take many forms - writing, graphics, fine arts, fashion, product design, media, film, speaking, etc. And some very masculine men, many of whom are or have been (if dead) heterosexual, have undertaken these pursuits with great success.

There is talk about the connectivity between creativity and sexual orientation. There is an above average representation of LGBT folks in creative endeavors. This would be something interesting to discuss though impossible to determine with certainty.

 

I think it's "feminine" in the same way mathematics and sciences are masculine- it's not. As Ryuichi said there is the current understanding that (stereotypically) women are more emotional thinkers while males are more logic-driven. But I think much of it is simply society-based gender distinctions.

I am curious about the higher incidence of LGBT people in the arts. I went to art school and there were certainly a lot of gay guys there. Generally speaking it seems more accepted in the arts, as well, though I do wonder if it's just the mind frame of creative types (to be more open-minded). Or vice versa, that LGBT people are different and thus more likely to be open minded, look at things differently from the "norm," and thus more open to creative thinking.

 

I've always taken the "creativity" stereotype as being based on the fact that women "create" children. We "have the Power of Creation", so to speak, in a way that men do not.

But yeah, in any other sense, it is pure tripe.

 

That is some nonsense right there. Creativity is creativity. I really don't understand some other the stereotypes like these.

 

I've heard this before, that "logic" and "mathematics" are masculine things, and "art" and "creativity" are feminine things. But that doesn't make any sense--look all the artists and inventors who were men.

 

How I love society. "Female" things still have males at the top.

For example:
Cooking is considered to be something women do, but most professional chefs are men.
Fashion and shopping is considered to be something women do, but most fashion designers are men.

These are generalizations. However, it's definitely a pattern.


But, remember, we do not live in a patriarchal society. Nope.

 

Interestingly enough, this stereotype wasn't created in reference to men and women. It was not fundamentally based in sexism or misogyny. It was birthed from classism in regards to average men and upperclass men.

The further back that we go through history we will find that physical strength and ability is deemed as more and more respectable. In ancient tribes, the hierarchy of power within tribes was often directly tied to their physical ability (Which was the primary cause behind the subjugation of women prior to the agricultural revolution). These views in tribal societies is what ultimately gave birth to the ideal of a man's worth being dependent upon his physical prowess. As we move forward thousands of years into more civilized society, nearly all men in society held physical jobs. Whether it was working in the fields as farmers, working on railroads/construction, working as soldiers, etc. As a result this idea that "physical labor makes the man" carries on throughout this time.

How this ties in with creativity being feminine lies within the fact that the middle class and poor were never traditionally allowed to be creative. The creativity of the vast majority of citizens was limited by the fact that they could not receive an education to become writers, poets, intellectuals, etc, but also by the fact that the fact that they simply did not have the time or capital to cultivate those skills. You had to be born in a wealthy family to even consider dedicating your lives to the creative or innovative efforts. It was very much a privilege. Being that essentially all renowned creative minds and intellectuals came from affluent backgrounds and often were not forced to do manual labor, they were often physically less muscular and were general seen as less manly by the majority for not working a proper man's job. The majority mocked academics and artists for being feminine out of resentment for the careers that the rich were capable of having in comparison to the jobs that they were forced to do.

Ultimately, that is how we evolved into a society that viewed creativity and intelligence as feminine while simultaneously barring women from academic institutions and creative appreciation. It wasn't that only women did them. Academia and the arts were just as patriarchal as the rest of society. These traits were seen as feminine in the sense of being "weak" or "lesser". Not feminine in the sense of being tied to women.

 

After Gen's post all I can say is... Hodor.

Damn...

 

After Gen posts in a thread, there's never anything else to be said

 

I think that perceptions went through this hump you allude to. In early days, bravura and displays of strength were viewed as masculine. Lacking these might have been viewed as feminine by way of omission. It could have also been problematic for some because of more rampant Darwinism.

Then, with the Renaissance and periods after that, intellectual pursuits were viewed as things those born into privilege could dabble in. Probably, they were viewed as things to be admired rather than criticized. I still think that some people wondered even back then ...

Now, it has reverted back, but not quite full tilt. The wealthy can still enjoy intellectual (less masculine) pursuits alongside LGBT people who also do or are employed in these capacities, but mass media and social media have put the latter group under the microscope to a much larger degree. I'm not sure if that translates into acceptance and approval. It is what it is.

 

I doubt anyone tried calling Ernest Hemingway feminine. Guy was a man's man who was both badass and quite talented at writing.

It's got to be the bad stereotype though. Men can't express themselves (except through violence), which is what creativity is, so they must be effeminate.

 

I always thought creativity was gender neutral seeing as humans tend to find those who are creatively inclined more attractive but i can see how some people could think that. Its kinda dumb tbh.

 

Women and men can be creative

 

Of course it's feminine. What defines feminine and masculine anyways? The context of our society does. And in the context of our society, males are not supposed to be creative/artistic/eccentric whatever you wanna call it. Sure there are males who are... But that doesn't mean they are masculine males. They are likely gay or metrosexual men if creativity is what they're known for.
If you're defending these people as still being "men" then honestly you are probably not very masculine yourself and/or trying to justify that. It's all a matter of conformity to traditional gender roles and "creative" males simply do not fit. There is certainly nothing wrong with being a "creative" male, and perhaps there is actually something wrong with modern culture if this is unaccepted. But don't try to act like the "creative" types are true men in the eyes of today's culture because that is not the case; and there is no reason for anyone who is not a "creative" type to see it that way.

 

What about instances wherein creativity = control? For example, the relatively new-fangled film industry has almost never allowed women to participate in any creative aspect other than acting, and despite the overwhelming financial/business motivations, filmmaking is regarded as both powerfully creative and exclusively masculine.