Why I don’t use the terms “masculine” and “feminine” to define the style essences

Some people call Dramatic, Natural, and Gamine the masculine or yang style essences and Ethereal, Romantic, and Ingenue the feminine or yin style essences. Classic seems typically to be omitted from either category.

Personally, I don’t apply the terms masculine and feminine to the style essences, because I don’t think those terms are highly accurate or useful in the context of style analysis.

Is it accurate to divide the style essences into masculine and feminine?

First, consider that supermodel Heidi Klum has no significant amounts of the so-called feminine style essences—no Ethereal, Romantic, or Ingenue. She has a lot of the so-called masculine essences—a lot of Dramatic and Natural. She also has some Classic.

Heidi is married to Tom Kaulitz, who has a dominant so-called feminine style essence—Ethereal. He also has Gamine.

Overall, Heidi has a greater amount of the so-called masculine essences than Tom. So if we’re going to classify people as appearing masculine or feminine based on their style essences, then apparently Heidi looks more masculine than Tom.

But if you show people a picture of Heidi and Tom together and ask who appears more masculine, people are likely going to say Tom. He’s a better fit for the term masculine as it’s traditionally used.

That’s one reason I don’t think the terms masculine and feminine are accurate in style analysis: when they’re applied to style essences, they don’t correspond to the way that we typically use the terms masculine and feminine.

What terms can we use instead?

In different contexts, words can have different meanings. So arguably, the terms masculine and feminine as used to refer to style types might take on different meanings from their more well-known definitions.

But if so, then why use the terms masculine and feminine at all? If we want to sometimes divide the essences into two categories, it’s less confusing and more precise to call those two categories something like the “straight-lined” essences and the “curving” essences. I think “yang” and “yin,” given that they’re more abstract, are an improvement to “masculine” and “feminine”, but I don’t think we need any of those terms to accurately conceptualize the style essences.

Is it useful to divide the style essences into masculine and feminine?

Some people might argue that dividing the essences into masculine and feminine helps us to understand the clothes, makeup, and hairstyles that look best on the different types. However, I think this division actually promotes misleading conclusions.

Makeup and hair recommendations

First, given that men in western culture generally don’t wear much visible makeup, the makeup recommendations I give to Dramatics, Naturals, and Gamines aren’t to do “masculine” makeup. Many of the hairstyle recommendations I give to these types also aren’t traditionally masculine, such as the recommendation that Dramatics look harmonious in very long sleek hair.

Further, I wouldn’t even say that the makeup recommendations I give to the straight-lined types are more conventionally masculine than the recommendations I give to the curving types. For example, Dramatics and Gamines look more harmonious in heavy matte lipstick and thick matte eyeliner than do Ethereals and Ingenues, who look better in lighter makeup. We could argue that heavier makeup is more feminine than lighter makeup, given that women on average wear more visible makeup than men, and thus that Dramatic and Gamine makeup is actually more “feminine” than Ethereal and Ingenue makeup.

The point is, I don’t think applying the terms “masculine” and “feminine” to the style types is helpful for identifying the types’ best hair and makeup.

Fashion recommendations

The same is true for fashion. You can argue that on average, Dramatic, Natural, and Gamine fashion is more masculine than Ethereal, Ingenue, and Romantic fashion, but the fact is, all six types look harmonious in certain kinds of traditionally feminine clothing, such as wide boho maxi skirts for Naturals and playful mini skirts for Gamines.

So it ends up being potentially misleading to define which essences’ clothes are characteristically masculine, or even simply “more” masculine, because that can give the false impression that Dramatics, Naturals, and Gamines only look good in traditionally masculine clothes.

It’s like arguing that pink lipstick is more masculine than red lipstick. You can make an argument for why that’s true, but in reality, lipstick of any color is stereotypically feminine. So it ends up being potentially misleading, and unhelpful, to say which lipstick is “more” masculine, when neither is stereotypically masculine at all.

Another imperfect analogy—a person with an IQ of 130 is traditionally viewed as highly intelligent. This should be true even if they’re compared to a person with an IQ of 150. A person with an IQ of 130 doesn’t suddenly become unintelligent when compared to someone with a higher IQ.

Similarly, a Gamine or Natural or Dramatic dress doesn’t suddenly become masculine when compared to a (debatably) more feminine dress (an Ingenue or Romantic or Ethereal dress). Dresses in modern western society tend to be conventionally feminine, so Gamine, Natural, and Dramatic dresses are also logically termed feminine items of clothing.

Final thoughts

There’s nothing wrong with looking masculine, in any sense of the word, as a female. But I don’t think the term is sufficiently accurate or useful when applied to the style essences.

I respect different views on the issue, and I think people with different views on the issue can still find common ground in other ways that I conceptualize the types.

A final thought on why Heidi looks more conventionally feminine than Tom, and why many women with more straight-lined style essences look more conventionally feminine than men with more curving essences—it appears that the style essences don’t correspond to biological sex. They’re demonstrably separable. More on why in part 2.