Are the Concepts of “Essence of a Woman” and “Essence of a Man” Out of Date?

The article analyzes the views of postmodernists who criticize the essentialist (essential) approach to the causes of gender differences and contrast it with an approach that defines gender roles as a social construct. The author shows the limitations of both approaches. If the first recognizes only biological, then the second – only social reasons for the gender roles of men and women. If essentialism considers the essence of man to be unchanged, then postmodernism absolutizes variability, being a kind of relativism. It is concluded that the third approach is needed, which is based on dialectics, taking into account the role of both natural and social causes, interconnected with each other. According to the author of the article, it is necessary to distinguish between biological, biosocial and social nature of man. The biological essence is determined by the role of two sexes in the continuation and preservation of the genus. At the genetic level, the male sex fulfills the task of development, and the female – conservation. The biosocial essence of a person is expressed in the fact that he has both natural and social components, so it also remains unchanged. If the biological essence of a man and a woman is different and according to it, they are opposites, then the biosocial essence of them is one. The social essence of man is manifested in the features of his social roles, and it is able to change. Society at different stages of its development has a qualitative diversity, which inevitably affects the essence of people living in this period.