Feminine and Masculine
Why in spanish is there feminine and masculine.
8 Answers
In the case of Spanish (and the other Romance languages), because Latin had them (it also had a neuter "gender" but that got lost in the transition to modern Romance languages). In the case of Latin, whatever preceded it had them and so on back to proto-Indoeuropean (for which we have no written records).
The terms "masculine", "feminine" and "neuter" have very little do do with "male"/"female" (aka "natural sex/gender") they are simply designations for classes of nouns applied after the fact. They could just as well have been called "yin" and "yang" or "square" and "round".
Well, in my opinion there is no logical or good reason for noun genders (or adjective genders) either.
But I guess fluent speakers can play games with them.
Who decided which noun should have which gender is a mystery - as far as I know.
Danish has 2 genders - BOTH are neuter - how on earth did that happen? 
Why in spanish is there feminine and masculine.
A more interesting question regarding gender might be: Why on earth is English so aberrant? When you consider that the bulk of all world languages include some sort of noun classification/agreement scheme, the general lack of gender in the English language presents itself, relatively speaking, as a bit of an anomaly. Even so, English did at one time exhibit its own gender system, a fact that is today only evidenced by the our three gendered pronoun system (i.e. "he," "she" and "it").
In any case, if you are wondering why the majority of Western grammars typically refer to certain classes of nouns as either "masculine" or "feminine," you have to blame it on the Greeks—with a little help from the Romans, I suppose.
According to Aristotle, it was an early Greek philosopher by the name of Protagoras who, working in the 5th century B.C., first analyzed and sought to classify each word according to genus (i.e. "type" or "kind"). In any case, it is the Greek word, "?????" (genus) from which we derive the term "gender."
By Protagoras' own reckoning, nouns could be divided into three distinct classes according to the types of endings each took: Male, female and inanimate (a term which was later changed to "in-between" due to the observation that many "inanimate" nouns shared endings with the other two classes of nouns).
Of course, even in Protagoras' time, this classification scheme was criticized due to certain inconsistencies. Nevertheless, such ideas regarding classification were passed on to Latin, and it is through the Latinization of these originally Greek terms that we get the modern classifications "masculine," "feminine" and "neuter ('neither')."
As Vulgar Latin splintered off into the various Romance languages, many gender related distinctions became lost due to shifts in pronunciation. For example, many neuter nouns became incorporated as masculine nouns due to the change of the "-um" and "-us" endings to "-o." Meanwhile, many neuter plurals ending in "-a" became incorporated into the group designated as "feminine nouns." As a result of such developments, modern Spanish no longer recognizes a "neuter" class of nouns as its parent language once did.
Danish has 2 genders - BOTH are neuter - how on earth did that happen?
From what I understand, the two genders of Danish (the common gender and neuter gender) developed out of the originally three-gendered system inherent to all North Germanic (Scandinavian) languages. In the 'original' system, nouns were grouped similarly to Latin, viz. as masculine, feminine and neuter. As the East Scandinavian languages (Danish being among these) developed, however, the masculine and feminine gender classes blended together; that is, they combined to form a single or "common" gender class.
Why in English isn't there feminine and masculine?
Iza - the three gendered pronoun system (i.e. "he," "she" and "it"). is bit of a red herring in my opinion....They are "natural" distinctions.
I'm not sure why you consider this information to be misleading. As these pronouns are clearly rooted in semantic distinctions, this statement was never meant to suggest that English continues to mark gender on a grammatical basis. Nevertheless, there is abundant historical evidence to support the notion that the inflectional forms that are seen in the third person singular pronouns ("he," "she" and "it") are indeed artifacts of a once much richer gendered system. Moreover, there are many linguists who assert that this past tradition is echoed in certain expressions such as "Mother tongue (rather than Father tongue)" and "Sister language (rather than Brother language)," and in certain peculiarities of the language such as the association of sailing vessels (among other things) with the feminine—as evidenced by the following passage:
It was her first voyage, and though she was but a cargo-steamer of twenty-five hundred tons, she was the very best of her kind... (Kipling, R)
Aside from this, it is also worth pointing out that in languages that exhibit formal gender systems, these systems at their core tend to demonstrate at least some relationship–albeit tenuous at times–to semantic notions such as natural gender or common (i.e. animate) vs. neuter (i.e. inanimate), etc. Therefore, to assume that natural gender played absolutely no part, or was, historically speaking, completely unrelated to the development of our own once rich (though now mostly defunct) gender system would be a bit of a red-herring in itself.
-but having "genders" for all nouns in my opinion is just an unnecessary inconvenience.
There are at least a few linguists who, approaching the study of grammar on a functional basis, would agree that grammatical gender, indeed, has no real role in coding and communicating knowledge and therefore, can be considered afunctional as a grammatical device. Whether this is ultimately true of all languages (or even Spanish for that matter), I have no real opinion; however, on the notion that such devices are mere "inconveniences," I think it merely comes down to a matter of perspective. That is to say that, from the viewpoint of a non-native speaker, any grammatical category which differs from or is non-existent in the speaker's original tongue is likely to put him ill at ease, at least until familiarity with the language (if such a level of familiarity is ever reached) acts to erase such discomfort. By the same token, I am sure that there are plenty of facets of English that we take for granted that might seem inconvenient to a non-native learner of English. I think that most people, however, do not tailor their own speech to fit structures that they find to be grammatically convenient, but to structures that they find to be grammatically familiar. The more familiar one becomes with a given grammatical system, the less inconvenient it will become. On the other side of the coin, I also think that were the gender system arbitrarily removed from Spanish, most native Spanish speakers would find using this new and unfamiliar mode of speaking both difficult and inconvenient. 
Because in Spanish speaking countries we have two main sexes: male and female. Makes things interesting.
The German has thre genders: masculine (der), feminine (die) and neuter (das). Why? Who knows. I guess that the articles der, die, das in German became the in English.
so you know who u are talking about a for females or o for males and or a group of males and females
