feminine-genius

Two fathers, three fine women

I think these two stories mesh well, and show both the complementarity in vocations and the gratitude that men have for the unexpected gifts that the women in their lives offer.

First, how lovely to hear about the "feminine genius" in Father Zuhlsdorf's dear mother. 

Coming home one evening at suppertime, ready to dig into the kitchen and make something to eat for us, I arrived at the door and was greeted with wondrous fragrances.The table was set and there was great golden brown bird and dishes with delights.

That it was Thanksgiving struck me like thunder.

Not your ordinary midwestern repast, but you must read the piece for the full effect. Secondly, a father discovers that his plans for his daughters differ somewhat from God's plans.

My little girl, now twenty-nine, lies prostrate while a priest intones the litany of the saints, calling each to witness and help her fulfill her vow—the Virgin Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, Padre Pio, Elizabeth Ann Seton, the angels, one by one, St. Teresa, St. Joseph, St. Francis, a divine roll call. Crowned with a wreath of flowers, she completes the mystical marriage by taking a ring on her right hand—my father’s wedding ring. My mother, kneeling behind me, weeps for joy to see their marital love thus renewed. At times it seems the thousand others in the grand cathedral fade away and there is no one else there but my daughters.

It is in giving that we receive, and it letting go that we find God's will. Thank you, Lord, for those in our lives whose total embrace of their vocation enhances our own. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Voice of the Bridegroom II

This week's snippet comes from one of the most profound essays on the priesthood I have ever read, found here. It should really be read, savoured, prayed over and saved for rereading later. Here, Father John Cihak gives an excellent template for the relationship between women and priests.

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said..." (Jn. 19:26). It begins with a gaze from our Lord seeing His Mother and His priest...She hears, "Woman, behold your son" (Jn. 19:26). He calls her "Woman", not "Mom". Feel the distancing. These words must have been especially painful for her. As mother all she wants is to be close to Him and even to die with Him so that she can be close to Him. "Woman" isolates her from Him. He pushes her away, not in cruelty, but so that she can become the New Eve, the mother of all those who would live eternally. Her agony is the labor pains giving birth to the Church. Here the distinction between Our Lady and the Church, which should never be a separation, is perhaps a little more pronounced. Here she is giving birth to the Church, acting as Mother of the Church, through her interior agony.

St. John is at her side. It is no coincidence that a priest of the new covenant stands at the Cross with Jesus. St. John also is undergoing his own interior crucifixion, being conformed as priest to the Cross of the eternal High Priest. Perhaps we can sense St. John's helplessness. There is no worse feeling for a man than that of helplessness. What words could he utter seeing her in such agony? The sword piercing her Immaculate Heart is going through his priestly heart as well. This is not some heroic charge to victory. It is blackness, loneliness, a dark night; it is the whole messed-up incongruity of the collision between love and sin. It feels like and is death.

"Then Jesus says to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!'" (Jn. 19:27). At this moment, Jesus asks the Apostle in the depth of his own pain to attune himself to her. As priest, he must decide to put her first, attune himself to her heart. He must put her suffering ahead of his own. I imagine St. John turning toward Our Lady, and looking at her with such tenderness and reverence. Jesus sends His command deep into the heart of his priest, "Look at her...receive her...take care of her." As a man, he must feel helpless and inadequate, but now he has been given a manly task. St. John is commanded to care for her, to comfort her, to hold her, to protect her because she is so alone and vulnerable at that moment. Such a command would resonate deeply in the heart of such a man: he must look beyond his pain and accommodate himself to her, and have all that is best about being a man rise up within him in a great act of celibate agape. The choice to be attentive to her pain brings him to the threshold of entering into his spousal love and paternity as a celibate, as the Church is coming to birth.

I like to meditate on that scene, pondering the eyes of Our Lady and St. John as they meet in their mutual agony. Neither of them seems to have Jesus anymore. At that moment she needs St. John; she also allows him to help her. She is so alone at that moment. She who is sinless allows her great poverty of spirit to need this man and priest beside her. Her feminine complementarity draws out the best in St. John's masculine heart. The need for his support and protection must have connected to something deep within him as a man. How does he help her? St. John says that he then took her "into his own" (in Greek, eis ta idia). What does this mean? "His house," as many translations read? "His things"? What about "everything that he is"? Perhaps it indicates that he takes her into his life as a priest.

She also is supporting him. He is depending on her in that moment for he too is so alone. I wonder if he felt abandoned by the other apostles. She leads the way in sacrificing herself, for her feminine heart is more receptive and more attuned to Jesus'. She is not only present but leads the way for him, helping the priest to have his own heart pierced as well. There is much here to ponder as she engages his masculine love. He gives himself over to her, to cherish her and console her. At this moment she needs him and needs him to be strong, even if she is the one really supporting him.

The Blessed Virgin Mary's role is to call out of the priest this celibate agape to help him become a husband to the Church and a spiritual father—a strong father, even in his weakness. She does this at the Cross by drawing the priest out of his own pain to offer pure masculine love in the midst of her own pure feminine love. This scene becomes an icon of the relationship between the priest and the Church. The priest hands himself over to the Church in her suffering and need – to have his life shaped by hers. At the foot of the Cross the Church agonizes in labor to give birth to the members of the mystical body. I am struck by the next verse in this passage from the Gospel of St. John: "After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said... 'I thirst'" (Jn. 19:28). It was after this exchange of love at the foot of the Cross that "all was now finished".

The meaning of dogs and cats

I must commend our local sage, who has done a great service for the next generation. Choosing a life's partner is tricky business, but with guidelines like these, fewer people will make a tragic mistake:

So then, whom could you marry?  A long time ago we came up with something we called "Esolen's Rules."  They're only half facetious. But they are an attempt to get at the normal:

1. Don't marry a woman who likes cats but does not like dogs.  You may marry a woman who doesn't like either, or whose reason for not liking dogs is that one of them bit her when she was a toddler.  But a woman who likes cats but does not like dogs will be a Joan Crawford or Jane Wyman.  Ronald Reagan married Jane Wyman, and look how sorry he was about that.

2. Don't marry a man who is neater than you are.  You may, however, marry a man who polishes his tools and puts them away after use....

3. Don't marry anybody, man or woman, who says, "I'm going to call you at eight," and then leaves you waiting by the phone for an hour. Exceptions can be made for people who are kidnapped by Arabs, or who have epileptic seizures.

4. Don't marry anybody who insists on a separate bank account, bed, bathroom, vacation, or zip code.  It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.

5. Don't marry a woman who spends more on makeup than she does on food.  In general, don't marry a woman who engages in the sin of reverse gluttony.

6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs.  Such men do not like children.  Don't marry a man who does not like children.  On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count. Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.

7. Don't marry a woman who exercises so frequently that you cannot tell if she is a woman or a very strange looking 13-year-old boy.  I'm going out on a line here, but the real purpose of the rule is to determine whether she will mind getting fat, as happens when you are going to have a child.  In other words, don't marry a woman whom you cannot imagine having a child.  Do not marry a woman who does not like children.

8. Do not marry a man who treats his mother or his sisters discourteously.  As he treats his mother, so will he treat you.  But by all means do not marry a man who takes his direction from his mother, or who is ruled by his mother's ambitions.  Mama's boys are unhappy, and they make their wives unhappy too.  So are the mothers of mama's boys, come to think of it. Unhappy days are here again.

9. Do not marry a woman who sneers at innocent male pastimes, such as football.  Such women do not really enjoy the company of men, and after a period soon reached, do not enjoy the company of their own husbands.  They are also the most ignorant of what men are really like.  You may marry a tomboy, so long as she's a girlish tomboy and doesn't take the sport with dreadful seriousness. You may marry a Daddy's girl, so long as she is not spoiled when it comes to money.

10. Never marry anyone who is secretive about money.  Such people are also secretive about sex.

11. Never marry a man who lets you take the initiative in everything.  You want a jellyfish, maybe?  You want Burt Lancaster instead.

12. Never marry a woman who never lets you take the initiative in anything.  You want a porcupine, maybe?  You want Maureen O'Hara instead.

13. Never marry a woman who does not laugh at your jokes or your buffoonery.  That is one of the nicest ways in which men "serve" women, and women respond by taking delight in the antics.  That is why God made impersonators of Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, and Homer Simpson.  It may in fact be the principal justification for the existence of Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, and Homer Simpson.  This rule is simply an instance of the more general rule that you should never marry a woman who does not genuinely admire you, nor should a woman marry a man whom she does not admire.

14. Never marry anyone who delights in "exposing" you in public.  Teasing does not count; in fact, never marry a man who cannot be teased.  You can marry a woman who cannot be teased.

15. Never marry a man who is not admired by respectable male friends.  The people in the world who know a man best are the men he works and plays with.  They know well if he is a cheat, a thug, a loser.  You may marry a man who does not have female friends.  If anything, you should be suspicious of a man whose friends are principally female.  The men may be avoiding him, and there is a reason for that.

16. Never marry anyone who is not interested in looking at your fourth-grade yearbook.  This means: never marry anyone who seems unaware that he or she is marrying also a family, a hometown, a past, silly friends, comedies and tragedies.  Never marry anyone who does not want to meet your father and mother.  If your sister doesn't like him, dump him.  If your sister doesn't like her, dump her.  That is why God created sisters.  Their approval, however, is not a sufficient condition; they will occasionally like losers, but they almost never detest good marrying material.

17. Never marry a feminist of either sex.  That would be as bad as marrying someone with the soul (not the occupation, but the soul) of a lawyer.

18. Never marry anyone whom you catch in a lie, even a little one.  Trust us on this one.  People in love are about the most gullible creatures on God's green earth.  In fact, beside the dictionary entry on "gullible" there's a picture of a woman in love, eyes looking dreamily upward, hands holding her chin; and a picture of an indignant young man defending the honor of his beloved, who would never do such a thing, no sir!

19. Never marry a woman who does not like to feed people, or a man who does not like to help out with the removal of a junked car, regardless of how much he knows about junked cars.  By all means marry a woman who enjoys seeing men eat, or a man who looks at a mudslide and says, "I can make a really fine wall out of that."

20. Never marry anyone, man or woman, who scoffs at virtue, who reduces "good" and "evil" to arbitrary counters in the war of all against all, whose humor is flippancy, who looks down upon janitors and maids, who cannot delight in making simple things (like a batting T or a thank-you note), who thinks tradition is old and shopworn (such people are followers of every fad that comes), and who is never, ever, just relaxed, grateful for a shady seat under the maple tree in fall.  That is another way of saying that you should never marry anyone who does not know who God is.

Simply. Fascinating.

I've never heard of Will Wilkinson, but this piece has some "primal" thoughts that have to be reckoned with. He's scathingly honest, finding Sarah, well, sexy. I find it refreshing, actually, that thinking men don't get [too] distracted by bimbos and other brain-dead offerings of the female persuasion. But consider this:

Palin exudes sexual confidence and maternal authority, which in a relatively conservative culture like ours is the most recognizable and viscerally comprehensible form of female power. It makes a lot of men uncomfortable, but that’s because it’s the kind of female power they are most often subject to, and most often fail to successfully resist. I spent much of my life taking orders from women a lot like Sarah Palin — women like my mother and my Iowa public school teachers. Indeed, it makes a lot more emotional sense for me to feel led by by a woman like that than by some hotshot Air Force pilot. When a guy with a buzzcut says “jump,” I say “screw you.” When a woman like Sarah Palin says “jump,” I am inclined to deferentially inquire into the requirements of this jump.

Now I could quibble about the words "power" and "authority" which are not interchangeable, but I understand what he's saying. Is this what sets Sarah apart? Is it so primal that it has gone undefined thus far? It fits with our Catholic paradigm of authority coming top-down from God through the "great chain of being."

Interestingly enough, while Christendom counted on this theory to explain each person's place in creation and how vocations worked, it was rattled to its core by the horrific plagues of the 14th century. It would be a marvel to behold if human nature came seeping through the chaos of the deconstruction of the family and human sexuality just in time to keep us from going over a cliff.

As you know, the Church is proud to have glorified and liberated women, and in the course of the centuries, in diversity of characters, to have brought into relief her basic equality with man. But the hour is coming, in fact has come, when the vocation of woman is being achieved in its fullness, the hour in which woman acquires in the world an influence, an effect, and a power never hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment, when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women impregnated with the spirit of the gospel can do much to aid mankind in not falling (Closing Documents, Second Vatican Council).

Men's feminine side?

Sister Prudence Allen is a genius when it comes to the theology of the body, and this most excellent piece has been posted on the Pontifical Council for the Laity site. There is so much more that I'll be highlighting in the coming weeks about it, but how about this essential point:

At the same time, Pope John Paul II took a different approach to masculinity and femininity than did his predecessor Stein. He did not then, nor did he ever, suggest that a man may have femininity or a woman masculinity. Instead, he argued that masculinity is a man’s way of being and acting in the world, and femininity is a woman’s way of being and acting in the world: "masculinity and femininity [are] . . . two ways of ‘being a body’” (Original Unity, pp. 61-91).

I've debated that point so many times (coming down on the side of JP2) but how much easier it would have been had I had that succinct quote!

Vive la difference!

Not many would draw broad lines around "male" characteristics and "female" characteristics, but having been exposed to competetive sports for women for most of my life, I would say that there are some differences between the sexes beyond upper body strength. Coaches know that it's infinitely harder to energise women, compared to men. (This has also been a factor in the military.) Men in general love challenges, and name-calling often lights a fire/enrages them to the point that they'll work hard to spite the one insulting them. Women need coaxing, which builds their confidence and allows them to excel.

For example:

Coach of men: "Come on you panty-waisted gold-brickers, my granny could outrun all of you -- now let's go!"

Coach of women: "I know you ladies have worked hard, are the best on the field, and want it more than they do -- now let's go!"

[As an aside: the problem in the military is co-ed ranks -- which method do you use?]

In sports, to make men excel, you bring out their competetive best which assumes a level playing field as a forum; for women to excel they must deny their collaborative bent, their concern for the person, and their desire that everyone feels good at the end. Thus, while "fairness" is crucial to both men and women, I think that men and women understand fairness differently. Also and over the years, the women who prioritised winning often were brutal and crude to their fellow players, which causes an internal strain. Men can leave rivalry on the field (as part of their ability to compartmentalise), women can't. It's a tough environment in which to stay feminine, meaning "attentive to the good of the other."

With all that said, consider this fascinating softball scenario, in which a player comes up lame at first base, after hitting a tremendous home-run.

With two runners on base and a strike against her, Sara Tucholsky of Western Oregon University uncorked her best swing and did something she had never done, in high school or college. Her first home run cleared the center-field fence.

But it appeared to be the shortest of dreams come true when she missed first base, started back to tag it and collapsed with a knee injury. She crawled back to first but could do no more. The first-base coach said she would be called out if her teammates tried to help her. Or, the umpire said, a pinch runner could be called in, and the homer would count as a single.

Then, members of the Central Washington University softball team stunned spectators by carrying Tucholsky around the bases Saturday so the three-run homer would count - an act that contributed to their own elimination from the playoffs.

Central Washington first baseman Mallory Holtman, the career home run leader in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference, asked the umpire if she and her teammates could help Tucholsky.

The umpire said there was no rule against it.

So Holtman and shortstop Liz Wallace put their arms under Tucholsky's legs, and she put her arms over their shoulders. The three headed around the base paths, stopping to let Tucholsky touch each base with her good leg.

It was beautiful -- in a personal sense, and yet a disaster professionally for the team.

"She said, 'You deserve it, you hit it over the fence,' and we all kind of just laughed."

"We started laughing when we touched second base," Holtman said. "I said, 'I wonder what this must look like to other people."'

"In the end, it is not about winning and losing so much," Holtman said. "It was about this girl. She hit it over the fence and was in pain, and she deserved a home run."

I salute this as the feminine genius, which somehow the sport didn't completely drub out of them. They'll always remember the game fondly, and truly, their priorities were in order. If guys did this, heads would roll and they'd have to hide for years, n'est-ce pas?

Confirm, don't deny

In my thesis of "woman as icon of the Church," I note in various concrete ways how the lives of women should mirror the sacraments, and in this case, we would look specifically at the sacrament of Confirmation. Additionally, just as Mary was the conduit between God and man, women have the privilege in being bridges between children and their fathers. What we say matters, what we do matters, and how much innate respect we hold for the men in our lives is telegraphed to our perceptive children: daily, hourly.

Years ago, Son One exhibited a growing frustration with the depiction of men in the media. Using his normal teen eloquence, he asked, "Why do the women always own the men?" I don't think the vocabulary speaks of titles and deeds, but rather one-upsmanship, in which women were always clever and men, er, not. He had a good point.

The professionals are coming around to his point, and things may change.

The way the advertising industry portrays men has drawn increasing scrutiny in both the trade press and the mainstream media. Defenders of the status quo -- in which men are depicted as irresponsible fathers and lazy, foolish husbands -- are starting to feel outnumbered. It's an understandable feeling.

According to Leo Burnett Worldwide's 2005 "Man Study," four out of five men believe media portrayals of men are inaccurate. The study found that men care more about the way they are viewed than was generally believed.

When Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel did a feature on "men-as-idiots" advertising in 2004, she says she was "astounded" at the amount of mail she received, almost all of it critical of the way men are portrayed in ads. In a Washington Times article in January, advertising-industry journalist Todd Wasserman described getting a similar reaction to a recent article he wrote on anti-male ads.

The evidence is clear: "Man as idiot" isn't going over very well these days.

The stereotype that men have ruled for so long that they deserve a little kick in the shorts is not borne out by the statistics.

The vast majority of learning-disabled students are boys, and boys are four times as likely as girls to receive diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Girls get better grades than boys and are much more likely than boys to graduate high school and enter college. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women earn 60% of all bachelor's degrees and 60% of all master's degrees.

That adult men are "privileged" over women is also questionable. Yes, men do make up the majority of CEOs, politicians and powerbrokers. They also make up the majority of the homeless, the imprisoned, suicide victims and those who die young.

The article goes on to note how many kids live without fathers, and thus the way that fatherhood is depicted in the media is more important than ever -- it may be all they see of the vocation. Why would they want to commit to families given the poor showing they've witnessed, at home and on the screen?

Advertisers are realising their mistake and have launched some campaigns that show men in a positive light -- for the sake of female consumers:

Our campaigns have drawn widespread support from women, who generally do not like to see their sons, husbands and fathers put down. As Rose Cameron, senior VP-planning director and "man expert" at Leo Burnett, says: "One of the great markers [society] looks to about the intelligence of a woman is her choice of husband. So if advertisers position men as idiots in the husband scenario, then you're commenting on her smarts. Women have told us, 'If you want to get on my good side, you do not show my husband as the idiot.'"

Great. Women are holding the industry to a certain standard. Would that they lived it behind closed doors where it really counts. Women can do so much as brokers between growing children and their perceptions of manhood. It's a privilege--and a responsibility--to do it right. Let's turn this corner.

Confess -- it's true!

An excellent [light-hearted] summary of men and women.

Isolating ickiness

Being sans television, I was only vaguely aware that the Flying Nun had popped her cork and loosed a tirade against testosterone. It was nicely summed up today by Pia de Solenni here:

Trivializing something as serious as war by suggesting that it's all the fault of some icky boys is counter-effective to any substantial gains that women have made in the past century. It leaves us back in the elementary school playground with the boys and girls separating themselves and afraid of catching each other's cooties. That's okay as long as it's a short phase in your life. Accomplished adults should be beyond that.

Her premise, nicely arrayed at the beginning, is that women aren't especially known for peace and tranquility. In fact, Pia's memories match my own -- cat fights, silliness, masked aggression, and fangs (carefully bared so that other women catch them, but the men over which they fought often missed the spat). I was even taught (in my brief attempt at learning Chinese) that the language, which uses pictographs, portrays "chaos" as three women under one roof. Everyone got it -- immediately.

Even the Quiet Man played on that theme, as several townsfolk collaborated to convince Will Dannehur to allow his sister to marry Sean Thorntin (John Wayne) as a prelude to Will's courting the rich widow -- since that woman would never consent to enter his house with another woman there.

Yet Sally Flynn ranted that wars were the result of bickering men, which woman -- if given a chance to rule -- would put to flight.

Field got caught somewhere in the midst of her various television and movie roles. Her Gidget and Flying Nun characters epitomized the warm, fuzzy, trite characterization of women that the feminists decried. Make no mistake, Field has played a lot of strong characters, but she's throwing it all away to suggest that all women really are like women in Gidget-land.

Pia explains nicely the complementarity to which men and women are called. Both are called to collaborate for the good of the community, beginning with the smallest community -- the family. Sometimes the community benefits when those who care about them step up to defend the weakest. Sometimes that includes a call to arms. Sally forgot a few things, having lived a few years in Silly-land. Her Gidget experiences were trite -- and indefensible. Let's not allow the playground silliness to make us forget our very serious call to collaborate.

Nature abhors a vacuum II

One of the arguments against the feminisation of our culture is that men are oppressed and that touchy-feely emotions are the foundation of the way people are called to interact. Boys' "hyperactivity" is suppressed, physical excess is discouraged, and everyone is encouraged to sit around, singing kumbayah-style songs. The beauty of the feminine, womyn proclaim, is that females know how to be peace-makers, that they encourage collaboration, and consensus is preferred to conflict. Well, maybe.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Women often avoid conflict, but it can easily be veiled and manifest itself in other ways. Women may not like hierarchies, but they certainly tear down others through gossip, detraction, and ostracism. They can be vicious in their own way and have a way of back-biting that could make one long for a good, clean round of boxing.

That said, all-women environments have a way of morphing into very anti-feminine realms, where peace flees and violence prevails despite the lack of men. This Plymouth case is highly troubling (warning: very disturbing events depicted) and unfortunately is not unique.

There are whole areas populated by female-only households without a committed father to be seen; where the children are wild and violence is their first instinct; and where many of the women are bitter, truculent and aggressive. The grandmother in the Plymouth case was unrepentant since she thought the children’s dog fight would ‘harden them up’ — and said she had done the same with her own children.

What we are seeing is nothing less than a cascade of abuse and neglect down through the generations, so that the instinct that makes morality possible — the ability to feel someone else’s pain, so there is a desire not to hurt them — is wholly absent.

I admit I was stunned by the situation, and yet upon reflection have to conclude that it makes sense. If the thesis holds (woman is first in the order of love, she receives the human person and teaches him to love -- guarded by the father's essential outer layer of protection) then when that layer of protection is absent, she not only loses her center, her peace, but she devolves into a wild thing herself who cannot deal properly with the vicissitudes of life. NOTE: if she herself had a good father and felt safe, even if her husband abandons her with children, she has a sense of God the Father and how to keep the children safe. If she had no father, has no husband, and is left prey to the elements, what can she pass along to the children except the notion, "it's a jungle out there, kids; ain't no one to defend you."

Concerning this, Melanie Phillips concludes:

This has produced generations of women-only households, where emotionally needy girls so often become hopelessly inadequate mothers who abuse and neglect their own children — who, in turn, perpetuate the destructive pattern.

This is culturally nothing less than suicidal. A society reproduces itself by nurturing and protecting its young. If it abuses and harms its children instead, it will end up abusing and harming itself.

If we lose the ability to care for each other, we will lose any sense of a common humanity and stake in a shared future. That is, indeed, what we are doing.

All very dark, and yet in the hands of God. Let's pray that we only add light and salt to the world.