feminine-genius

JP2 on the feminine genius

Angelus message of 23 July 1995:

1. It is a "sign of the times" that woman's role is increasingly recognized, not only in the family circle, but also in the wider context of all social activities. Without the contribution of women, society is less alive, culture impoverished, and peace less stable. Situations where women are prevented from developing their full potential and from offering the wealth of their gifts should therefore be considered profoundly unjust, not only to women themselves but to society as a whole.

Of course, the employment of women outside the family, especially during the period when they are fulfilling the most delicate tasks of motherhood, must be done with respect for this fundamental duty. However, apart from this requirement, it is necessary to strive convincingly to ensure that the widest possible space is open to women in all areas of culture, economics, politics and ecclesial life itself, so that all human society is increasingly enriched by the gifts proper to masculinity and femininity.

2. In fact, woman has a genius all her own, which is vitally essential to both society and the Church. It is certainly not a question of comparing woman to man, since it is obvious that they have fundamental dimensions and values in common. However, in man and in woman these acquire different strengths, interests and emphases and it is this very diversity which becomes a source of enrichment.

In Mulieris dignitatem I highlighted one aspect of feminine genius, that I would like to stress today: woman is endowed with a particular capacity for accepting the human being in his concrete form (cf. N. 18). Even this singular feature which prepares her for motherhood, not only physically but also emotionally and spiritually, is inherent in the plan of God who entrusted the human being to woman in an altogether special way (cf. Ibid., n. 30). The woman of course, as much as the man, must take care that her sensitivity does not succumb to the temptation to possessive selfishness, and must put it at the service of authentic love. On these conditions she gives of her best, everywhere adding a touch of generosity, tenderness, and joy of life.

3. Let us look at the Blessed Virgin's example. In the narrative of the wedding at Cana, John's Gospel offers us a vivid detail of her personality when it tells how, in the busy atmosphere of a wedding feast, she alone realized that the wine was about to run out. And to avoid the spouses' joy becoming embarrassment and awkwardness, she did not hesitate to ask Jesus for his first miracle. This is the "genius" of the woman! May Mary's thoughtful sensitivity, totally feminine and maternal, be the ideal mirror of all true femininity and motherhood!

Inadequate vocabulary

I have always argued that women, as icons of the Church, can do or be just about anything except a priest (he's an icon of the bridegroom) or a combat soldier (the Church is a sanctuary, and engaging in battle conflicts with that). Thus I have consistently written and argued against women in combat, despite the fact that they can physically or mentally handle the duty.

Here is an article from a lovely gentleman who argues his point using the chivalric code, and does a decent job of it. This sample alone though, shows that the vocabulary and premise he uses is so out of date and anachronistic that it cannot be used effectively with modern audiences:

First, and simply, I suggest that there is no manly virtue in causing or intentionally allowing the inherent beauty and charm of young womanhood to be grievously disfigured by physical and psychic wounds of war. ...

Let’s consider a question, unasked and unanswered in behalf of the American body politic by the predominantly male Congress that integrated all federal military academies in 1976: "By what high principle might honorable, kind and loving men encourage and enroll women in the armed forces to kill and be killed on their behalf?

What respectable criterion (if any) of national and personal manhood is expressed by men's dependence on women to confront and kill mortal enemies – for the protection, safety and comfort of able men at ease? Boys and girls, juveniles, depend on their mothers to guard and protect them; but we men?

Words like "manhood," "honorable," "comfort," "beauty and charm," "grievously disfigured," "guard and protect" are all red flags for women who hold patriarchy in contempt, and have long trucked with men as economic equals, fellow sexual players, and otherwise independent contractors. They're miserable, of course, but their hackles rise when anyone suggests they need protection, or that it would be a particular shame if they were disfigured or considered lacking in charm. 

I know exactly what Captain Miller means (and I was there on the premises of the Naval Academy watching the first class of women enter in 1976) but these arguments will never fly with folks under 30. Moreover, his noble efforts aren't sustained at the end, as he relies on "ancient moral principles" -- because these fall woefully short of explaining the essence of masculinity and femininity in light of the TOB.

This is a prime example of Protestant theology, though very well-meaning and sincere, which doesn't have the capacity to go deeper. That is precisely where the theology of the body comes in. When it comes to discussing the nuptial essence of creation, we find that anything less than a complete understanding of the relationship between bride and bridegroom (she to bear his life within her and nurture it, he to protect and provide to the point of giving up his life for her) will end up with aberrations that are outside of God's will.

Spare us another round

Suzanne Fields is a conservative columnist who has used an interesting monicker for the next generation, who is surprising many by turning its back on the sexual revolution.

The children and grandchildren of baby boomers have been called a lot of names, and most of the printable ones are taken from the alphabet: Generation X, Y and Z. The young professionals, as they call themselves, may turn out to be the most rebellious generation of all. These are the "New Victorians." They don't wear corsets or submit to confinement while pregnant, but they've turned against the sexual revolution, yearning for tradition in their lives. They're getting married and having babies and, unlike their parents, putting away childish things at an early age.

I find this name troublesome, because I see seeds of much our present discontent in the Victorian age -- all those decades dedicated to prudery, priggishness, dry duty, absorption in human respect, class snobbery, elitism, distain for the body, dysfunction, the use of Christianity as a club and cage, and the widespread erection of whited sepulchres. Have I been too harsh? Perhaps, but we cannot overestimate the effects of Victorianism on the development of social norms in this country, the subsequent backlash of those promoting free love, and ultimately the overriding contempt for duty and authority.

She continues:

Every revolution pushes the pendulum, expecting their choices to stand forever, only to get smacked in the psyche when that pendulum comes back at them as they age and gather a little perspective. There's always a counter-revolution brewing in the secret places of the hearts of the young finding their own places in the world. You can see the New Vics pushing strollers in Park Slope in Brooklyn, where families have moved because Manhattan real estate is so expensive. But not just in Manhattan, which only thinks it commissions the trend toward the latest new thing. In my urban neighborhood of Adams Morgan in Washington, I see the twentysomethings on the lawns of their late Victorian townhouses, teaching a girl to ride a bicycle or throwing a ball to a boy with a new catcher's mitt. It almost feels like the '50s, deja vu all over again.

Please, please no! Let us not fall for this. Our love of the Church's teaching on women, the family, and the beauty of human sexuality is not a backlash or a reaction. It is a conscious informed choice for truth, moderation, and authentic charity -- not fear. More on this after the weekend.

Fast food for fragmented families

Researchers have studied statistics associated with childhood obesity and have come to some conclusions that many women are not going to like. Correlations between the time mothers spend with their children and weight issues seem quite solid, suggesting that the hours mothes spend away working can undermine their children's health in ways not imagined.

The report links the explosion in childhood obesity with the rise in women going out to work, particularly those with young children. In 1984 only 27 per cent of women with children under five in Britain were employed. By 2004 that figure rose to 59 per cent among women who were married or cohabiting, and to 34 per cent for single mothers.

Almost one child in seven aged two to 10 is classified as obese, an increase of a third in a decade, and the Department of Health recently warned that one third of the population would be obese by 2010. Campaigners said that policies supporting work-life balance must be implemented to tackle the problem and prevent a generation of overweight adults burdening the health service in future years.

Dr Colin Waine, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said it was pointless criticising working mothers while no such policies existed.

"If they are working long hours it is understandable that when they come home dog tired and start cooking they will look for something that can be cooked quickly, and often it is these foods that are higher in salt and calories. Also, the less hours they spend with their children, the more sedentary the hobbies their children have - watching TV etc."

Another culprit may be the new-found nemisis of one daughter in this house: high fructose corn syrup, which is ubiquitous and fuels weight problems by its ability to confuse the eater into false hungers. I can easily see that packaged foods are an enormous part of the problem, but I wonder if the study looks into eating habits from the start (i.e. bottles vs. breast) and the possibility that distressed babies begin to eat to console themselves over loss of the mother-unit. That would be hard to quantify, but may also be a factor.

Now, being part of a family dedicated to whole-grains (though not scrupulously healthy eaters) I can attest to the fact that health foods (as packaged in the trend-setting stores) are considerably more expensive than non-healthy. This doesn't mean pre-packaged, which is obviously more expensive than make-it-yourself items, but for the person who wishes to make his own dishes using healthy ingredients will find the endeavor to be more expensive than using processed ingredients. At present, there is an "exclusivity" to "natural foods" that is wholly unnatural. Maddening -- and out of the reach of many lower-income folks who may want to do the right thing. May or may not be a plot, but I dunno.

All in all, this reveals a down-side to the socialist push to incorporate women into the workforce, to communalise child-care and to undermine family bonding. Pathologies run in all sorts of directions, but I wouldn't have put my money on weight issues.

Competing for vice

Melanie B has found an excellent piece written on the foundation of chivalry which says crisply all I've been trying to explain over the years about the masculine vocation. Michael P. Foley writes:

When St. Paul tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph. 5:25), he is essentially telling them to put the welfare of their spouses high above their own, even to the point of death.

Today the concept of “ladies first” is more often than not condemned as quaint or chauvinist, but when it is properly understood and practiced it reflects this Christ-like conversion of male power and aggression to the selfless service of others. It presupposes that if a Christian man is designed to rule, he is to exercise that rule paradoxically by serving, just as Christ exercised his lordship paradoxically by humbly washing the feet of his apostles (John 13:4–16).

This is part of the sign of contradiction that Christianity offers. Sadly, those who don't get what the faith is proposing also don't get what men are asked to do -- rather they see what fallen nature does and they work from there. Melanie concludes:

Of course, it isn't really surprising that feminists don't get chivalry. If you don't understand Christianity, rejecting it as "patriarchal" and therefore de facto evil, you won't be able to comprehend its fruits either. At the heart of chivalry, Foley explains, is Christ's example of selfless love and service. At the heart of feminism is a me-first grasping at power and privilege which is antithetical to a Christian vision of true human dignity.

Beyond this, feminists, in their effort to out-do men, usually choose masculine vices and trump them. This goes for randiness, obsessions with one item or another, and power struggles. Bad for men. Worse for women.

Motherless by decree

I don't think P.D. Eastman imagined in her wildest dreams what this question could dredge up legally, ethically, and medically within fifty years of the publication of her classic children's book.

[An] unmarried man, Roberto d.B, had made arrangements with an unmarried woman friend to have her eggs donated to him for the purpose of being fertilized in vitro (outside her womb). (It is unclear whether the eggs were fertilized by his sperm.) And he had made arrangements with a second woman (the "gestational carrier" or "surrogate mother") to have her carry the embryos to term. (Although the decision states she had family responsibilities, it does not state whether she was married or had sexual relations with any man during the relevant time; if she were married, there would have been an issue about whether her husband was the father of the twins.) When the second woman delivered the fraternal twins in 2001, the hospital reported her as the mother. The man sued to have her name removed and his name listed as sole parent, the father. They both argued that she had no genetic link to the children and never intended to be their mother. The trial court agreed to add his name as father, but to retain her name as mother. An appeal was taken.

So legally, now, these are two six-year-olds with no mother, birth certificates with blank spaces, and a psychological nightmare that only God can heal.

It is clear that the court implicitly held that, although the twins were delivered from the womb of this woman, she was not their mother. There can be only two reasons for so holding. One is that she did not intend to be their mother, but the court expressly states that her intent is not a factor in establishing or not establishing parentage -- any more than it is for men. The alternative justification for this implicit holding is that she was not genetically linked to the children and therefore could not be their mother.

Aint this grand. The deconstruction of gender and consequent restructuring of family and rights allow these two children to be hatched at the whim of a man with a mission to use his seed to stick it to the system.

If neither the gestational carrier nor the egg donor are mothers, then who is mother to these twins? No one. As Judge Cathell observes in dissent, the result is not a finding that a particular woman or particular women are not the twin's mother, but that the twins have no mother. .... These twins are half-orphaned -- by the will of their father, the will of the two women who procreated them, the will of the court. They are motherless by decree.

Atta boy, pops. Nice work. Clever work from all of you -- never mind the shredded souls entering first grade to carry on a life of contradictions. Here unfold two lives who will be marshalled to argue against the very comfort and solace that they desperately need -- in order to defend a tragedy.

____________________________________

UPDATE: Speaking of tragedies, here's another. One might think that the courts (which have already collaborated to ignore the very life of the unborn) are bent on making sure that children's interests are consistently trumped by what adults want. "Want" in the sense of petulant whining, persistent grasping, obsessive avarice, and selfish longing.

While biological bonds shout their claim, one is reminded of the anecdote of the two women fighting over the baby before King Solomon. He knew authentic motherhood by its selflessness and desire for what was in the child's best interest.

Rethinking resource

One of the first resources I offered on the right column as "essential information" was the Independent Women's Forum, which is an endorsement of sorts. I valued many things they did in DC, especially tracking the down side of women in combat, and the dangers of hooking up. To that end, they sponsor a conference each year on sex and dating on Capitol Hill, and I'm increasingly uncomfortable with what's presented. Granted, I'm in my "family cocoon" where there's little connexion with the personal side of politics, the rough and tumble of being single in a fast-paced city, and here I'm language czar -- riding shotgun on what words are even permissible chez nous.

This year's guest was Drew Pinsky, who highlights the fact that many are uncomfortable with the hook-up culture. Speaking to four dozen Washington DC interns,

Pinsky advised the young nubile college aged co-eds that they have three options with sex:

A) Drink Juice 'em up and go. Liquor is quicker -- for girls. Beer Goggles -- for men.
B) Steady Joined at the hip. Live together shack-up. Trial marriage.
C) Hook-up Friends with benefits. Also known as f**k buddies.

He mentions no fourth option.

IWF's Allison Kasic gives this account of the positive outcome that can come of such discussions.

One woman at the conference said that you have to get drunk before hooking up because it is so unnatural -- hooking up is akin to abandoning her core self.  Dr. Drew confirmed that this is a common response from females: “Emotional instincts run counter to the hook-up experience, so women medicate them away.”  If they were sober, they would make different decisions.  A young male in the crowd said he needed to get drunk before a hook-up to medicate the anxiety associated with closeness and rejection.  It is clear from this conversation that college students know that this isn’t healthy behavior (both emotionally and physically), and yet they aren’t sure how to change the culture.

Conversations like the one led by Dr. Drew are an important first step in changing the culture, helping student realize that they aren’t alone in their desire for something different.

So do we compromise and say, "Gee, tough crowd, they need a different approach. At least he sees that they need some restraint." Or do we say, "Completely unacceptable; we could never endorse that."

I realise that IWF board member Charmaine Yoest does not endorse the approach, and that it's a secular outfit at best. This calls to mind the abortion strategy, in which some folks say "no exceptions, now!" whereas others support an incremental approach in order to roll back the damage. In that battle, I'm with the latter group, and yet I'm torn on the IWF. I know we have to engage kids where they are and stimulate their hearts and minds to find a better way to live, but this is ever the problem when joining forces with groups with such different backgrounds. Reasonably similar goals, but widely divergent criteria for meeting them. I'll ponder it more.

Pinsky advised the young nubile college aged co-eds that they have three options with sex:

A) Drink Juice 'em up and go. Liquor is quicker -- for girls. Beer Goggles -- for men.
B) Steady Joined at the hip. Live together shack-up. Trial marriage.
C) Hook-up Friends with benefits. Also known as f**k buddies.

He mentions no fourth option.

Tokenism or effective strategy?

Is it possible that Benedict has been convinced that a little job parity will help the Church's image with women?

Pope Benedict is working on a plan to put more women in top jobs at the Vatican, his spokesman has disclosed.

Briefing journalists after visiting the Pope at his holiday retreat in the Alps, the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pontiff would give women "more space and more importance". At a debate late on Wednesday, the cardinal, who runs the Vatican bureaucracy, said changes would be introduced in an expected reshuffle of senior posts.

"We're drawing up the new appointments in the Vatican - everyone knows that - and in the context of the responsibilities of the women, there'll be posts that they take up", he said.

The top priority of Benedict's papacy is to tackle what Catholic leaders see as rampant secularisation in Europe. A key reason for this, in the view of many Vatican officials, is the disaffection of women who once formed the backbone of Catholic congregations.

Personally speaking, this does nothing for me. Besides the fact that I heppen to believe that Christ died for my sins and established the Church on the rock of Peter, I love the Church because of her teaching on women. I am in the image and likeness of God and find my dignity in the beautiful truth of authentic femininity.

Will women who are disaffected from the Church say, "Aha, the Pope takes me seriously" because of such a manoeuvre? Not a chance. Disaffected women (and men) usually disagree with the Church's view of human sexuality, the nature of the family, and/or the Church's uncompromising respect for all human life. Usually, people leave due to a personal choice or proclivity, and often it's related to a particular wound. The average Catholic -- disaffected or not -- hasn't a clue who's in the hierarchy and who's pushing papers in the Vatican.

Now, that said, it's entirely possible that if women push certain papers, they would push them along a trajectory that will end up engaging women to reconsider their dismissiveness of the Church, but even that is doubtful to me. When the Holy Spirit guides an apostle, good things happen, and there is no gender-game that makes things succeed. (In that case, all sorts of quotas would have to be used to attract souls to Christ.)

Sadly, even the notion of this seems to pander to the male-model that "power brokers" make things happen, and unless women have their hands on some of those "levers of power," women won't be taken seriously in the pews. The Church is not only a sign of contradiction, but should be a manifestation of nuptial love. Redecorating with pink chair setasides is dangerous because of the very premise, and utterly unnecessary, since the Church is the one institution on earth that has always taken women seriously.

And finally, we also know that tokenism is toxic to those trying to accomplish things, surrounded by folks who are suspicious of the "why's and wherefore's" of their very presence.