Loading ...
Happy Feast of Ascension, everyone! I wanted to write something specially for this feast day, but I’m in the middle of moving so I’m in a frenzy of packing and cleaning and doing last-minute errands. Still, I wouldn’t want to disappoint my fans (I don’t doubt there are many of you out there, who sit at the computer all Thursday pressing “refresh” on your browsers as you wait for my weekly column to appear) so I put a few finishing touches on a little piece I was working on a few days ago.
This week, as I’m getting ready to move, I’ve been sorting through massive piles of old papers and magazines. Though tiring in some ways, it’s also a bit fun to take that stroll down memory lane, and in the stacks I found some packets of interesting tidbits that had been put together by Iosephus more than a year back, when we tried for a short time to run weekly “catechesis” classes. They were an informal affair. I think the main goal, originally, was to help initiate some of the worthy but less Traditional Catholics of our acquaintance into the riches of their Catholic heritage. When, in fact, the most regular attendees ended up being the contributors to this blog, we eventually let the sessions taper off. But they were good fun while they lasted, and Iosephus especially outdid himself with some nuggets of knowledge.
One handout in particular brought back some fond memories. The subject for that week was the resurrection of the dead, and Iosephus had managed to find some delightful tidbits, including, among other things, indications that flying will be possible in Heaven, and also St. Thomas’ speculation about where the matter of the resurrected body would come from if the risen person had consumed nothing but the flesh of others (nice to know that cannibalism won’t necessarily hold you back at the Pearly Gates!) But my attention was particularly arrested by questions about the age and sex of the risen souls.
First, concerning sex, St. Thomas addresses the question: will all rise as men? (This is ST, supplement, question 81, article 3.) Obviously the crucial question is of whether womanhood is an imperfection, and St. Thomas was saddled here with an unhelpful tradition. Aristotle taught that a woman was in effect an abortive attempt at a man; all embryos held manhood, not womanhood, as their proper end. (“The female,” says Aristotle, “is a misbegotten male.”) St. Thomas was likewise much confused in his embryology, but here he takes his cues from that most illustrious Bishop of Hippo and declares that womanhood is not a defect, and that both sexes will be represented in the resurrection. In that blessed existence, the female organs will not arouse lust, but will “be part of a new beauty, which will… arouse the praises of God for his wisdom and compassion, in that he not only created out of nothing but freed from corruption that which he had created.”
I’m relieved to hear that, at least in the view of two of the Church’s most authoritative doctors, there will be both men and women in Paradise. It would seem highly unfitting to suppose that Our Lady had to be raised as a man, and I would be similarly saddened if I were asked to imagine such figures as St. Joseph, St. Paul or St. Ignatius of Loyola rising as women. And if men and women show a deep complimentarity here on Earth, would we not wish to see this mirrored in some way (a more perfect way, of course) in the next life? Just in general, earthly society is made more beautiful when all different sorts of people are represented in it, and it’s nice to think that this effect will be captured to some degree in Heaven as well.
But the story changes when it comes to age. St. Thomas appears to think that all people will be around the same age in the afterlife. His reasoning is straightforward: human nature can suffer from two defects with regards to age. One is seen in children, who are not yet fully mature, and the other can be found in the elderly, who have receded from their body’s most perfect state. In the resurrection, he supposes, all will rise in their body’s state of “ultimate perfection, which is in the youthful age, at which the movement of growth terminates, and from which the movement of decrease begins.”
If I had to be the same age forever, I suppose I would probably choose an age of youthful maturity, just like everyone else. But, foolish flight of fancy as it may be, I was a bit saddened by the idea that the souls in paradise would look like the residents of a college dormitory (not in dress, presumably, but at least in their faces.) Isn’t life more interesting when there are people of different ages? Obviously this doesn’t rise to the level of a serious problem of the sort that should shake anybody’s faith or cause any sleepless nights. We understand so little about heaven anyway, so why waste time dictating what it should be like? We can be relatively sure that if (God willing) we ever get there, it won’t be a disappointment.
Nonetheless, in my present state, it makes for a slightly melancholy reflection.
Anyway, I hope everyone had a joyous feast! I like this feast, and I hope next Feast of the Ascension I’ll be in a better position to honor it properly!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I have heard some of the more modern notions of Thomas’ thoughts in the fact that the Blessed Mother always appears as a young woman in her apparitons. This points to the state of her body (taken body and soul) into heaven. Of course she has also appeared as Mexican peasant which she obviously wasn’t in her pilgrimage of life.
I hope that my bodily resurected version can play the piano (if by God’s grace I make it that far).
Good luck with the packing. That has always been the bane of my existence as I live it here in exile
I spelled “apparitions” incorrectly. A thousand pardons.
No big deal about “apparitions.” “Complementarity” with an “i” though . . . ;)
The Madonna looks quite young in the Pieta when she should look about 48. Franco Zeffirelli cast Olivia Hussey in the role of the Blessed Virgin in “Jesus of Nazareth.” Hussey was only 26, so she made sense as the 14-year-old Mary of the Annunciation or the 15-year-old one of the Nativity. But as I understand it, Hussey looked exactly the same in the Crucifixion scenes. She looked like Jesus’ teenage daughter, not his 40-something mother. I’ve been told that, when asked why he did this, Zeffirelli replied, “Mary was a woman — she would have wanted to look pretty.” True. And senescence (which really should be called anescence for women) is a result of original sin. Since she was exempt from so many punishments of original sin (concupiscence, birth pangs, bodily corruption), she likely was exempt from the decline of age. I believe that a visionary (Ven. Mary of Agreda?) claimed that Our Lady did not show any signs of aging after she turned 33, when the body is at its peak. That is, of course, the time when Our Lord died and rose again. (Sidenote: the Talmud mocks Our Lord for not even making it to the halfway mark of a human life, which “ideally” is 70. Actually, this means that He was at the peak of life — and Life.)
“Isn’t life more interesting when there are people of different ages?” On earth, yes, where there is a succession of generations. This will not be the case in heaven, where there is no longer physical generation. Imagine an earth in which no one ever is ever born or gets married — pretty boring, huh? Yet in heaven we’ll be like the angels insofar as we will neither marry nor be given in marriage. And wouldn’t life be boring if there were no pain or struggles or sacrifice? Yet there won’t be any in the resurrection.
Furthermore, heaven is the place where the physical and spiritual finally are reconciled, as they were in Eden. Spiritual immortality will be matched by physical immortality, spiritual beauty by physical beauty. My mother’s a cripple, and she would lack a number of important insights if she had not been through numerous trials related to her disability. Life on earth is more interesting (and worthwhile) for the fact that some people suffer physical or mental imperfections. But I would reject any “god” who would “reward” my mother with eternal paraplegia — and wrinkles to boot.
In the case of aging, we notice that people almost always lose the innocence of childhood and take decades to acquire the wisdom of age (if they ever do). So we associate these virtues with different ages. Yet it truly would be best if we were both innocent as doves and wise as serpents at the same age when we are most active, energetic, and able-bodied. I think that when we think of the physically-young bodies of the risen saints, we should recall that their souls will at the same time possess the spiritual perfections normally associated with children and older folks, just as they will lack the vices normally associated with people in the bloom of life.
I meant that a human life was, according to Jewish thinking, ideally 70 years, so Our Lord missed the halfway mark by about 2 years.
You talk about pressing “refresh” on our browsers, but I still haven’t found the “edit” button you mentioned previously. Spelling is generally OK but let me know when you install a “grammar” button… I could use it. “Seash”!
If Aristotle was so wrong on what we take for granted—the equality of men and women—then I guess I have grounds for hope on being a philosopher some day. If the Greeks took this idea that a woman is a misbegotten male, there’s no wonder that the “historical woman”, if you will, had an inferiority complex. They didn’t get a chance to compete against the men. I don’t recall any women rivaling Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in ancient Greece and it seems that even to this day, none do. Most likely this set precedence for other areas of learning also. Only today are women becoming theologians, although there are a couple of women Doctors of the Church from the Middle Ages. Of course, when you think of it, women have been so badly treated that you find only men among the great Painters, Sculptors, Architects, Playwrights, Poets, Composers, astronomers… in short those who etched their names in the cultural treasures of civilization. (I forgot to mention Emily Dickinson.) I leave out the categories fitted by nature only to men, i.e. soldiers, explorers, astronauts (although we have a few women astronauts recently) presidents, statesmen, senators (although you have yours of NY) etc.
Even in the territory where women excel, so beleaguered have they been that they are not considered the best cooks. Fine restaurants all have chefs. When it comes to sewing, tailors are in great demand. Even clothes designers are still men and I believe it was Michelangelo who designed the famous uniform of the Swiss Guard.
Of course there is only one “Tainted Natures Solitary Boast” and she is “The Woman” and no one could ever come close to her in wisdom or genius. The Devil could not overcome her but it seems that Aristotle put women, in general, down for centuries.
Discipule, please reconsider your post. (Or was it meant ironically? I often cannot “read” irony, so I apologize if I misunderstand your point.)
“what we take for granted—the equality of men and women”
Men and women both have immortal souls made in the image of God and for which Our Lord died on the Cross. They have equality in this sense. So a woman is not a misbegotten male — true. Yet that does not mean that in their roles in society they have an equal status. No, men are the heads of families, and families are the building-blocks of society. So it is natural that men dominate the state. (Pre-modern queens, duchesses, etc., ruled by virtue of the status of their husband or father, so they are not much of an exception.) Furthermore, simply because men and women both have rational souls does not mean that have equal ability to think abstractly, to exercise foresight or artistic ability, to display concern for others, to empathize and sacrifice lovingly, etc. Men and women, in order to be “complementary,” cannot be equally adept at everything.
“there’s no wonder that the ‘historical woman’, if you will, had an inferiority complex. They didn’t get a chance to compete against the men. I don’t recall any women rivaling Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in ancient Greece and it seems that even to this day, none do.”
This makes women’s “inferiority complex” the artifact of a particular, contingent historical situation (Marx would agree with you . . .). But women *naturally* feel (or should feel) submissive toward men. And to submit is to treat someone else as one’s superior. And that is to regard oneself as inferior, to admit that one is the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7). Not in the sense that we say that one grade of paper is inferior to another, but in the sense that a person in a hierarchical organization has superiors and inferiors. One’s rank in the pyramid does not reflect one’s moral performance, and hence one’s personal worthiness and heavenly reward, but it does affect the way one actually lives one’s life on earth. The husband is the “head” of the wife as St. Paul teaches (I Cor. 11:3). “Superior” means “above,” and that is just what the head is — above the rest of the body (including the side, from which Eve was created). So it is appropriate for women to have an “inferiority complex” in *this* sense.
“They didn’t get a chance to compete against the men.” And why should they have? What is lady-like about competitiveness? Especially against their natural superiors? It wasn’t their job to be men, so they should not have competed. Men needed to hunt, fight wars, till the earth, engage in seafaring and trade, take counsel for the public good, etc. These are things that men’s nature predisposes them for. Women needed to bear children, make clothing, cook food, manage domestic affairs, and engage in cottage industries. Where in all this were they supposed to compete? To educate a man in the arts, the letters, the sciences, etc., was to develop his aptitudes and render him more useful for the society as a whole. And in serving the common weal he earned a living for his own household — two birds with one stone. A woman needed to have many children in order to combat high infant mortality rates. She had to focus primarily on the domestic, and there a thorough education in grammar and rhetoric was not as useful as it was for a man in the forum. A man could spend his teen years in study in preparation for a public career. A woman usually married as soon as she was sexually mature — otherwise a new generation of children could not be assured. To educate women to become Aristotles and Platos would require them to forego marriage and would thereby jeopardize the state. Come to think of it, women in the workforce is one of the top reasons, if not the top one, why demographic collapse threatens the West. Go figure.
On the other hand, with Christianity, some men and women could become celibates. Being free from individual households, both genders could devote themselves to learning without much hassle. So yes, Christianity did open up new avenues of learning to women.
Yet, I don’t buy into much of the “downtrodden woman” interpretation of history. Sappho of Lesbos was known as one of the greatest poets of Ancient Greece. Athenian women were restricted from public life more harshly than the women in the rest of Greece, yet even there a play like the “Lysistrata” could be produced — a play in which women end a war via some extra pressure applied to their husbands. And Socrates on several occasions admits his dependence upon a woman for important insights. Of course in Rome women often wielded considerable power; Livia and Octavia come to mind. Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, was particularly esteemed for her sterling character and education. So when a woman demonstrated great learning, virtue, etc., she was not summarily “suppressed.” It therefore is difficult to see how male contempt and suppression alone accounts for women’s general inability to live up to men’s standards in philosophy, poetry, sculpture, etc.
“Most likely this set precedence for other areas of learning also. Only today are women becoming theologians, although there are a couple of women Doctors of the Church from the Middle Ages.”
The “precedence” idea is not supported by the evidence. Men did not wait for Aristotle’s book on embryology before they started dominating the fields of literature and learning. And who says that women are supposed to be theologians *in the professional sense of the term*? Women have not been official theologians because women do not have any official role as teachers within the Church. We can all learn — and learn theology — from the writings of various female saints and mystics who lived during the period when women supposedly were repressed by the Church. Yet those women do not at all constitute the magisterium and to my knowledge they never objected to the fact that they lacked theology degrees and could not teach at universities. So even the female Doctors of the Church are not precedence for this. And since God, via St. Paul, forbade women to teach or exercise authority over men within the Church (1 Timothy 11-12), women should not be theologians in the professional sense.
“Of course, when you think of it, women have been so badly treated that you find only men among the great Painters, Sculptors, Architects, Playwrights, Poets, Composers, astronomers… in short those who etched their names in the cultural treasures of civilization. (I forgot to mention Emily Dickinson.)”
It is incredible question-begging to say that women’s failure to compete is due to being “so badly treated.” Perhaps men historically have excelled women in the arts and sciences because men naturally excel women in the arts and sciences? There is a truly wonderful episode of the Simpsons in which Marge tells Homer that women invented liquid paper and the windshield-wiper. Homer retorts that men invented *actual paper* and *the car* . . . and “rocket ships, suspension bridges, constitutional government, snow shoes, brass knuckles, pinball machines, the Renaissance . . .” Of course, that night Homer laments that women invented “sleeping on the couch”!
Let’s say that women have not equalled men due to the way they’ve been treated. If women were capable of all these feats, *and* were willing to perform them, then they would also have been able to devise a way to overcome “the way men treat them.” I truly admire female cunning and determination. If women had wanted to reverse the nearly universal “misogyny” posited by Discipulus, they would have. That they did not do so signifies that they did not want to equal men in these fields, or else they realized that they could not do so.
Or let’s say that women really are equally adept at all of these things, but men are just more dominant physically and psychologically and so we suppressed women. Why would God have been so foolish as to have designed human beings in such a way that for most of world history in almost all the world one gender could so suppress the talents of the other as Discipulus seems to claim? I don’t doubt that many men mistreat women, and that this can be institutionalized within a culture. But we can measure this in female tears and heartache. When, other than in modern society, did women ever cry over not being able to “compete” with men in geographical exploration, literature, theology, philosophy, etc.? If male dominance so easily inhibits female endeavors in the fields listed, then one must think that it is part of nature.
But surely God intended men to use their “dominant traits” to aid women, right? Sure! And all those male inventions aid women! It is the man who is the suitor, not the woman. Some sociobiologists (whose materialism I do not share) have said that male superiority in almost all these fields can be attributed to the fact that men show off for women. We are on a virtually 24-7 courtship display for any female who cares to notice. Why do we excel in athletics, in business, in academia, in politics, etc.? A great part of it has to do with the desire to entice, impress, win, and subsequently satisfy a wife. Even if we are not actually looking for a mate, as males we are biologically, neurologically, emotionally, and psychologically hardwired to behave as though we are. That helps explain why when men do not sew or cook professionally, they often disregard these things as women’s work. But when they do sew or cook professionally, they surpass women. Plus, we’re not as emotional, which helps us keep our heads when these tasks are turned into careers and professions instead of domestic demonstrations of personal love and affection.
“Of course there is only one “Tainted Nature’s Solitary Boast” and she is “The Woman” and no one could ever come close to her in wisdom or genius.”
Among *human persons*, there is only Our Lady who was perfect. But Catholics who follow this train of thought fail to note that Our Lord, Who was infinitely more perfect than Our Lady due to the hypostatic union, was a male. If we honor a woman so highly, yet we do so because we honor her Son even more. So it is not as though womankind have a unique claim to moral perfection. No, each gender has a perfect model — a New Adam and a New Eve. And God chose to be incarnate as the New Adam, not as the New Eve. There is a hierarchy of the sexes even amongst the two perfect humans.
“The Devil could not overcome her but it seems that Aristotle put women, in general, down for centuries.”
This is wrong for a host of reasons. First, as I note above, male superiority in these various fields of endeavor (which, btw, do not exhaust all worthwhile human endeavor — the task of loving one’s husband and children are unjustly maligned if we say that) is God-given, not the result of the Devil. Our Lady was a contented housewife, after all. Furthermore, Aristotle did not begin the trend in biology toward minimalizing the contribution of the female. We see that already in Aeschylus’ “The Eumenides” (100 years before Aristotle), when Apollo contends that the male alone begets, the woman is merely a receptacle (i.e. there is no egg). Additionally, Aristotle was not the most influential philosopher during much of the history of philosophy. Plus, male superiority and/or monopoly in the various fields of endeavor cited by Discipulus was usually traditional (i.e. it did not result from any philosophical tenet), it long predated Aristotle, and it has existed in civilizations completely unacquianted with Aristotelian philosophy.
For St. Paul’s ban on female teachers, I meant to cite I Timothy 2.11-12. I forgot the chapter number above.
For a more appreciative take on Aristotle’s treatment of women, see
http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/DobbsAPSR96Women.pdf
Likewise, for the record, I am not at all mandating ignorance for women. There is nothing in what I’ve said that would make it unseemly for a woman to be well-read and well-educated. Many women in the ancient world were, at least when they belonged to that social class in which the men were similarly well-read. Classical literature often was meant to be recited at parties where women attended. Vergil read Book VI of the Aeneid to Octavia, Augustus’ sister, in a private audience so that she could hear the lamentation he wrote there for her late son Marcellus. I merely object to the notion that the reason Vergil wrote the book and not Octavia herself is that Aristotle corrupted western civilization.
As I said, I don’t know if Discipulus was being ironic in the post. But enough people say similar things that a rebuttal here might come in handy.
If you think 1 timothy 2:12 doesn’t rule out teachers in any form I think we can be confident… teaching sisters… unmarried lay women who teach elementary school certainly these are to be allowed and then the camel’s nose is under the tent.
If you take the whole chapter literally you also have to opposed to women wearing pearl earings.
“Women have not been official theologians because women do not have any official role as teachers within the Church.”
“have not been”, yes
“did not have”, however would be more accurate.
The rules for the mandatum suggest to me from the negative that theologians w/ a mandatum are not catechists and unlike them do not teach in the name of the Church or the Bishop that therefore, catechists, including female catechists, DO teach in the name of the Church and/or the Bishop.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/mandatumguidelines.shtml
I must admit that I find the whole mandatum thing confusing… perhaps it is a false cognate, but I hear “mandate” and think it means teaching in the name of the Church, which the laws then specifcically say it’s not… so why didn’t they just call it a “nihil obstat” like they had been doing all along for pontifical faculties?
“If you think 1 Timothy 2:12 doesn’t rule out teachers in any form I think we can be confident… teaching sisters… unmarried lay women who teach elementary school certainly these are to be allowed and then the camel’s nose is under the tent.”
I don’t think that women are forbidden from *any and all teaching,* but certainly from relgious teaching that entails authority over men per se. Sisters who teach elementary school do not “use authority over the man,” per I Timothy 2:12. They are teaching children, not men, and hence are acting “in loco matris.” Mothers certainly have authority, including teaching authority, over their sons, but not over their husbands.
And women married to non-Catholics are permitted to evangelize their husbands, no doubt! But here it is a question of a defect. It really would be better for the husband to play the teacher for his wife, and the establishment of this normative situation should be one of the goals of the evangelization and conversion process. Once he has converted, it is his job to be the family’s chief catechist, per St. Paul’s stipulations (I Cor. 1.34-5).
I don’t hold out for an absolute ban on any and all female ornamentation, either. The rule is that women be decent, and the opposition of “adorning oneself” with jewelry vs. good works means that two types of “adornment” are being contrasted. Presumably if one can have gold and pearls while still remaining modest and engaging in good works, that is okay. It may not be the best, but it is permissible, and sometimes mandatory (as with the royal gowns of queens and princesses). It is a question of the particular expression of virtues, I think it’s fair to say. Likewise, one can have wealth while living, thinking, and acting as though he had none (i.e. being “poor in spirit).
But St. Paul categorically rejects women excercising authority over men, and he does so as an end in itself, not as a contingent means of preserving some virtue. I don’t know what the rules were/are about missionary sisters teaching the catechism to adult male catechumens. I would rather think that priests, lay brothers, or trained male lay catechists do this. But if sisters do in fact do this, presumably it is because the “adult” catechumens and neophytes here are in the position of children vis-a-vis the faith. Teaching the catechism and basic prayers is one thing (my mother certainly taught me my prayers, and most of my C.C.D. teachers were women), learning and teaching full-blown theology at university is another.
Your post was very interesting.
Tobias Petrus. I feel like the student who told Saint Thomas that a cow just flew by the window, which when Saint Thomas went to look said, “I would rather believe a cow could fly than a friar tell a lie.” Yes, it was satire. I was just rattling off common feminist jargon, so its good that you answered it as clear and convincing as you did. I didn’t think I was being that subtle in giving as examples of female achievers, Emily Dickinson, Hilary C. and women Astronauts (recall the one recently arrested). I thought I might get some better examples from Clara but her silence says she’s on to me. Here it might be well to mention some of the shortcomings of being a genius—no reference to me of course—but to people like Saint Thomas.
It seems that men have been given by God the propensity to specialize, to focus on one single task and to perform it to perfection. There are not relatively many men have reached perfection in their pursuits. The average man however, can make a living by his trained line of work. But is that a superior quality? After looking through a microscope day after day, we can become near sighted and fail to appreciate or to even see the bigger picture. Women can often see things “intuitively” where we have to see things systematically. And yet they pick up details that go right by us. God made them that way because the tasks of motherhood call them to do many things well: doctor, teacher, cook, seamstress, and even handyman around the house. People go to college and receive a liberal education but then go on to get a Masters. They focus and specialize in a narrower field, which often works against the liberal part of their education. I heard someone once describe a Ph.D. as “someone who knows more and more about less and less”, which sums up quite well what I’m saying.
I agree with just about everything you wrote. I appreciate the reference article on Aristotle and found that the author was quite fair to women. In fact the he claims, “This has given rise to the utterly fallacious allegation that Aristotle regards the female as a monstrosity, a “misbegotten male.” (Page 80) Also, “Aristotle’s biological account of the sexes in fact provides no excuse for misogyny or for claims that women are inferior to men as human beings.” (Page 81) I was once asked for my views on women and simply said, “Separate but equal.” The response was, “You don’t really mean that do you?” Most often when you assert that woman is equal, you are asked to qualify it along the lines that she is not quite up to man intellectually. I have a hard time with that one.
The accomplishments of men are amazing but who knows how God looks at things and how we will look at women if we get to Heaven. We were told we have to be like little children to get there and children usually haven’t done anything great to our standards. Right you are that Our Lady is overshadowed by her Son, but as shear creature, she outdoes any shear man. While on earth and even for some centuries her worth was not that well known or recognized. Maybe that is true of women in general while we walk this earth. I know that we have to have hierarchy in order to have peace and order in the family and in society but still, we often get caught up like the Apostles with the question, “Who is the greater?”
Yeah, but it’s part of the fallen nature of the world we live in that gives more applause, money and kudos to the (male) architect who designes the biggest, most beautiful building, the (male) haute cuisine chef who creates the most amazing meal, the (male) composer who writes the most sublime piece of music, the (male) artist who paints or sculpts magnificent works of art, etc. The building, the food, the music, the art…to what end? All temporary. Dust and ashes.
A woman allows God Himself to touch her - in the depths of her womb - to accept an immortal soul.
We win.
Not so fast, Some Lady.
“And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the breasts that nursed thee.’ But He said: ‘Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.’” (Luke 11)
This was Our Lord’s tribute to His Blessed Mother. Who more than she heard the Divine Word of God and kept Him in her heart? I think it was Saint Bernard who said that Our Lady conceived God in her heart before she conceived Him in her womb. It is therefore better for God to touch the soul than the body. Union of soul with God is accomplished in contemplating the word of God. This can happen to either male of female and yet it is more apt to take place in the religious state, which has always been considered a higher calling for that reason. And since contemplation is passive in nature, it seems that women have more of a natural tendency to achieve it. Nevertheless, we can all win.
Women, but no children, in Paradise? I know the dialog will deal with limbo and fate of an unbaptized child but should not the title include the gender that is the ‘prime mover’ in the conjugal act that biologically brings about the children? Just a thought. Here is an article that may be of interest for this particular thread:
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/Limbo.pdf
I don’t have my Aristotle handy (still packed) so it’s hard to give a fair evaluation of the article Tobias Petrus sent, but offhand… what about Aristotle’s claim in the Ethics that women are incapable of friendships of virtue (not only with men, but also with each other) because they are unable to achieve the requisite state (that is, the virtuous state)? Aristotle may have been in favor of a certain kind of complimentarity of roles… but for Aristotle the best person is the great-souled one; humility and submission are not ethically valuable for him as they are for the Christians. So, if women are to be the more submissive, I don’t really see how he could avoid the position that they are morally inferior to men, though he does at least insist that they are not equivalent to slaves.
I’ll reread the article when I have access to my Aristotle, and perhaps give a more detailed appraisal then.
For the rest of this debate, so much has been said that my head is whirling: what was the question, again? Personally, I always feel that discussions on this topic are fraught with false dichotomies. Women have made less significant contributions than men in art, literature, architecture, etc etc; this must mean either a) that women have been systematically mistreated and placed at a disadvantage (the assumption being that they must be exactly equal in ability to men in every possible area) or else b) women are naturally inferior to men in their talents and abilities (at least as regards art, literature, architecture and so forth, though some addendum is usually made about how they have their own special talents for caring for children, keeping house etc.)
Why can’t the truth involve elements of each? Women have surely been at a disadvantage historically in terms of the opportunities afforded them to make “great contributions” to society. Can there be any serious doubt about this? Tobias Petrus’ argument that “if they were really talented they would find a way” seems rather silly to me. Maybe it’s true that genius will out, and there are some examples of extraordinary female writers, artists, etc. But obviously education and respect make it easier to accomplish such things; that’s why we have periods of history, or parts of the world, in which lots of people make great contributions to science and the humanities (typically ones in which there were resources for advanced education, research, etc.) and other countries or eras of history in which there are very few advances. It’s entirely plausible to suppose that women have made less contributions in large part because they’ve had less opportunity to do so, not necessarily because they are less able. Actually, I think it’s fairly ridiculous to deny that this must be in some part true.
That doesn’t mean, though, that men and women must have precisely equal abilities in everything, nor does it mean that they should not have different roles. There may be some good traditional reasons for giving the sexes different societal roles, and some of these may reflect deep truths about the natures of men and women. And the fact that women have been disadvantaged in certain respects needn’t be seen as the greatest tragedy of human history. After all, the vast majority of the human race has not been highly educated, and has not been in a position to become musicians or engineers or what have you. If women have been even less likely than men to have such advantages, what of it? Modern women should not use this as an excuse to feel ill-used, though modern men also should not draw hasty conclusions based on historical precedent.
I have more to say on this subject but perhaps, given the hour, I’d better leave off here. I would appreciate it, though, if someone could explain to me what question is being debated regarding men and women.
A few pithy remarks:
1) I once attended an Alice von Hildebrand lecture where she addressed the question: why have men historically excelled more in the arts and practical professions? She attributed it to the fact that men are, by nature, more active and thus more creative and ambitious.
She distinguished this from the feminine quality of receptivity(an active receiving), not to be confused with passivity(an absence of action).
A little quote from her:
“Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive — most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects.
But the Christian message is that, valuable as all these inventions are, they are dust and ashes compared to every act of virtue. Because a woman by her very nature is maternal — for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother — she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them — for maternity implies suffering — is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”
This is not to argue that women are morally superior, but that they should not feel inferior in being, because they are inferior in authority.
2) Which leads me to my second point…Clara, I think Aristotle may have had an imperfect perspective on male/female friendships, but not for the reasons you suppose. If I recall correctly, he argues that they will never be equals and, as equality is a prerequisite for true friendship, true friendships cannot exist between men and women. One of my professors argued that the graces received in the sacrament of marriage make up for this inequality of authority, and that, in marriage, the complementarity between men and women actually affords the most perfect kind of true friendship.
3.) As to the original complaint against uniformity of age in heaven - I think Tolkien’s elves are the perfect example of how beautiful this could be. They possess the grace and vigor of youth, but their eyes hold the wisdom of age.
Perhaps pithy was a misnomer.
Regarding the remark about Tolkien and the Elves, I think that’s a good way of looking at things… but in my mind it only deepens my point. Elven society has a sort of distant, ethereal beauty perhaps, but far more vibrant and appealing to my mind is the hobbit world, which is alive and wholesome and fecund. I don’t think Tolkien wants to establish either as clearly superior, but the Elvish world definitely seems to lack a certain vibrancy that the hobbit world has in abundance. The lack of children has something to do with it. There was a short piece in First Things a few years back (written by a philosophy graduate student, I believe), reflecting on why mortality was, as Arwen says at the end of the book, “the gift of the One to mortals.” I won’t summarize it here, but it captures some of my feeling on this. I suppose the idea that there would be no children in heaven makes me feel somewhat like I’d feel if Tolkien were to end his series by transforming the hobbits into elves. Elves are wonderful, but wouldn’t that be a shame?
Regarding Aristotle, I think I’d better table the question (at least on my end) until I have a chance to go through all the relevant passages and see what was really said. But regarding Alice von Hildebrand’s lecture… there may well be something in what she says, but I always think it’s best to be wary about making these kinds of blanket assessments of the differences between men and women. On the one hand, I don’t doubt that they’re grasping at something real. I do believe in a complimentarity of the sexes. But at the same time, all the classic ways of describing that division seem absurdly simplistic. (I’ve heard that men are analytical and women intuitive, that men are creative and adventurous and women nurturing and protective, that men like to lead and compete while women crave love and approval, that men are active while women are naturally submissive, and so on and so forth.) For all of these I can think of a number of data points that don’t seem to add up. And even insofar as they hold, it seems to me that they can be no more than tendencies, because there are certainly nurturing or approval-craving men, and there are certainly ambitious or analytical women. It’s so devilishly difficult just to figure out what defines us as human at all; why do people who wrestle with that question suddenly become so confident when it comes to describing a human being qua male or qua female? This is surely a more difficult and subtle question than people normally like to admit.
I’m still not sure what the question was that we were supposed to be debating in the first place regarding men and women. But concerning the question of why women seem to have made less great contributions than men to literature, science, music or what have you, I’ve already said that I dislike the false dichotomy that so often seems to arise in answering it. It seems clear that we could attribute the phenomenon to external factors (lack of education and opportunity) or to internal factors (less creativity or ambition). My answer seems perfectly obvious, and yet I hardly ever seem to hear it: why not both? Men and women may tend towards somewhat different temperaments, but it’s also undoubtedly true that women have been given less opportunities to be educated and to do great and influential things. I think it’s hard to deny that this is in part because their intellectual potential has been very widely underestimated throughout history. So answering the question “why haven’t many women become great philosophers, artists or scientists?” without making reference to this fact seems to me rather like answering the question “Why has Mali produced less great poets and novelists over the last century than Great Britain?” without bothering to mention that a large percentage of Mali’s population was never taught to read. It isn’t necessarily the only reason, but it’s surely a factor.
I do like, however, the fact that Hildebrand’s explanation (as far as I understand it) turns on differences in temperament, not necessarily differences in ability. The really grave error would be in supposing that art, literature, theology etc. are more properly the concern of men, and that women have little reason for taking an interest in them. I’m not sure if anyone in this thread wishes to argue that, but I’ve heard it done.
Well, again I should leave off in consideration of the hour.
Raindear, I might agree with “pithy,” only because of the author. I once heard a lecture by Alice on the poor treatment of women by the Church, due to such saints as Saint Thomas (I guess he got it from The Philosopher.) She seemed to have her facts and quotes straight but I thought it was done in “liberation” fashion. Maybe it was unusual for her, and maybe she has said some good things about men without taking it back at the same time—I don’t know, since after that I haven’t picked up any of her writings.
Here is a gem by Saint Thomas More: “Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine not only exhorted excellent matrons and most noble virgins to study, but also, in order to assist them, diligently explained the abstruse meanings of Holy Scripture and wrote for tender girls letters replete with so much erudition that nowadays old men who call themselves professors of sacred science can scarcely read them correctly, much less understand them.”
Clara,
I understand your point about hobbits, but I think a universal quality of agelessness would not necessarily eradicate distinct temperaments, of race or individual. The hobbits had a vibrant, childlike spirit. For the most part, this quality endured in Frodo and Bilbo, even though they were “well-preserved.” If it diminished at all, it was more on account of their misfortunes than their old age.
Interestingly enough, I am (slowly) working my way through a John Saward book, entitled, The Way of the Lamb:The Spirit of Childhood and the End of the Age. Through the writings of a few famous Catholics(St. Therese, Chesterton, Charles Peguy, Georges Bernanos and Hans von Balthasar) he explores the mystery of the Christian call, trying to reconcile these two passages:
“And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”(Mt 18:3)
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.”(1 Cor 13:11)
Of course, the distinction between feminine and masculine qualities is not black and white. In an Aristotilian kind of a way, however, it makes sense to assume that the physical differences between men and women engender corresponding differences of temperament and soul. I agree, we must take the historical treatment of women into account. However, while that treatment was at times abusive and unjust, there is a danger of a vicious circle here: were women given less opportunities to be educated and to do great and influential things because they were less suited for such work and, perhaps, less fulfilled by it? In other words, I suspect that (nurture aside) women naturally possess a greater capacity for other kinds of work(more relationship focused - Gen3:16 seems to suggest this: “your desire shall be for your husband”) and that society has always had greater need for them in that respect.
Jeff Culbreath has been waxing eloquent over at Stony Creek Digest:
“Most people today are feminists. Rush Limbaugh is a feminist. Ann Coulter is a feminist. Most stay-at-home moms are feminists. They have accepted, with very few qualifications, that women should be able to live exactly as men live if they so choose. Conservative pundits show themselves to be feminists when they say things like ‘women should be free to choose between working and staying home with the kids.’ What nonsense! Women should be free to pursue lives of virtue according to the priorities of their sex: that’s the only freedom that matters. Certainly this could mean working outside the home, as in the case of St. Gianna Molla, whose professional life was an expression of her deep maternal instincts, and whose career as a physician did no violence to her femininity or her domestic priorities. Serving God in this way was a privilege for her, not a right to be demanded, not a ‘choice’ owed to her by society. While feminism is all about making women autonomous and maximizing choices, Catholicism is about making saints and maximizing the Good. If there is any overlap with the goals of feminism it is purely coincidental.”
Meant to put in the link:
Stony Creek Digest
By the way, the quote from Jeff Culbreath was not meant to imply that anyone here tends toward feminism. I just thought it well said and not entirely irrelevant.
It seems to me that in a society that wants to take away all distinction between men and women and give us a Unisex, it is imperative that we keep to the traditional norms that have been established by Christian society. Why reinvent the wheel? The Age of Chivalry was glorious. Feminine and masculine qualities are black and white. A seven-year-old boy doesn’t think there are subtle differences between the sexes. Tell him he acts like a little girl and take note of his instinctive reaction and offense. But if his parents can’t see behavioral distinctions between boy and girl or lack the confidence in promoting manly qualities for a son, they will break all norms and treat him over tenderly and forbid him to play the way boys like to play. They may encourage him to play with his sister instead and allow her to make a little doll out of him. He will soon become a sissy and grow up to be effeminate and most likely an active homosexual.
It may seem harmless to allow no distinction in clothes between men and women and yet it is called an abomination in scripture for women to wear men’s attire. If that is so, we had better know the differences. Women may be excused for a certain amount of vanity in their ornamentation but for a man to wear earrings, curl his hair, and use makeup is inexcusable. Saint Paul says it’s a shame for a man to nourish his hair. Chesterton says it’s wrong for a man to take himself seriously but for a woman it’s wrong if she doesn’t take herself seriously. Buffoonery in a man may be a fault but in a woman a desecration. I’m sure we could come up with many noteworthy distinctions not from today’s society that has liberated itself from Christian norms but from the ages of Faith. It’s not so much the exceptions that we see in the way men and women act. These may well be aberrancies; it’s how they should act as man or as woman.
“Certain data points don’t add up.” You should be able to say, “Woman are physically weaker than men,” without someone saying, “That’s not always the case. I know a woman who works on a railroad crew and can lay track as well as any man. She also drives a Mack Truck.” Rejoinders like that do not disprove the first assertion that women are weaker than men. Call that fact “simplistic” along with all the traditional distinctions made between men and women (and mentioned thoughout this thread) and yet they are still true. Call “all the classic ways of describing that division absurdly simplistic,” but men and women were better off before the revolution of the sixties. For lack of distinction, and for not learning from the past, we are witnessing the customs of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Raindear says that women may be best suited for “other kinds of work.” I guess a lot depends on what kinds of work we’re marking out as most suitable for each sex. I wouldn’t expect to hear Alice von Hildebrand saying this, but many who open the “complimentary roles” question seem to think that men are actually better suited for virtually all kinds of work, except for everyday domestic chores and caring for children. Sometimes people put a gloss on this by emphasizing how important the former tasks are, and naturally caring for children is quite important to society, but given that division, we still seem to be left with the conclusions that 1) men are able to do a much greater variety of things than women, and, more problematically, 2) men have a much greater capacity for developing and exercising their rationality. If you think that the exercise of rationality is closely connected to human excellence, then it’s hard to hold that women are less adept at it without also holding that women are morally inferior. (This is the conundrum that I take Aristotle to be in, though admittedly I need to find the text and do some work in order to prove it.)
Those who want to argue that theology, literature, science, or what have you, are less suitable pursuits for women than for men, could do this on a variety of grounds. They might argue that these pursuits are contrary to a woman’s nature, so that it is actually unfeminine to do philosophy, to write poetry, to do lab experiments, and so forth. They might argue that, while these pursuits are not unfeminine in kind, women nonetheless have a lesser capacity for these kinds of pursuits, making it less expedient to educate them in these subjects. Or they might argue that, although women are both able and suited to such pursuits, it is practically necessary, for the sake of society, that they devote themselves to other tasks. Of course an argument might involve elements of each, but it seems to me worthwhile, for the sake of clarity, to consider them separately.
The first of these I find the most objectionable. Men and women may differ somewhat in their interests and perspectives, but the desire to learn and explore, to develop and exercise one’s rationality, and to appreciate beauty and truth, is fundamentally human and cannot be allotted primarily to one sex or the other. Art, literature, science and other such pursuits are the fruits of this human desire, and if they are unsuitable for women, this raises serious questions as to the humanity of women.
The second line of argumentation that I propose is less objectionable, but still potentially problematic, not least because modern education has presented us with a wealth of empirical evidence to the contrary. Men may still excel in greater numbers in certain subjects, and it may be true that men are better represented among society’s most brilliant and talented people. This seems to be suggested by the contortions that modern universities go through in trying to hire more women for their faculties. On the other hand, if you take a cross-section of fifty normal twenty-year-olds, and put them in a class together, the boys don’t notably outperform the girls. This is why some people (Larry Summers and my fiance among them) are attracted to the view that men, in terms of intelligence, tend to fall in greater numbers at the extremes while women are more thickly clustered in the middle. (So, if you were to chart all the men and all the women in the world, the women’s line would make a bell curve, while the men’s line would be flatter.) I won’t confidently say that this theory is true, but it seems roughly plausible based on my experience. In any case, if we’re talking about education for the general masses, it just doesn’t seem to be the case that men are more capable than women.
So that leaves us with my last argument, which is the practical one: women are able to learn and accomplish things, and it’s not unfitting per se for them to do so, but they won’t have time because we need them to be doing other things. In many eras of history, this argument would have considerable force. There’s no shame in foregoing certain goods in order to shoulder one’s responsibilities, and as I’ve already said, there really aren’t that many people in history, men or women, who have had the leisure or resources to become accomplished poets or musicians or tennis players. Today, the same argument may still apply quite often, and it’s certainly honorable for a woman to give up other worthwhile pursuits when she recognizes that her family needs her at home. Still, living as we do in a relatively rich society, with long life expectancies and low infant mortality rates, it is much more possible for women to enjoy these higher pleasures than in many eras past. And if we’re talking about general and widespread education, it seems to me that the traditional model (in which a man earns a living and a woman manages the home) makes it more expedient to educate women in the arts and humanities than men. Men will, of course, need career-specific training, and in a minority of cases this will require a broad-based education in the arts and sciences. But that base of general knowledge won’t be necessary for most of the specific careers that the men will pursue, while women, on the other hand, must set the tone for domestic life and contribute largely to the education of their children. A broad base of general knowledge will thus be invaluable for them. Of course I think it’s good for everyone, male or female, to learn as much as circumstances allow, but if resources run short, I think a solid argument can be made that the women need a thorough education at least as badly as the men.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that either Raindear or Alice von Hildebrand are opponents of women’s education. Hildebrand’s position, as reported by Raindear, doesn’t seem to oppose women’s education generally; she seems to be suggesting (though I haven’t heard the lecture) that women are less inclined towards outstanding achievement because they tend to be less ambitious by temperament. That wouldn’t at all imply that they’re less bright or that such pursuits are in any way contrary to their feminine nature. But since I’m still not quite sure what’s being debated here, I thought I might as well stake out my various concerns.
The Culbreath comment, by the way, seems to me a characteristic mixture of insightful and obnoxious. On the one hand: yes, it’s quite true that modern society is obsessed with autonomy and that this should not be the highest concern for a Catholic. On the other hand, when we say things like “women should be free to choose whether to work” we don’t necessarily have to mean that this choice should entirely dependent on the woman’s own inclinations and wishes. We might just mean that it should be socially acceptable for her either to work or not to work, though of course her family’s needs should be of paramount importance in determining what she does. (Once her children are grown, her responsibilities will probably diminish, and then she might appropriately gratify her own inclinations in deciding what to do with the rest of her life.) In the same way I might support voucher programs by saying, “Parents should be free to choose what kind of school their child attends.” I don’t mean that it’s a matter of moral indifference what they choose; I just mean that the decision should be made on a parental level, not a political one.
Discipule, when I talk about “other data points” I mean that there are observable general trends that tell against most of these stereotypes. I don’t just mean that I know one or two unusual men or women who buck the trend. For example: I’ve sometimes been told that men tend to be adventurous and willing to take risks while women tend to crave security. Well, this is true in some areas (notably romantic relationships, and you don’t have to reflect too deeply to think why that might be) but in some areas it doesn’t hold true at all. Take exotic foreign travel. At least in Western societies, women seem notably more enthusiastic about it than men. International organizations like Peace Corps recruit a lot more women than men, and college study abroad programs to places like India or Kenya are almost always female-dominated. (The men, meanwhile, flock to programs in London or Washington DC.) Travel agents have told me that they often see similar trends among couples trying to plan a vacation: the woman will press for the more exotic destination (I’ve always wanted to see Dushanbe!!) while the man reflects that a beach resort would be relaxing and pleasant. Obviously this is just a trend; there are lots of women who like beach resorts and lots of men who want to travel the world, but in America the tendency seems to be for the women to be more adventurous when it comes to travel. It’s just one little data point… but it’s a curious one, isn’t it, if the conventional wisdom about risk-loving men and security-loving women holds true?
That is the sort of thing that I mean. There are lots of other examples.
I agree that there are differences between men and women, and I don’t think we should stop trying to understand them, but we should acknowledge that this is a complicated business. Efforts to describe are welcome, but we should be appropriately circumspect when we move into prescription.
Discipulus,
When I said the distinctions were not black and white, I did not mean to imply that there are no clear and obvious differences, particularly on the physical level. I was thinking more along the lines of Clara’s travel example. I can give another example from my own experience. Logic and strategy are generally considered areas of male excellence. Yet, I(who am a lady) have always had an aptitude for them. The day I learned chess, I beat the young lad who taught me several times. As a student, some of my favorite classes were “Metaphysics” and “Philosophy of God.” I aced my “Logic” course. That aptitude was primarily nature and very little nurture, which makes it a little more significant than the instance of a ripped railroad woman with a manly truck.
Clara, The question we are debating here is whether men are as highly gifted in the realm of intelligence as women. In an early and lengthy post, someone tried to reverse the question and then left me to defend an all but hopeless cause. Raindear, I have witnessed your ability at clear logic, and it made me think twice before sending a little contradiction your way. I think we have been in agreement. Your example is much more significant than mine and I will not presume to say that logic and strategy is an exception to a lady.
In all earnestness, if you look back to my second post you will see “Most often when you assert that woman is equal, you are asked to qualify it along the lines that she is not quite up to man intellectually. I have a hard time with that one.” And yet I maintain that feminine and masculine distinctions are black and white not just in physical areas but in others as well, so much so that if I were to say to a man, “You think just like a woman,” I could expect a sub orbital hematoma (black eye). Would it be because he thinks so lowly of women and the way they think? No, it’s just because there is a clear distinction and as a man he wants to be known to think like a man. I would be insulting his masculinity. In the same way, a lady would be very much insulted if you told her, “You know, you act just like a man.”
In comparing physical differences, a woman is not offended (generally) if it is pointed out that she is weaker than men or her skin is not very tough or her fingers are delicate. She can’t compete in the men’s marathon or any other men’s sporting event and she acquiesces calmly because it is no shame to be unequal in these areas. But is anyone going to claim that she’s inferior? In like manner, if men and women think differently, and yet can arrive at the same conclusion, does that indicate that one is inferior?
As far as being adventurous, I know I wouldn’t consider myself truly so if I were climbing a mountain with women; you have a point there about the Peace Corp. But let’s get to the heart of the matter and take something intellectual: Judging. Don’t push the delete button but in my limited experience, I find that women have a hard time making objective judgments. When Moses set up judges to settle cases between the Israelites, there was probably a good reason why he didn’t choose women. Women judges today most likely know the law as well as their male counterparts, yet when it comes to making a judgment, it will not be strictly just, not from lack of integrity but because feminine qualities—such as compassion, gentleness, pity, mercy, forgiveness are all taken into consideration instinctively. A man, however, can divorce his feelings and so cold is he in judging that most likely could say about a guilty son, “Off with his head.” Do I think that makes a woman intellectually unequal to man? No. Does a guilty son approach his mother or father when he’s done something wrong? Our Lord told the Apostles that they would sit in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel. I couldn’t picture Our Lady doing it and I don’t think she would want to.
Women have been pushed down during the centuries, but Christianity raised them up. Why are all the great doers men? As mentioned before, I believe that God gave man a natural ability to specialize. But if there had been a girl who wrote symphonies at the age of three, the world would have heard about it. Women were not deprived of pianos, paint brushes, or paper to write things like the Divine Comedy. The real geniuses got their talents directly from God and for some reason, He decided to give them to men. It follows the pattern of Creation when Adam named all the animals before Eve was there to help him. He was the one God told would have to labor at what he did and Eve would have to labor to bring forth life.
Thanks for reading this far. I appreciate your thought provoking posts and clarifications and I realize that you see differences between the sexes but I just wanted to say I believe there are some very deep rooted ones that appear to be intrinsic in the very way we think, act, and react.
Discipule, I know just what you mean, of course. You’ll find a near-schitzophrenic interlocutor in me, because I spent much of my early years as an anti-feminist, arguing against so-called “inclusive language” and contending that there was nothing at all wrong with being a housewife and mother. Then I got a little older and ran smack against people who thought it was unladylike for me to be arguing at all. How’s that for a rock and a hard place? Either too liberal or too conservative for just about everyone I know: this is the story of my life.
I think you’re very right that ladies and gentlemen are different in many respects and should be content to be so. We can name some uncontroversial characteristics that should belong to each, but complete and exhaustive definitions are much harder to work out. Is it unmanly to cry? To play with one’s infants or toddlers? To wash dishes? Is it unladylike to write intellectual treatises? To play (or enjoy watching) sports? To drive a city bus? People have been grappling with these sorts of questions for pretty much forever.
I’m a woman in an academic department in a male-dominated field, where analytical writing is one of the most prized skills. My interests include a passion for football, and I have on occasion (shhh, don’t tell!) been seen wearing pants, but my fiance, though enjoys the fact that we can share these common interests (the football and the philosophy, that is) he sometimes remarks affectionately, “but really, you’re such a girl!” I take this as a compliment, and he means it as such. So yes, I think you’re right, the differences are deep-rooted, and go beyond any superficial Venus and Mars distinctions.
Hi
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night