Masculinity and Femininity
Matthew Ryan
Issues of the Age
Dr. Fedoryka
Masculinity and Femininity
Much confusion regarding the issue of “homosexual unions” plagues Catholics and Christians today. The criticism of the so-called homosexual “unions” thus far has been mostly based upon theological or biological arguments. What is really needed to illumine the error of “homosexual unions” is a sound and accurate understanding of what it means to be a person and specifically as masculine and feminine persons. The common tendency when speaking of masculinity or femininity is to reduce each to a set of traits or characteristics generally found in men or women. These traits, however, stem from a deeper meaning of masculinity or femininity. Two fundamental relationships will be at the heart of our investigation of masculinity and femininity: the relationship of the human body to the personal dimension in general, and the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension.
The exact relationship between the body and soul is a mystery that can never be exhausted, yet that does not preclude any understanding of it. The human body in general does “express” the personal dimension. The upright stature for instance expresses the dignity of the human soul. The body externalizes and manifests the interiority of the person. Likewise bodily actions can express certain spiritual acts of the person. In this sense we frequently speak of interpreting and reading “body language”. “Body language” usually refers to things such as the length of time someone will hold eye contact, the way they sit up or slouch, etc. There are, however, other forms of body language that are more than signs of the person’s psychic or spiritual disposition. The friendly hand-shake, reverential bow, the kiss of love are all examples of a body language that actually embodies a spiritual act. Somehow, the bodily action “fits” and is “similar” to the spiritual act even though they are in different orders of being. This is possible because of the body’s metaphysical capacity to carry specific spiritual content through specific bodily actions. Beating someone over the head with a rock, for example, can never be said to express the spiritual act of love. We find a certain priority of the spiritual order over the bodily order. The human being is an “embodied” soul and an “ensouled” body. The soul is always the primary principle of the human being.
Having briefly examined the nature of the body and soul on a general level we are now better able to address the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension. Karl Stern, in his work The Flight from Woman, tries to explain masculinity and femininity in terms of the biological difference between the male and female body. He says,
“The sex organs and the sex cells manifest a polarity and complementariness in morphology and in function. In the act of sexual union the male organ is convex and penetrating and the female organ is concave and receptive; the spermatozoon is torpedo-shaped and “attacks,” and the ovum is a sphere “awaiting” penetration. That this polarity and complementariness should not be confined to the physical but also be reflected in the character of man and woman, is a view as old as history.”
The basic structure of Stern’s explanation of masculinity and femininity is that the specific bodily difference between man and woman is reflected by the personal dimension. In other words, he reverses the priority of the soul over the body. He explains the spiritual in terms of the physical. Even though Stern reverses the priority in the relationship between body and soul, he does note a valid similarity between the specific bodily difference between the sexes and the masculine and feminine soul. Even on this point of the masculine being the convex and penetrating and the feminine as the concave and receptive, he oversimplifies the relationship between the two.
In order to know how and why Stern confuses the nature and origin of masculinity and femininity it is crucial to understand that men and women as persons have a transcendent structure to their existence. The person as person has a vocation to transcendence. This is radically different from the immanent structure of animal and vegetable existence. The cauliflower, the acorn, and the dog all have their end within their being. They are “beings-for-themselves” as opposed to persons who are “beings-for-others”. This capacity of the person to be for a transcendent end, specifically other persons, puts the person in a dialogical relationship of receptivity and response. The dialogical relationship is distinctly personal and cannot be reduced to the active-passive structure of non-personal beings. Interpersonal relationship is one of receiving others and responding by spontaneously going out of oneself in a reciprocal gift of self. Receptivity and spontaneity are complimentary instances in the dialogical relationship. A receptive act is not complete until it adequately responds and a spontaneous act presupposes a prior reception. The concept of the gift really elucidates this phenomena. If someone receives a gift from a friend and stands there mute with a blank expression, can we say they have really received the gift? No, his reception is not complete until he responds with a ‘thank-you’ or some other appropriate reciprocal response. Likewise, how can a man give something if he has not first received what he gives prior to his giving? His spontaneity presupposes his prior reception. These two complimentary instances of the interpersonal dialogue frames our entire understanding of the essence of masculinity and femininity.
The essence of masculinity is a spiritual character of a human soul that “colors” all his relations in the specific mode of spontaneity. The essence of femininity is the same, but in the specific mode of receptivity. There is a temptation in the conceptualization of this insight to equate spontaneity with masculinity and receptivity with femininity. The fact is that both men and women have the mutual capacity for receptivity and spontaneity, yet we say that men find their “home base” in the mode of spontaneity and likewise women are “at home” in the mode of receptivity. Many proponents of the homosexual cause who have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the essential character of masculinity and femininity are quick to point that there are “feminine” men and “masculine” women. Most people are familiar with “girly men” and “tomboys”. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, men can be receptive and women can be spontaneous, but they always receive as a man or as a woman.
Masculinity and femininity are not pre-determined qualities that a person either has or does not have. Masculinity and femininity are either formed or deformed in the individual person’s relation to transcendent values, particularly persons. In other words, a man’s moral character determines the formation or perversion of his masculinity. Edith Stein notes that “the vocation of man and woman is not exactly the same in the original order, the order of fallen nature, and the redemptive order.” We find the “original” or authentic masculinity in the just man that gives the adequate response to transcendent value. Conversely, we find the “fallen” or deformed masculinity in the self-centered man that appropriates and uses transcendent values as means for his own satisfaction. We find that precisely on the account of these two different manifestations of masculinity or femininity and the lack of distinction between the two, many erroneous explanations have been proposed.
One common error in explaining the essence of masculinity is the characterization of masculinity as aggressiveness. Stern says, “Man’s attitude toward nature is that of attack and penetration” and later, “Man’s activity is always in a sense directed against nature.” Masculinity, as we pointed out earlier, is the mode of being spontaneous, of springing forth out of oneself. If the man is morally righteous, his spontaneity will take the form of genuine transcendence, being for the other. No aggression or hostility is indicated in this spontaneity. If, however, the man is motivated by his own satisfaction, his ‘springing forth’ will be perverted and deformed into an aggressive appropriation of other people and his environment. Edith Stein says,
“The decay of man’s dominion is seen when we consider his relationship to the natural riches of the earth: instead of reverential joy in the created world, instead of a desire to preserve and develop it, man seeks to exploit it greedily to the point of destruction or to senseless acquisition without understanding how to profit from it or how to enjoy it.”
Stein clearly sees the specific way that man’s relation to the world changes when his true masculinity is deformed by the destructive pursuit of satisfaction.
The complementary character of the original masculinity and femininity in their modalities of spontaneity and receptivity is also affected by immorality. As Sister Prudence notes in her work, The Concept of Woman, “one of the most striking features of complementarity theories is their vulnerability towards disintegration into either a polarity theory or a unity theory.” The “unity theory” holds that men and women are essentially the same with some minor physical differences for reproductive purposes. The “polarity theory” holds that men and women are not equal, but polar opposites. Sister Prudence says that complementarity theories have a “vulnerability” to disintegrate into a unity or polarity theory. This “vulnerability”, however, is not limited to the theoretical level. The self-centered pursuit of satisfaction as the person’s primary motive deforms his relations with other persons and consequently impairs his ability to understand the proper relationship between men and women. In the case of lustful man, the gender of other people does not matter to him as long as he gets satisfaction he is seeking and he thus assumes a kind of “unity” attitude towards men and women. Paradoxically, the same selfish mode of relating to others also can disintegrate the complementarity of men and women to a “polarity” of opposites. The selfish man and the selfish woman’s self-interests clash and the proverbial “battle of the sexes” ensues. Stern speaks of a “polarity and complementariness” between men and women, but the two, as we have seen, can hardly be said to be the same thing. The confusion is understandable, however, in light of the deforming effect the satisfaction motive has on the masculinity or femininity of the person.
The complementarity model asserts the equality of human nature and dignity in both men and women, but the articulation of the person as feminine or masculine also involves a complimentary difference. Men and women alike, have the spiritual faculties of mind, heart, and will. However, the use of these faculties will be articulated in different modes by men and women on account of their masculinity and femininity. In the intellectual sphere, the man’s spontaneity manifests itself in discursive reasoning. He analyses or “breaks down” the object into its components in order to understand it and subsequently synthesize it, all the while respecting the integrity of the object. The specific articulation of the feminine intellect is its intuitive manner of grasping the object “as a whole”. She does not break the object down through analysis as the man does. She understands the object “from within”.
In the affective sphere, the woman in her femininity manifests an “openness” and a special sensitivity to the inner life of transcendent object. By virtue of her openness she is able to connect with the object in an intimate and close way, that the man does not. In the spousal relationship, she is particularly delighted by the generosity of her lover because his gifts stir or “quicken” her love for him. The affective manifestation of masculinity is a special sensitivity to justice. His sensitivity is particularly expressed in his reverence for the sacredness of the transcendent. He is also deeply touched and moved by the beauty of woman, a property which may be properly attributed to the feminine. Her beauty also engenders new life in him and enkindles a desire to serve her.
In the volitional sphere, man encounters his calling to a specific task to be done. Man’s specific capacity to “go outside of himself”, analyzing and synthesizing, indicates his unique role as master of the world. This mastery or “kingship” is a vocation of service. He is called to serve and develop what is entrusted to him, namely, women and children and the world. The man serves the inner life of the woman and child and provides them a domesticated environment in which they can develop their “inner secret” and potential. While man’s specific vocation is the service of life, woman’s vocation is to receive and engender life. The unique “openness” of her being makes her particularly suited to receive the gift of life. This call to receive life is deeper than the physical conception of new life, it extends to the reception of the spiritual inner life of those entrusted to her. Children and man, particularly her husband in the spousal relationship, are entrusted to the woman. The woman’s response to those she has receive should be one of engendering, awakening, and nourishing new life within them according to her specific feminine vocation. Having briefly sketched the manifestations of the original masculinity and femininity and their complementary character, we can now better understand the specific deformations of masculinity and femininity as we find in their caricatures.
The deformation of masculinity and femininity brings about the perversion of all the specific manifestations of masculinity and femininity discussed above. Edith Stein says,
“A woman shares with man the powers to understand, enjoy, and act; but she also shares the same degenerate desire for the possession of things through violence, a desire which falsifies, distorts and destroys. However, the Fall affected man and woman differently; this becomes clear when examining the different meaning and orientation of the three functions (understanding, enjoyment, and creativity) in the total personality and total life of man and woman.”
The analytical capacity of the masculine intellect is deformed into a destructive analysis that “breaks things down” without regard to the integrity of the object. His intellect is divorced from his affective sensitive and respect for the integrity of the object and he falls into a “one-sidedness”. “[Man’s] one-sided endeavor to achieve perfection easily becomes a decadent aspiration in itself; our desire for knowledge does not respect limits placed on it but rather seeks by force to go beyond these limits.” He “over-rationalizes” things disrespecting the laws inherent in the nature of things and falls prey to a “dehumanization”. Instead of following his vocation to serve life as king, he becomes the tyrant, domineering those entrusted to him. He shirks his parental duties to his children and uses women for his own satisfaction.
As Stein noted, woman’s deformation is different than that of man’s because of her unique capacities and vocation. Stein says, “woman is better protected than man from one-sidedness and from dehumanization.” Whereas man’s tendency is to be “overly rational” to the point of “heartlessness”, the woman’s tendency is the opposite. Stein says, “Her reverent joy in the things of this world may degenerate into greed, leading her, on the one hand, to the anxious, avaricious scraping together and hoarding of things for which she has no use; and, on the other hand, a lapse into a mindless, idle life of sensuality.” We have the stereotype and caricature of woman as the overly sensitive and irrational woman. Her unique disposition to be open to receiving life, devolves into a possessiveness. “The woman who hovers anxiously over her children as if they were her own possessions will try to bind them to her in every way. […] She will check their development and destroy their happiness”. In her relation to man, she becomes the seductress in order to dominate him and use him for her own selfish purposes.
We may now return to the issue of whether or not the specific bodily difference between men and women expresses the personal dimension and conclude that indeed it does. The physical and psychic structure of man and woman are the externalization of the spiritual character of masculinity and femininity. The relation or “analogy” between the masculine or feminine soul to the psyche and body can be said to have a “sacramental” character. The body is a symbol of the spirit that “ensouls” it, but moreover, the body embodies that masculine or feminine soul. Now it is apparent how the homosexual argument that “we love each other as persons” is inadequate and erroneous precisely because the human person as person is already masculine or feminine. The complementary nature of spousal love thus excludes the possibility of a spousal union between two masculine or two feminine souls. Homosexual “union” is impossible not simply because their bodies are not complementary, but because even as persons, masculine or feminine, they are not complimentary. Without the intuition and sound understanding of the essence of true masculinity and femininity the error of the homosexual argument is impossible to articulate accurately.
Bibliography
Fedoryka, Damian. Reflections on Homosexual “Union” In the Light of the “Hermeneutics of the Gift” of John Paul II. Draft, Nov. 10, 2005.
Ong, Walter J. Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.
Stein, Edith. Essays on Woman. 2nd Ed, Rev. 2nd Ed. Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1996.
Stern, Karl. The Flight from Woman. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1965.
I pledge upon my honor that I have not received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.
Matthew Ryan
Issues of the Age
Dr. Fedoryka
Masculinity and Femininity
Much confusion regarding the issue of “homosexual unions” plagues Catholics and Christians today. The criticism of the so-called homosexual “unions” thus far has been mostly based upon theological or biological arguments. What is really needed to illumine the error of “homosexual unions” is a sound and accurate understanding of what it means to be a person and specifically as masculine and feminine persons. The common tendency when speaking of masculinity or femininity is to reduce each to a set of traits or characteristics generally found in men or women. These traits, however, stem from a deeper meaning of masculinity or femininity. Two fundamental relationships will be at the heart of our investigation of masculinity and femininity: the relationship of the human body to the personal dimension in general, and the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension.
The exact relationship between the body and soul is a mystery that can never be exhausted, yet that does not preclude any understanding of it. The human body in general does “express” the personal dimension. The upright stature for instance expresses the dignity of the human soul. The body externalizes and manifests the interiority of the person. Likewise bodily actions can express certain spiritual acts of the person. In this sense we frequently speak of interpreting and reading “body language”. “Body language” usually refers to things such as the length of time someone will hold eye contact, the way they sit up or slouch, etc. There are, however, other forms of body language that are more than signs of the person’s psychic or spiritual disposition. The friendly hand-shake, reverential bow, the kiss of love are all examples of a body language that actually embodies a spiritual act. Somehow, the bodily action “fits” and is “similar” to the spiritual act even though they are in different orders of being. This is possible because of the body’s metaphysical capacity to carry specific spiritual content through specific bodily actions. Beating someone over the head with a rock, for example, can never be said to express the spiritual act of love. We find a certain priority of the spiritual order over the bodily order. The human being is an “embodied” soul and an “ensouled” body. The soul is always the primary principle of the human being.
Having briefly examined the nature of the body and soul on a general level we are now better able to address the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension. Karl Stern, in his work The Flight from Woman, tries to explain masculinity and femininity in terms of the biological difference between the male and female body. He says,
“The sex organs and the sex cells manifest a polarity and complementariness in morphology and in function. In the act of sexual union the male organ is convex and penetrating and the female organ is concave and receptive; the spermatozoon is torpedo-shaped and “attacks,” and the ovum is a sphere “awaiting” penetration. That this polarity and complementariness should not be confined to the physical but also be reflected in the character of man and woman, is a view as old as history.”
The basic structure of Stern’s explanation of masculinity and femininity is that the specific bodily difference between man and woman is reflected by the personal dimension. In other words, he reverses the priority of the soul over the body. He explains the spiritual in terms of the physical. Even though Stern reverses the priority in the relationship between body and soul, he does note a valid similarity between the specific bodily difference between the sexes and the masculine and feminine soul. Even on this point of the masculine being the convex and penetrating and the feminine as the concave and receptive, he oversimplifies the relationship between the two.
In order to know how and why Stern confuses the nature and origin of masculinity and femininity it is crucial to understand that men and women as persons have a transcendent structure to their existence. The person as person has a vocation to transcendence. This is radically different from the immanent structure of animal and vegetable existence. The cauliflower, the acorn, and the dog all have their end within their being. They are “beings-for-themselves” as opposed to persons who are “beings-for-others”. This capacity of the person to be for a transcendent end, specifically other persons, puts the person in a dialogical relationship of receptivity and response. The dialogical relationship is distinctly personal and cannot be reduced to the active-passive structure of non-personal beings. Interpersonal relationship is one of receiving others and responding by spontaneously going out of oneself in a reciprocal gift of self. Receptivity and spontaneity are complimentary instances in the dialogical relationship. A receptive act is not complete until it adequately responds and a spontaneous act presupposes a prior reception. The concept of the gift really elucidates this phenomena. If someone receives a gift from a friend and stands there mute with a blank expression, can we say they have really received the gift? No, his reception is not complete until he responds with a ‘thank-you’ or some other appropriate reciprocal response. Likewise, how can a man give something if he has not first received what he gives prior to his giving? His spontaneity presupposes his prior reception. These two complimentary instances of the interpersonal dialogue frames our entire understanding of the essence of masculinity and femininity.
The essence of masculinity is a spiritual character of a human soul that “colors” all his relations in the specific mode of spontaneity. The essence of femininity is the same, but in the specific mode of receptivity. There is a temptation in the conceptualization of this insight to equate spontaneity with masculinity and receptivity with femininity. The fact is that both men and women have the mutual capacity for receptivity and spontaneity, yet we say that men find their “home base” in the mode of spontaneity and likewise women are “at home” in the mode of receptivity. Many proponents of the homosexual cause who have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the essential character of masculinity and femininity are quick to point that there are “feminine” men and “masculine” women. Most people are familiar with “girly men” and “tomboys”. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, men can be receptive and women can be spontaneous, but they always receive as a man or as a woman.
Masculinity and femininity are not pre-determined qualities that a person either has or does not have. Masculinity and femininity are either formed or deformed in the individual person’s relation to transcendent values, particularly persons. In other words, a man’s moral character determines the formation or perversion of his masculinity. Edith Stein notes that “the vocation of man and woman is not exactly the same in the original order, the order of fallen nature, and the redemptive order.” We find the “original” or authentic masculinity in the just man that gives the adequate response to transcendent value. Conversely, we find the “fallen” or deformed masculinity in the self-centered man that appropriates and uses transcendent values as means for his own satisfaction. We find that precisely on the account of these two different manifestations of masculinity or femininity and the lack of distinction between the two, many erroneous explanations have been proposed.
One common error in explaining the essence of masculinity is the characterization of masculinity as aggressiveness. Stern says, “Man’s attitude toward nature is that of attack and penetration” and later, “Man’s activity is always in a sense directed against nature.” Masculinity, as we pointed out earlier, is the mode of being spontaneous, of springing forth out of oneself. If the man is morally righteous, his spontaneity will take the form of genuine transcendence, being for the other. No aggression or hostility is indicated in this spontaneity. If, however, the man is motivated by his own satisfaction, his ‘springing forth’ will be perverted and deformed into an aggressive appropriation of other people and his environment. Edith Stein says,
“The decay of man’s dominion is seen when we consider his relationship to the natural riches of the earth: instead of reverential joy in the created world, instead of a desire to preserve and develop it, man seeks to exploit it greedily to the point of destruction or to senseless acquisition without understanding how to profit from it or how to enjoy it.”
Stein clearly sees the specific way that man’s relation to the world changes when his true masculinity is deformed by the destructive pursuit of satisfaction.
The complementary character of the original masculinity and femininity in their modalities of spontaneity and receptivity is also affected by immorality. As Sister Prudence notes in her work, The Concept of Woman, “one of the most striking features of complementarity theories is their vulnerability towards disintegration into either a polarity theory or a unity theory.” The “unity theory” holds that men and women are essentially the same with some minor physical differences for reproductive purposes. The “polarity theory” holds that men and women are not equal, but polar opposites. Sister Prudence says that complementarity theories have a “vulnerability” to disintegrate into a unity or polarity theory. This “vulnerability”, however, is not limited to the theoretical level. The self-centered pursuit of satisfaction as the person’s primary motive deforms his relations with other persons and consequently impairs his ability to understand the proper relationship between men and women. In the case of lustful man, the gender of other people does not matter to him as long as he gets satisfaction he is seeking and he thus assumes a kind of “unity” attitude towards men and women. Paradoxically, the same selfish mode of relating to others also can disintegrate the complementarity of men and women to a “polarity” of opposites. The selfish man and the selfish woman’s self-interests clash and the proverbial “battle of the sexes” ensues. Stern speaks of a “polarity and complementariness” between men and women, but the two, as we have seen, can hardly be said to be the same thing. The confusion is understandable, however, in light of the deforming effect the satisfaction motive has on the masculinity or femininity of the person.
The complementarity model asserts the equality of human nature and dignity in both men and women, but the articulation of the person as feminine or masculine also involves a complimentary difference. Men and women alike, have the spiritual faculties of mind, heart, and will. However, the use of these faculties will be articulated in different modes by men and women on account of their masculinity and femininity. In the intellectual sphere, the man’s spontaneity manifests itself in discursive reasoning. He analyses or “breaks down” the object into its components in order to understand it and subsequently synthesize it, all the while respecting the integrity of the object. The specific articulation of the feminine intellect is its intuitive manner of grasping the object “as a whole”. She does not break the object down through analysis as the man does. She understands the object “from within”.
In the affective sphere, the woman in her femininity manifests an “openness” and a special sensitivity to the inner life of transcendent object. By virtue of her openness she is able to connect with the object in an intimate and close way, that the man does not. In the spousal relationship, she is particularly delighted by the generosity of her lover because his gifts stir or “quicken” her love for him. The affective manifestation of masculinity is a special sensitivity to justice. His sensitivity is particularly expressed in his reverence for the sacredness of the transcendent. He is also deeply touched and moved by the beauty of woman, a property which may be properly attributed to the feminine. Her beauty also engenders new life in him and enkindles a desire to serve her.
In the volitional sphere, man encounters his calling to a specific task to be done. Man’s specific capacity to “go outside of himself”, analyzing and synthesizing, indicates his unique role as master of the world. This mastery or “kingship” is a vocation of service. He is called to serve and develop what is entrusted to him, namely, women and children and the world. The man serves the inner life of the woman and child and provides them a domesticated environment in which they can develop their “inner secret” and potential. While man’s specific vocation is the service of life, woman’s vocation is to receive and engender life. The unique “openness” of her being makes her particularly suited to receive the gift of life. This call to receive life is deeper than the physical conception of new life, it extends to the reception of the spiritual inner life of those entrusted to her. Children and man, particularly her husband in the spousal relationship, are entrusted to the woman. The woman’s response to those she has receive should be one of engendering, awakening, and nourishing new life within them according to her specific feminine vocation. Having briefly sketched the manifestations of the original masculinity and femininity and their complementary character, we can now better understand the specific deformations of masculinity and femininity as we find in their caricatures.
The deformation of masculinity and femininity brings about the perversion of all the specific manifestations of masculinity and femininity discussed above. Edith Stein says,
“A woman shares with man the powers to understand, enjoy, and act; but she also shares the same degenerate desire for the possession of things through violence, a desire which falsifies, distorts and destroys. However, the Fall affected man and woman differently; this becomes clear when examining the different meaning and orientation of the three functions (understanding, enjoyment, and creativity) in the total personality and total life of man and woman.”
The analytical capacity of the masculine intellect is deformed into a destructive analysis that “breaks things down” without regard to the integrity of the object. His intellect is divorced from his affective sensitive and respect for the integrity of the object and he falls into a “one-sidedness”. “[Man’s] one-sided endeavor to achieve perfection easily becomes a decadent aspiration in itself; our desire for knowledge does not respect limits placed on it but rather seeks by force to go beyond these limits.” He “over-rationalizes” things disrespecting the laws inherent in the nature of things and falls prey to a “dehumanization”. Instead of following his vocation to serve life as king, he becomes the tyrant, domineering those entrusted to him. He shirks his parental duties to his children and uses women for his own satisfaction.
As Stein noted, woman’s deformation is different than that of man’s because of her unique capacities and vocation. Stein says, “woman is better protected than man from one-sidedness and from dehumanization.” Whereas man’s tendency is to be “overly rational” to the point of “heartlessness”, the woman’s tendency is the opposite. Stein says, “Her reverent joy in the things of this world may degenerate into greed, leading her, on the one hand, to the anxious, avaricious scraping together and hoarding of things for which she has no use; and, on the other hand, a lapse into a mindless, idle life of sensuality.” We have the stereotype and caricature of woman as the overly sensitive and irrational woman. Her unique disposition to be open to receiving life, devolves into a possessiveness. “The woman who hovers anxiously over her children as if they were her own possessions will try to bind them to her in every way. […] She will check their development and destroy their happiness”. In her relation to man, she becomes the seductress in order to dominate him and use him for her own selfish purposes.
We may now return to the issue of whether or not the specific bodily difference between men and women expresses the personal dimension and conclude that indeed it does. The physical and psychic structure of man and woman are the externalization of the spiritual character of masculinity and femininity. The relation or “analogy” between the masculine or feminine soul to the psyche and body can be said to have a “sacramental” character. The body is a symbol of the spirit that “ensouls” it, but moreover, the body embodies that masculine or feminine soul. Now it is apparent how the homosexual argument that “we love each other as persons” is inadequate and erroneous precisely because the human person as person is already masculine or feminine. The complementary nature of spousal love thus excludes the possibility of a spousal union between two masculine or two feminine souls. Homosexual “union” is impossible not simply because their bodies are not complementary, but because even as persons, masculine or feminine, they are not complimentary. Without the intuition and sound understanding of the essence of true masculinity and femininity the error of the homosexual argument is impossible to articulate accurately.
Bibliography
Fedoryka, Damian. Reflections on Homosexual “Union” In the Light of the “Hermeneutics of the Gift” of John Paul II. Draft, Nov. 10, 2005.
Ong, Walter J. Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.
Stein, Edith. Essays on Woman. 2nd Ed, Rev. 2nd Ed. Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1996.
Stern, Karl. The Flight from Woman. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1965.
I pledge upon my honor that I have not received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.
Matthew Ryan
posted by Matthew at 1:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home