Watching Lupin III and reading perhaps too much of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a philosopher who would have agreed with Charles V Britannia’s points on inequality, inspired this article. The word inequality strikes many people’s ears like the word injustice, but this is hardly the only way to think about inequality: it is only the unequal application of the law which is truly unjust. We are literally surrounded by various forms of inequality which delight us. Observe the order of nature: each species has its particular order and function–not one species performs the exact same role, under the same circumstances, and in the same way. In the rational order, i.e. among men and angels, we observe even more inequalities with differing faces, bodies, personalities, talents, and backgrounds. Most diverse of all would have to be the angels, each of whom, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, is not only a different species from his fellows but even of a different genus. (Incidently, this is one of the reasons why God can never save the fallen angels in the same way that He saved humanity–not that demons even have the slightest desire to be saved.) Therefore, the damnation of even a single rational creature, a creature bearing the image and likeness of God, means that a completely singular reflection of God is lost for all eternity.
The Great Chain of Being, an order of exuberant inequality, manifests the glory of God. If we imagine each creature as a note in a cosmic symphony, what a beautiful symphony creation produces, especially heaven. But, how boring would heaven be if the angels within their particular order were all the same and all human beings the same? A symphony of ten notes? People might rightly say then that heaven will bore them! All notions of awe, wonder, and beauty derive from inequalities and differences.
Yet, the notion of inequality between men and women is not at all popular these days. I refer not to an inequality of one sex standing superior to the other, as the Ancient Greeks supposed was the case, but of differing strengths and weaknesses, which makes men and women complimentary. Let me turn to Lupin III‘s prison break episode. Zenigata, the inspector whose sole mission is to arrest Lupin, manages to capture Lupin, and the date of Lupin’s execution is set for next year. Over the course of this year, Fujiko Mine attempts to break Lupin out of jail only to be foiled each time by Jigen, Lupin’s loyal partner. Jigen avers that Lupin can get out of any prison without help. Here, we have the feminine urge to protect and nurture juxtaposed to the masculine desire to draw the excellence from his peers. On the very day of the execution, Jigen breaks down and offers Lupin the assistance Lupin needs to make good his plans. Without the feminine mindset, Lupin would have died; without the masculine, Lupin would have less character.
I am reminded of a story told about St. Colette. If I remember rightly, she was suffering from a life-threatening illness and looked forward death and union with God due to the tribulations she underwent in reforming the Franciscan order. As things turned out, she recovered and told her companions of a dream she had of St. Clare and St. Francis of Assisi before Our Lord’s throne. St. Clare argued that St. Colette be allowed to join them in heaven. On the other hand, St. Francis said that Our Lord had promised to reform the Franciscans and how would that be accomplished if St. Colette gave up the ghost then? In the end, Our Lord decided for St. Francis, but I have no doubt that St. Clare gained for St. Colette all the graces she needed to complete the reformation of the Franciscans. Where should be be without the feminine and where without the masculine?
In modern times, the fight for the equality of the sexes has led to the war of the sexes. And, does not this unnatural war not follow from the drive for perfect equality? If I have two tools which can do the same job with equal proficiency, then one is not needed. You’ve probably come across Third Wave feminist opinions which argue for the reduction of men to a breeding stock or even how science can lead to elimination of the need for men altogether. On the opposite side, I’ve found an interesting little book titled The Way of Men by Jack Donovan, which describes women’s interests as distinct from men’s interests. Essentially, women advocate commercial society, but most men do not thrive in commercial society: it does not cater to developing the strengths of masculinity. The best thing for men would be for a nuclear or zombie apocalypse to send humanity back to the dark ages. Now, though Donovan correctly diagnoses certain problems of masculinity in modern times and offers some good advice on how men may become more masculine, the above concept is only slightly less insane than that espoused by Third Wave feminists–slightly less in that most people would rather dwell in the world of Conan the Barbarian than that of Geneshaft.
Like modern culture, the characters of Lupin III emphasize the pursuit of money. To the sound mind, economic interests serve the familial, communal, artistic, and spiritual spheres of life. However, moderns have reversed the order such that economic concerns hold sway over the others. This disorder of values has hurt the family more than any other part of society. If the goal of life is money and pleasure, what could be more detrimental than having a family? One is reminded of the verse: “…for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). God created inequalities between men and women so that they would seek unity. The drive for equality–especially considering the extremes it has taken–breaks down the order set by God, and the world is less harmonious, interesting, and happy as a result.
- Lust Will Be Dispatched - 06.09.2021
- How Not to be a Villainess in Your Next Life - 03.24.2020
- 12 Days of Christmas Anime: Patlabor - 12.24.2019
Reblogged this on Medieval Otaku and commented:
My latest article on Beneath the Tangles. It talks about the relationship between the sexes in the order of creation. At least, that’s what I was going for. 🙂
“In modern times, the fight for the equality of the sexes has led to the war of the sexes.”
Really?
Such is the case. In pre-modern times, men had a particular sphere of activity, and women had theirs. From the 19th century until the present day, the forces of the industrial revolution, capitalism, and Marxism have told women that, in order to prove that they are as good as men, they need to take roles in traditionally masculine spheres of activity, i.e. business, industry, military, etc. And, I do think that this has led to unhealthy competition between the sexes, which can be shown by the declining birth rate in first world countries and more people being unable or unwilling to start families because their careers suck up every moment of their lives or because increased competition has kept many men (traditionally, the breadwinners) at low paying jobs, which make having a family not viable. Since more and more people are staying single, the idea of the opposite sex as competitors rather than partners holds significant sway–as the existence of Third Wave feminism and Jack Donovan’s philosophy make clear.
But, I do not think that one sex or the other is particularly to blame for this state of affairs, but those modern philosophies which have undermined the centrality of the family. And, businesses and governments tend to benefit because they have large forces of workers who can devote themselves entirely to their jobs without having to take time off for their families.
“And, does not this unnatural war not follow from the drive for perfect equality?” Not entirely. I get the point you are trying to make (I think,) but let me offer a slightly different perspective.
When I was little, some of my male cousins excluded me from playing “war” with them because I was a girl. If you will, imagine for a moment what that would be like: to find yourself excluded, not because of any inequality (I was a complete tomboy at the time), but because you were born with a different set of genitalia.
My solution was to take my eldest cousin down rather violently. It took a long time for him to forgive me (for shame, to be beaten up by a girl!) but after I did it, I wasn’t just “a girl” to them. Suddenly I was a person, someone interesting and worth playing with. Over time I became less violent, but I still do not like being treated like a delicate flower. I’d rather stand back-to-back with someone than be protected. It’s in my nature.
And that’s what true feminism comes down to. Forget the stupid extremists. Feminism means that women are people, just like men, and that each one of us is different (even if a gender has certain common traits, the outliers matter, and some of those traits may not be as inherent (or healthy, or according to the will of God) as we think), just like men, and that blanket statements of what we are, and who we should be, are as full of dangers as such statements about men.
In the most basic terms, true Feminism = personhood first, gender second rather than the other way around.
Sure, women are usually considered people, but there is an inherent injustice that arises from thinking of them first as products of their gender, and second as products of humanity. Human first, male and female second. It is so important that I do not think it can be repeated often enough.
Then we come up against another issue. In my 33 years of existence, no man has ever expressed more than a passing interest in me. I’m not really hopeful that any ever will. Being Catholic, you are probably more comfortable with the idea of independent celibates than most of my Protestant brethren (that is NOT something Protestants do well). Be that as it may, I cannot rely on men. I have no companion, no partner, save God. I have family and friends, and I am grateful for them, but in the end, I am a lone woman. In ages past I would be a “superfluous woman” to society, something to be pitied or a target for victimization, or expected to join an order whether I felt a calling or not. Feminism means that I don’t have to put up with any of that. I am free to be what I am: a single person living her life, hopefully to the glory of God.
So yes, inequality is not necessarily evil. People are complimentary beings, made to live in community with one-another. But the war between the sexes isn’t driven by (or not solely by) a desire for sameness. It is driven by frustration. Many women are frustrated because of the constraints placed on them for generations, by the misconceptions some men have of what it means to be female, by miscommunications between male and female. And the frustration and fear that some men feel when, in trying to get their message across, women threaten their masculine identity and perceived gender roles, and even their preconceived notions of what women are. Right now men are losing the fight, I think… at least in Western civilization (there are other places where women are still being curb-stomped) and it’s doing serious damage to our culture. I see it in my male friends and family members and it grieves me. I DO NOT want men to lose their identity, or to feel that they have no role in society or in the family. The absence of the masculine element of our society would mean death as surely as the loss of the feminine. I want, rather, for men to see women as people first, and women second. We’re not a different species, though for a long time we’ve been treated as women first, and people second.
I hate the war as much as you seem to. I also want humanity to see and respect the differences, to value them because they are different… but before anyone can value something, they have to really be able to see it.
/rant 😉
I understand what you’re saying. Masculine and feminine qualities are often not distributed according to sex among men and women. This allows for women and men to fulfill roles not usually expected of their sex, e.g. female servicemen or male secretaries. However, one’s sex is so tied into one’s personality that one can’t completely escape the attributes associated with one’s sex without certain dissatisfaction. I myself am a rather bookish and contemplative fellow, but supplement that with my interest in martial arts.
The feminist movement was necessary because earlier cultures were restrictive towards women, but I think that the major injustices which prevented women from fully flourishing were dealt with in the 19th century. Everything since then has gone to excess. It reminds me of TR’s quote: “The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor.” Modern feminists have been so exclusively concerned with evil and injustices committed against women that they have no idea what they’re aiming for anymore and have little appreciation for the male sex. While moderate feminism is not motivated by the desire for sameness, the lunatic fringe certainly is.
And, yes, the Catholic Church has much more tolerance for celibate vocations whether religious, priestly, or single. Though, the last of them has always been recognized as the most frustrating. Still, people like Pascal and Emily Dickenson proved very important to their cultures though they remained unmarried.
“were dealt with in the 19th century. Everything since then has gone to excess.” No, but more on that in a minute.
You are speaking about the extremist fringe feminists and calling their view “Feminism.” I have no doubt that you see the inherent problem in this. It would be like calling the views of extremist Christians “Christianity.”
Most of the women I know consider themselves feminists. I would say 98% of them are very close to me in their definition of what that means. They love men. Many of them are married and are devoted wives and mothers. A fair number, like me, are single, but they also have men among their families and friends. In no way do they have any desire to undermine masculinity. On the contrary, I’m confident to say that most of us feel the struggles our men are facing very keenly, and we want them to fully realize and be comfortable with their own identities and in society. We want men to be men. We also want to be free to be women while still being treated as fellow humans by both by society and by the men themselves.
And this is where I will point out that we aren’t there yet. And much that happened in the 20th Century (universal women’s suffrage in the U.S.A…) far from being an excess, was absolutely necessary. Not all of it. Some things, like equating the sexual revolution with feminism, was just plain stupid, but my blood goes cold when I think about trying to be a woman in the mid 1900’s.
There are still problems that need to be challenged with feminism. Women are just beginning to crawl out of a cultural ghetto pandering to our supposed “interests” while in reality pushing us off to one side. Tell me you haven’t heard things like “chick-lit” or “chick-flicks” tossed around as if they mean “complete and utter crap.” And the hard truth is, most of it IS complete and utter crap, because “girls like girly things and girly things are stupid.” That isn’t even touching on things like “you’re such a pussy,” or the rampant objectifying that is literally everywhere. We’re encouraged to even think of ourselves as objects.
I was born in 1982. That’s the message I grew up on. Not from my family, bless them, but from my culture. That is not treating females as people, it is treating them as weird, stupid, pathetic aliens. I have been treated like a weird, stupid alien by my own culture for as long as I can remember. Maybe, as a male, you’ve been told that you’re a wicked, bad, mean thing (or a sex-obsessed idiot, that lie seems to be popular right now…). I’ve been told that I’m an overly emotional dingbat slut (or overbearing bitch) whose main purpose is to be ogled (to put it mildly). The stereotypes are endless.
The culture is lying to both of us. It’s not ok.
But the fault does not lie with feminism. The lies are working against feminism and women as much as it is men. Feminism still has a role to play, too, because women and girls are still being objectified and relegated to the cultural ghetto. Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion on what Feminism actually is… and I cannot believe the confusion is unintentional. The conflation of so-called feminism with various other agendas is pernicious and destructive. The use of so-called feminism as a sales-ploy is evil.
Feminism isn’t against the family. Feminism isn’t against men. Feminism isn’t left-or-right-wing (or at least it shouldn’t be). It isn’t trying to remake women in some “feminist” image. Feminism is simply the statement that I am as much of a person as you are, with all of the complexity that that entails. If we start there, with the personhood of everyone, a lot of the stupid assumptions about this or that group of people will fade. Instead of writing a woman in a “respectful” manner, with “female virtues” or “attributes” that are valued, a writer will be able to write a person who is female. The difference seems slight on the surface, but it makes all the difference when it comes to understanding.
Does any of that make sense? I’m trying to explain something, not attack. There aren’t simple answers here, or simple solutions, because we are trying to solve a problem that has plagued humanity from the Fall.
Thanks for your thorough reply. I think that I understand you perfectly now. Your comment about how feminism was co-opted by the sexual revolution reminds me of an interesting book I found in the Ignatius Press catalog: “Subverted” by Sue Ellen Browder. Browder documents how she went from being an advocate of equal rights for women to a propagandist for the sexual revolution. Sounds like an interesting book.
I’m also an individualist, so I think that people should be allowed freedom of expression and to be treated as individuals. Still, I think that there exists the question in every boy’s mind of “What does it mean to be a man?” and in every girl’s “What does it mean to be a woman?” One finds oneself born within a particular sex and this influences the individual’s search for virtue at a more primal level than individuality, simply because we know physical things–our bodies–more clearly than immaterial things–our personhood, individuality, or soul. So, I do think that we come to a knowledge of our individuality through struggling to be a man or a woman. For example, my greatest role models when I was young were my grandfather and Theodore Roosevelt. As useful as the examples of great women are, patterning any of my behavior after them would not occur to me until much later. Even now, I can only think of two such women: St. Mary the Mother of God and St. Therese of Lisieux.
The problem with most feminist movements lies in the fact that they do not have an example of a good woman before them. (I don’t think that your version suffers from that flaw though.) Instead, they look at the privileges men have, want those privileges, and do not know how to enjoy their own. In our present times, this phenomenon also extends to men who see how women are respected, loved, and admired and try to gain the same things for themselves by rendering themselves effeminate. There is envy at work here which undermines the relation between the sexes.
The ultimate model for a man to aspire to is Jesus Christ and the ultimate model for a woman is St. Mary. Many cultures and people do not realize this, but each person’s model must partake of the qualities of these persons or not be a good model. Wherever there is error in the goals and attitudes one wishes to set for men or women, I think that it derives from lacking one of these exemplars. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ is inifinite God and St. Mary “borders on the infinite”; so no one can ever fully imitate them, but everyone who strives to imitate them or even imitate a sound model of them comes off as a partial reflection of these two persons.
So, there still is an inequality of gifts between men and women, the sexes need to find their perfection and individuality within masculinity or femininity, and that most variants of modern feminism (even if not the majority of women) will go to radical extremes because they do not actually know makes for a woman’s happiness. So, I think that one can expect certain behaviors or attributes in women but at the same time recognize individual divergences from the rule, which just might be a stronger expression of a feminine virtue even if it is not usually thought of as such. St. Mary was modest and humble, but also crushed the devil beneath her feet, after all.
“As useful as the examples of great women are, patterning any of my behavior after them would not occur to me until much later.”
Herein lies an issue that may not have thought about: As a girl, I received the impression that masculine role-models were inherently superior to feminine ones. This cuts two ways. The paternalistic culture implies that male role-models (and masculinity in general) are(is) inherently superior to female, but as a female, I should be restricted to female role-models. The feminist push back says that if I feel drawn to a role that is traditionally masculine, then I have to turn my back on any female role-models (most of them) who held traditionally female roles. Our culture hasn’t become comfortable enough with the concept of true feminism to accept what I believe should be our view: that if a woman is drawn, as many are, to traditional roles, and identifies strongly with traditionally “female” virtues, that she is not necessarily un-feminist, and if a woman desires nontraditional roles and or has “masculine” virtues, it does not make her less of a woman.
“most feminist movements” I would say the “noisiest feminist movements.” I agree that envy between the sexes is an evil, but there is a difference between envy and natural desire. The danger lies in these words: “enjoy their own.” What is our own? This is why conversation on an on any subject having to do with privilege is fraught with danger. What if my view of what is my own does not line up with yours? And what if you had the power to enforce your view of what I should be?
You have a deep tradition at your back and you have faith in that tradition. I do not share that faith, so I cannot rely on it, as you do, to tell me my role in society. I have the Word, with which I sometimes struggle, but in which I also find great encouragement (considering the times and places in which it was written, it is a shockingly “feminist” book), and I have my own feelings and observation. Given that, we might not be able to agree on what men and women are supposed to be. Still, I think we would probably agree more than we would disagree.
Ah… but here may be a deeper root of disagreement: “The ultimate model for a man to aspire to is Jesus Christ and the ultimate model for a woman is St. Mary.” I believe the ultimate model for me is also Jesus Christ. St. Mary is highly exalted, a role-model in her humility and strength, for all of mankind, but we are told to follow Christ, not St. Mary. The saints can be great role-models, but Christ is not a role-model. He is the King, Leader, Teacher, Savior, and more than can be expressed in words, and we are all to follow Him and Him alone. The models of the saints, even blessed St. Mary herself, are to help us to follow Him. That’s where I am coming from.
I also consider myself a son of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. A son, not a daughter… just as you are part of the bride of Christ, not the groom. God uses both masculine and feminine imagery to describe Himself. He uses both masculine and feminine imagery to describe us, as well. The words are meant to convey so much more than gender.
The words “son” and “daughter” traditionally carry very different meanings, just as “bride” and “groom” do. As a bride, traditionally speaking, we are meant to understand that our role is that of beloved, not lover, and the relationship is not on equal terms. That is as it should be, if our Lover is God.
To be a “daughter” of God, using the word in its traditional sense, is to be chattels. It carries less meaning of “offspring,” it certainly does not imply that one is an heir, that one has responsibilities or that one will inherit anything. I reject that idea. I do not believe that the rest of the Bible supports the idea that one’s sex dictates the place of one’s soul (or, as some have believed, that women have no souls). If I take that to be true, then it also seems likely to me that all the words of Christ apply to me as much as to my male counterparts, and that means I am to follow Him and no one else.
“do not actually know makes for a woman’s happiness.” Remember that neither do and you will avoid a possible pitfall. There’s been a lot of unhappiness in every age of mankind, and for much of that, women have not had much of a voice to express their particular struggles. We cannot gauge the relative contentment of women across the ages and compare it with today. All we can be certain of is that the institution of the family is breaking down from a myriad of different causes, and it is going to bring our society down with it. It’s already largely done so. But I would advise against throwing the feminist baby out with the feminist bath-water, or of simply dismissing the issue. It would be much better to join forces with the sane feminists in strengthening the family by improving communication and increasing mutual respect between the sexes.
We need to be stripped of Pride and Envy as they relate to gender. Once that happens (I have little-to-no hope that it will until Our Lord returns) both paternalism and feminism will be moot, even laughable and we will be able, for the first time since the Fall, to actually see what gender means, and what we, as people, are. I long for that. 🙂
“The ultimate model for a man to aspire to is Jesus Christ and the ultimate model for a woman is St. Mary.” As I read these words now, I realize how incorrect they are. Jesus Christ is the ultimate model for both men and women to aspire to. What I wished to express was something different and orthodox rather than unorthodox, i. e. that Our Lord is the highest exemplar of a good man (though, He is naturally more than that through His divinity and in His relationship to us) and Our Lady the highest exemplar of a good woman. The matter of how to be a good Christian, a good follower of Christ, always depends on how well one follows Christ’s instructions and imitates His conduct. (Thus, St. Mary is the best follower of Christ because her life imitates His best.) In my response, I ran with the understanding that men learned how to be good men through following the example of good men and women becoming more virtuous through imitating good women. This line of reasoning led to that error in my response; though, I still think it’s correct to say that men and women usually discover and build their character through imitation of good examples within their sex, because of the greater degree of identification.
I do know of what a woman’s happiness generally consists and of what a man’s happiness consists: motherhood for the former and fatherhood for the latter. Of course, how does that explain the fact that there are four vocations? Married, single, religious, and priestly? There also exist moral and spiritual forms of parentage in addition to the familial. A drill sergeant, for example, might be said to be the father of his trainees in that he engenders the discipline and skills which form them into competent soldiers. A businesswoman may be viewed as the mother of those in her company through creating an atmosphere of trust and affection which drives her employees to grow. A woman blocked from moral, spiritual, and familial motherhood—in the same way as a man blocked from these kinds of fatherhood—will be unhappy. Human beings are called to serve one another through their talents, and this has the nature of parentage–even as God is not only Our Father because He called us forth from nothing but also because He serves our every need and guides us to truth, virtue, and salvation.
In general, unhappiness derives from selfishness or the failure or unwillingness to give of oneself. People most refer to these gifts as individual or personal talents, but we can also give of our nature—femininity or masculinity in this case. These two sides of humanity can’t be reduced to personality; though, men often have feminine traits and vice versa. But, might this not be because men need to be feminized to an extent and women made somewhat more masculine? (I recall that Chesterton says that every man is feminized merely through being born.) At any rate, there is purpose to God creating two sexes deeper than genetic and reproductive considerations, and these sexes usually fill different roles in society; though, a good society will only restrict certain roles through prudence and not out of prejudice.
Thank you for reminding me of that strange dichotomy of Christians being individually masculine (sons of God) and collectively feminine (the bride of Christ). That sons of God applies to both male and female Christians is a very interesting mystery, and I also think that it has to do with the fact that daughters don’t have a lasting inheritance but marry into a different family when they come of age.
Well, I enjoyed discussing these ideas with you. It has greatly improved my understanding of how feminism can fit within Christianity.
We are walking in a great deal of mystery, but I agree with nearly everything you say this time around, and most of all, with this: “In general, unhappiness derives from selfishness or the failure or unwillingness to give of oneself.” Of the little bit in Everything that we do know, that, I believe, is certain.
My only caveat is that I would greater simplify what you say about familial desires (I do think you are right in that most, if not all, men and women do desire that on some level) and say it is a desire for connection. I think, separated from God and therefore from each other as we now are, we are desperately hungry for connections. That hunger drives even people who seem to have no interest in familial or familial-like relationships.
Thanks for the debate. I learned a great deal, too. Talking with you is always something of an education. 🙂
[…] a novel I’m writing and the rest to answering Jubilare’s excellent arguments prompted by my article concerning the inequality of the sexes. How often on the internet does one see people arguing intelligently about something and both […]
For a non-Christian, non-traditional, decidedly liberal person…I have always had a strong fondness for traditional gender roles and femininity. I think the reason for this is because as a child, I was denied them entirely. When you grow up with a disability, and everybody knows you have a disability, people treat you as….like…some kind of mysterious repulsive third gender. That no one would ever get close to, or be intimate with. The whole problem gets exasperated even more because as a kid with autism, I didn’t know how to make myself look “feminine” at the time. And it’s not just clothes, but also mannerisms, body language…Being a woman is birthright. Looking like one to others? It takes years of practice and hard work.
“However, one’s sex is so tied into one’s personality that one can’t completely escape the attributes associated with one’s sex without certain dissatisfaction.”
Yet this….I’m not so sure I agree here. My personality, definitely— But a lot of people don’t identify as being any gender, let alone the gender that matches the sex they were born as. I know a woman who is forceful, confident, and powerfully masculine….And she could never, ever feel comfortable being a housewife in traditionally feminine spheres of influence. She can be “feminine” in other senses (Aesthetically, perhaps in her type of art appreciation), but never passive or nurturing. She actually loathes kids and reminds me a bit of Ron Perlman’s Slade of all people from Teen Titans. Cold, aloof, viciously intelligent and practical….but perhaps never quite so heartless. You can choose to love another sometimes, even if you lack the circuitry required.
I think there’s got to be a reason the two genders are “paired” as they are, and I very much see my own God as being my “husband” and “Lover” as well (And to him owe my fealty), but I think a lot of the time humans assume too much about that reason and what it is.
“And, does not this unnatural war not follow from the drive for perfect equality? If I have two tools which can do the same job with equal proficiency, then one is not needed.”
Yet two men are not two tools that can do the same job with equal proficiency, and neither are two women. My friend can’t ever have the faith and freedom-in-submission I have, can’t even experience the rich taste of it, but I will never have her intelligence nor practicality. Why can it not be so that we are all allowed to take the social roles that suit the entity that lives within, and not the body that entity was born with?
To imply that men “would not be needed” if women “did every job” is to imply that women are superior to men, and that…..just makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like the strange, over-trumped fear a lot of modern men have that they will be replaced…when really the person who does the best job wins. o__o;
I think that men and women will think about things differently in the same jobs, neither better, and that this will one day lead to an equal number in all sectors of society instead of a “war.” 🙂
It is very hard to live with a disability. One has to make adjustments for it, and people always remark on those who differ from the usual–with the exception of non-judgmental persons anyway. But, I do think that it is possible for people to project a masculine or feminine attitude despite disabilities. For example, Ivar the Boneless was a much respected counselor despite having legs of cartilage, and Emily Dickenson’s poetry strikes one as feminine despite her being rather anti-social and reclusive. But, it’s still a hard road.
I sympathize with your friend; though, I must remark, as C. S. Lewis admitted about himself, that a distaste for children is a human flaw rather than one associated with either sex. It often points to a lack of joy. As the poet Basho wrote in haiku form, “For those who don’t love children, there are no flowers.” But, the decision not to have children in order to seek better things is not unfeminine. In particular, preferring the love of God to a human lover is simply preferring the fire to the spark. One is surprised that majority marvels so much over people deciding to join religious orders.
On the question of the degree to which one ought to align oneself to the traditional understanding of one’s sex, it must first be admitted that the virtues, i.e.those things which comprise human excellence, are recommended to all regardless of sex. So, one finds similar virtues among good men and women. Many secular persons deplore the Christian injunction for women to be obedient to their husbands, but we find that the outstanding virtue of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph–the greatest persons to walk the earth–is obedience. Robert E. Lee even once remarked, “Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly virtue.” As much as obedience is recommended to wives, it is recommended to all in general as the shortest way to virtue and wisdom. Still, there are different expressions of virtue between men and women, and men are supposed to emphasize courage and women purity. Men preserve a nation from external threats while women preserve its integrity. Someone once remarked that one could tell the quality of a civilization by the quality of its women.
The fear of modern men being replaced by women in all facets of life does seem silly at first. But, when thinking of belligerent feminism, one must recall that statism often goes hand in hand with it. Loyalty to the family competes with loyalty to the state, and both masculinity and femininity uphold the traditional family. So, the feminist blurs the differences between men and women, and fewer people find their destinies as parents. And statists, like the ancient pagan masters, see men as the more rebellious sex and prefer that their numbers be kept down among the slaves, which is the proper term for citizens lacking liberty. Of course, I’m describing a Utopian vision toward where I think extreme feminism tends, and the vast majority of women are as horrified by such a society as men.
And so, I’m quite leery of egalitarian theories which try to eliminate the differences between the sexes. Some of the achievements of feminists were necessary to allow for women’s better participation in society, but I can’t help but wonder if many are now going too far.
“And so, I’m quite leery of egalitarian theories which try to eliminate the differences between the sexes.”
But then what is there for the woman who isn’t me? The woman who is, well….rather masculine, naturally? Or the man who is much more like a woman? Are they to be as they were? Put down, shot down, encouraged to develop severe anxiety disorders by bullying and whispered words?
I just can’t see God as encouraging people who are different to repress who they are, and live life with a fine dusting of fear. That is what a perfectly traditional society often encourages in its members, and not fear of God, but fear and hatred of self. Hatred which leads to greater sin, and the most unfortunate consequences.
Is there a way to both create a society where there are differences between men and women, and yet acknowledge those who are truly different?
“But, I do think that it is possible for people to project a masculine or feminine attitude despite disabilities. For example, Ivar the Boneless was a much respected counselor despite having legs of cartilage, and Emily Dickenson’s poetry strikes one as feminine despite her being rather anti-social and reclusive. But, it’s still a hard road.”
Late in life, with enough knowledge, I have at least managed this. :} It feels very, very good, like finally having aged like a fine wine to the point where I wish to be.
Well, actually, really early in life from a lifetime perspective (XD)…but a long time coming for someone who has waited for the feeling of being perceived and understood as they are, as something other than a child or an object, for decades. 🙂
I’m glad to hear it. Everyone has dignity and the seeds of greatness in them; though, finding people who are able to understand us is very difficult. Friends are life’s greatest treasures.
Well, naturally it must be admitted that certain men have feminine traits and women masculine traits. But, I don’t consider these traits as necessarily defects. After all, it was said of Joshua Chamberlain that he had “the courage of a lion and the heart of a woman.” The feminine tenderness of his heart was an excellent thing indeed. But, if he had the heart of a woman but no courage, he would never have been held of any account as a man.
Femininity and masculinity must be properly understood. On one hand, there is an outward form associated with both–beauty in the case of the former and strength in the case of the latter. At the same time, the essence of each quality stands as much more important than their outward forms, and we are called to conform to the essence rather than the appearance. Milady de Winter of The Three Musketeers is not very womanly nor is the Mountain of A Game of Thrones very manly. Sure, they have the appearances, but meanness and cruelty stand in the place where virtues like modesty, graciousness, and magnanimity should be.
Traditional societies might go too far in shaming people who fall short of virtues and not building them up so that they may acquire them. But, I’m not sure if traditional societies are as much to blame for that as people within them who follow the letter of the law but lack its spirit. After all, it is the quality of truly great persons to be harsh on themselves and sparing of others, while weak people pardon their own flaws but not those of others. On the other hand, modern societies appear much more cruel in that they tell men that they do not need to be courageous and self-controlled and women that they do not need to be modest and pure.
So, that’s where I’m coming from: the accidents of masculinity and femininity are gifts and one deserves no censure for not having them; however, everyone can and ought to advance in regard to their essences through the aid of grace and constant effort.
[…] has to be the post where I claim that the sexes are not equal but complimentary: “Examining Old School Anime: The Inequality of the Sexes.” A close runner up has to do with my examination of Kisara’s duel with her nefarious […]