THE QUEST FOR FEMININE IDENTITY (Faith.
2010, vol. 42)
To Henry Higgin's expostulation, 'why can't a woman be more like a man?'[1]...
the brief answer is of course that she can; but then she will be less like a
woman. Is that progress? Is she made richer or poorer by that? Is humanity made
richer or poorer? Or is everyone made richer if woman is more like a woman?
But - do these questions make sense? A woman is born a woman, isn't she? Can
she, as she grows, become more like a woman or less like a woman? Does it make
a difference? I think she can; and I think it makes an immense difference. This
implies - as I believe - that sexual identity, masculine or feminine, is not
just a 'given' at birth, but also a goal to be sought; and to be achieved - or
not. Some aspects of feminine identity and its achievement are what I propose to
consider in this study.
I. A DISENCHANTED WORLD
We live in a thoroughly 'disenchanted' secular age (as Charles Taylor brings
out so well[2]. There is nothing beyond what I see, nothing underlying what I
feel, nothing that promises more than what I have... Things, events,
relationships, have no more meaning than what I choose to give them. I decide
their value. But, at the best, that value is limited, for I do not, I will not,
believe in absolute values. I identify things by how they suit me - my
satisfaction my advantage - not by any value they have in themselves.
But there is an enchantment in creation. God himself, the Bible tells
us, was pleased, very pleased, with what he had created. He saw it all as good,
very good (Gen 1:31). For God, it is a very good world. For man, the summit of
his creation, God wished it to be an enchanted world, a world where everything,
as animago Dei, can point to the hidden, ultimate and infinite wonder of
God's existence and life.
It was Adam's experience when he saw Eve. He was thrilled, she was an
enchantment for him; something that seemed to come from another world, or to
promise another world. And similarly when Eve saw Adam. In that mutual
attraction of theirs, the physical differences were seen, undisturbedly, as a
sign of a much richer human reality; and indeed as imaging an infinitely higher
reality.
Male and female God made them; and the closer they are, the more they live in
mutual understanding, the more they reflect something of the image of God. This
closeness is only secondarily expressed in physical coupling. It is in the
meeting of souls more than of bodies, in the harmonizing of a masculine and a
feminine way of being, that they image a perfection much higher than anything
either can achieve on his or her own.
There is, or was, truth in that old saying that 'woman promises to man what
only God can give'; also if the promise is expressed the other way round. Today
I am not sure what the sexes promise to each other, and less still what they
mean to each other. Romance, so it seems, is almost gone. The enchantment is
gone, as is also the sense that there is something of magic in sexuality that
has to be protected. Something of good magic that, if not safeguarded, can be
reduced to something of dark magic. We have to restore the good magic, the
ideal of a noble love, the awareness too of the threat of the dark side, and
the resolve to restore and protect the goodness. We have to restore the
enchantment.
That, I maintain, is not possible without a restored sense of sexual identity;
a sense of what it means to be a man, what it means to be a woman, what it can
mean to show together a better image of God.
A few further preliminary considerations may be helpful.
Does
'identity' matter for the person?
Modern life makes us all quite used to describing our identity; filling in ID
cards, making up CVs. And when we need to portray ourselves, e.g. in applying
for a job, we try not to omit any important detail; a degree, a special quality
or skill, and perhaps we cover up or omit what might be considered a defect,
like being shortsighted or suffering from asthma[3].
Subjectively speaking, one's identity is one's awareness of oneself as a
separate conscious entity.
Is it not enough to say "I'm me; that's who I am; that's my
identity"? No, I don't think that is enough, for it says nothing more than
the obvious, and really says nothing concrete at all. Of course, you're you and
I'm me, but that does nothing to identify what or who or how
you and I are. This is what identity is all about.
Moreover, one's identity is not something static. It is in a certain flux. It
is not only a present reality, it is also a goal - to be achieved or to be
botched and frustrated. I may identify myself as an athlete. But that is not
enough. Am I just an athlete in training? Am I a successful, or a mediocre, or
a failed athlete?
On the other hand, since my identity is in constant transformation, if I cannot
identify myself as I am now, I do not know what I am building on, or building
towards, or what I am likely to be in 5, 10 or 20 years time. For each one of
us is an unfolding story, a narrative of daily and distinct episodes; but one
without meaning or coherence if I can't connect my self-story of yesterday with
that of today and with the continuation of it I will write tomorrow. If there
is no connection in my self-awareness, then I am a life without a plot, a tale
signifying nothing. If I cannot sense or propose some linear connection between
my past, present and future, then there is no continuity, no development
between different chapters of my life-story. There is in fact no story; my life
is no more than a succession of dis-connected episodes. I am or am
becoming a disintegrated being[4].
II. ESTABLISHING IDENTITY.
Identity, and the question of 'givens', of nature
So, one's identity is made up of certain characteristics we have in common with
others, and certain characteristics we have differently: and again of some
qualities we have as "givens" and others we have acquired. It is only
by knowing these that we can identify ourselves. The person incapable of
self-identification just does not know himself or herself.
The current confusion about identity is mainly rooted in the idea of the
self-identifying or the self-defining person. 'My life is mine and I can make
whatever I want of it'. This is not so, in the first place because I only
possess my life precisely insofar as it has been given to me; it is a gift.
When I receive a gift, it becomes mine; yes, that is true. But if I am
sensible, I want to know the nature of the gift so as to use or handle it
wisely; for it can be spoiled, even completely, by bad use. If I am given a
paperweight of gold, I may drop it and nothing is lost. If the gift is a
precious porcelain vase and I drop it, the gift itself is lost. It is important
to know that some things given to us in life are both precious and breakable,
and not easily recovered if broken.
Of the elements, then, which characterize the human person in her or his
particular identity, some are given, some are acquired; some are foundational
and inalienable, others are accidental; some identify the person positively,
others negatively. Some may be virtues, some may be vices. Some may be
treasured, some may be despised (in both cases, for the right or the wrong
reasons). Further, the less some feature -important to a person's
identity is esteemed and possessed - , the less that person is likely to fulfil
himself or herself.
The question before us is whether sexual difference, femininity in our concrete
case, is an important and positive element in self-identification; and, I would
add, an even more important element in reaching an identity worth achieving, in
attaining a worthwhile self-fulfilment.
III. HUMAN SEXUAL
IDENTITY
Now we enter more properly on our theme. Is sexuality, as a 'given', an
important part of my identity, of my personal makeup?
One is born male or female. Does the difference matter? Is male identity an
advantage over female? Can full personal identity be achieved without any
reference to sexual identity? Do men and women fulfil themselves (identify
themselves in fullness) in much the same way, or is the mode of proper
fulfilment also conditioned (and therefore differentiated) in each case by
sexually given elements?
Human sexuality is more than animal sexuality. The man-woman relationship
cannot be reduced just to male-female. Male-female denotes just physical
differences; it is a distinction apt for the animal world. Masculine-feminine
is peculiar to the human world.
Elements
of human sexual identity.
What main elements go to make up human sexual identity? I wish to dwell on
four. Human sexual identity: a) is a relational identity; b)
is tied up with creativity; c) suggests complementarity;
d) implies a powerregarding others.
a) Sexual identity is
a relational identity.
Each of us is an individual. But the individual in isolation, by himself,
shrinks. He only grows in relation to others. No one is meant to be an island.
If we don't open out to others, appreciate them, discover values in them,
connect and build bridges with them, each will remain a desert island, floating
- or sinking - in a desolate sea[5].
Among the various forms of human relationship there is one that can draw people
together in a unique way, one bridge that can unite (though it can also separate),
one where the sense of mutual need is strongly present. And that is human
sexuality. Without understanding how masculinity and femininity stand in
relation to one another, without admiring the values each sexual mode should
incarnate and letting oneself be enriched by that appreciation, one can never
achieve a full human identity.
b) Sexual identity is
tied up with creativity
Humanity is at its highest when it gives itself. And self-giving is at its
highest when it is creative. The person who sees nothing worth giving himself
to, is trapped in a valueless life. The person who does not want to be creative
lacks one of the fundamental aspirations of humanity. Not to want to create
betrays a lack of vitality which reflects or facilitates the culture of death.
Love is creative. The sculptor hews his vision of beauty into lasting stone.
Only a man and a woman together can create living works of art, with each child
a unique monument to the creative love that inspires and unites them.
Disesteem of the procreative wonder of sexuality reflects a devalued human
outlook.
c) Sexual identity
suggests complementarity
Initial feminism made the totally logical and totally human demand of
equal rights for women as for men. When part of that feminism
let itself be radicalized into demanding not just equal rights but equal roles, it
lost both logic and humanizing power.
Equality in the sense of equivalence, where everyone is the same, would turn
society into an assembly line. The awareness and cultivation of complementarity
is vital for the development of a society that is truly human. Some people, who
don't understand what a human society means, and simply want one that is
efficient and scientific, see it the other way round. Differences can be hard
to manage; so let's have the minimum number, those necessary for the orderly
management of things; e.g. the alpha, beta, gamma differences of Brave
New World, each at its proper level - with an "identical"
identity - trained for a particular type of job, to slot in there and nowhere
else.
I find that gray and uniformed prospect appalling. I want a society where
people rejoice in variety, being so formed that differences are a source not of
friction but of joy. How boring if everyone were the same! And how exciting if
everyone is different and we are able to rejoice in those different qualities
that fill out and complement our own.
Yet some people today want functional, job-to-job, complementarity; but not
personal, me-to-you, complementarity. That approach is hostile, in the first place,
to the idea of friendship which finds a special complement in a particular
person, and still more hostile to the notion of a distinctive complementarity
between the sexes, all the more so if it were to lead two people to want an
exclusive union between themselves (since "everyone belongs to everyone
else"...).
There can be no complementarity between identicals nor between absolutely
disconnected beings. Hence, while sexuality points toward differences, it is
toward differences that are correlative and can so serve to build a new and
more perfect wholeness.
We should all seek to develop all the human qualities or virtues. But it is
easier to learn some virtues from a woman - from a well-identified woman - and
easier to learn others from a well-identified man. Sexual complementarity
implies mutual learning in the process of growing toward all-round human
maturity. "It is not by imitating the opposite sex, nor
by seeking to dominate it, but by learning from
it that a person grows in that sexual identity which is so important for
maturity in life" (C. Burke: Man and Values, Scepter, 2007, p.
135).
Rather than detailing various virtues that might be considered more appropriate
to each sex[6], I will limit myself here to one broad observation as to how
true masculinity can help form true femininity, and vice-versa. Man needs
taming, the acquisition of the "humility of strength", which is truly
strong only when placed at the service of fidelity and love. For her part,
woman needs the "strength of humility" which leads her to rise above
both vanity and self-pity, to an ambitious pride: the "pride" of
caring and living for others.
As between man and woman, the more they complement each other, the more each
helps or inspires the other to make the effort toward personal wholeness. Man
without the inspiration of femininity is lost; he has no heroine to worship, no
queen to serve; he is left with just the stimulus of femaleness, and no ideal
with which to counterbalance his sensuality and so learn to be humbly strong in
the service of others. For her part, woman, if she has no appreciation for the
gift of masculinity, will have no hero to worship, no one to care for, no one
to be proud to serve, nothing to help her forget herself and her vanity[7].
d) Sexual identity implies
a power re others
Sexuality involves an attraction between persons, and hence a certain power in
their mutual relationship. Where there is power, there needs to be
responsibility, for power can be used well or badly. Power can fascinate; power
can exhilarate. Power can also corrupt - not just political power; but sexual
power too.
Women realize that men are attracted to them; and they like the sense of
dominion this gives them. It works vice-versa of course, but not in the same
measure. A fundamental truth that sociology and anthropology tend to pass over
is that man is weaker than woman before the powerful fascination of sex, more
easily succumbs to it; and hence is more easily exploited.
Sexuality in our age is almost completely dominated by the stimulus of bodily
attraction, that is, the male-female mode of sexual power or that power of
attraction which humans have in common with the animals. What is being so
alarmingly lost today is that other mode of human sexual attraction or sexual
power, the feminine-masculine attraction. It is normal that both be present in
men-women relations. But when, as today, the male-female mode becomes dominant,
then the sexual attraction itself tends to become an instrument of domination
or of exploitation.
So we need to distinguish between the power of the female vis-à-vis the
male, on the one hand; and on the other, the power of the feminine
vis-à-vis the man. The power of the female generates physical desire in the
male: once satisfied he withdraws into that satisfaction, into himself, until
desire is aroused again. The power of the feminine generates respect that can
grow, even to a form of veneration, which draws a man out of himself and
inspires him to higher things[8].
But if a woman, by emphasizing her femaleness, capitalizes on her particular
power of attraction, she will provoke the mere male instinct; men will be
attracted to her, or rather to her body, out of simple physical sexual desire.
She is inviting them to treat her as an object of lust inasmuch as she is a
female, never of admiration as a woman, as a truly human and feminine woman[9].
Recently, in a family I know, the teenage daughter had a date with a young man
her parents too happened to like. Just before going out, she appeared dressed
in a somewhat provocative way. Her dad called her aside. You like this boy,
don't you? - Yes. And he likes you? - I think so. Look, honey, you've got a
pretty face and a nice smile. But if you want to be sure of that boy you've got
to observe the way he looks into your eyes. [For love is specially spoken
through the eyes]. But as you are dressed now, you won't get much chance to see
the look in his eyes, because his eyes will be going elsewhere. Is that the
sort of date you want, so as to know him better? She got the point and went off
to dress differently.
Women have power, great power, over men. One can largely identify and even
classify a woman by how she uses this power, especially though not exclusively
by her way of dressing and walking. The identity of the prostitute used to
stand out in this way. One sign of the times is that many men find it hard to
distinguish the ordinary woman from the prostitute; to distinguish the true
woman whom the more noble part of their masculine nature wishes to look up to,
from that other woman whom the lower part of the same nature seeks simply to
possess.
Given that, it should be clear that 'sexual harassment' has a two-way
application.
IV. A MAIN KEY TO
FEMININE IDENTITY
Masculine identity is not our topic; and in any case, man, to achieve his
sexual identity, depends more on woman achieving hers, than vice-versa.
To my mind, feminine identity is first bound up with woman's radical
orientation towards child-bearing. This of course is evident on the physical
level - the makeup of the female body. In terms of corporal sexuality, the
female body is much more fundamentally configured toward maternity than the
male toward paternity. Along with the whole complexity of her genital
apparatus, her breasts also show this; she is made not only to bear but also to
nourish.
A woman can never establish a true feminine identity unless she in some way
senses the greatness of this potential for maternity, and holds it in
reverence. Unless a girl grows in awareness of the creative mystery of her
body, she will remain at a subhuman level and will never be able to develop her
proper sexual identity.
This is borne out too in that human motherhood (and pride in motherhood) is
what most inspires reverence in men. It is there that they sense that women are
the special depositaries of the power of creation and of the mystery of life.
Motherhood resulting from merely laboratory techniques may stir wonder at
technology, but not reverence for maternity. But it falls outside the scope of
the present study to go further into this point.
If a woman reverences the mystery of her body, it will be easier for men to do
so too. The natural instinct of modesty (or that which used to be natural to
women) shows that reverence, and moreover stirs up a reverential attraction in
man. In contrast, the immodest woman, who treats and regards her body and her
sexual parts as a bait and not as a mystery, just stirs a sensual attraction in
man causing him both to desire her and to despise her.
V. TWO MODES OF SEXUAL
IDENTIFICATION AND FULFILMENT
May I refer again to my book, "Man and Values". Its main thesis is
that we do not fulfil ourselves just around ourselves. The thrust of fulfilment
is not inward, toward self, but outward - toward values, especially as found in
others. The discovery of worthwhile values and the response to them, is the
key. Not to be able to discover anything of real worth is a primary limitation
in the development of one's life. Not to be able to respond to a real value
once discovered, is an even more radical limitation. That is the reason for the
sub-title give to the book, "A Personalist Anthropology", because its
thesis reflects the basic principle of modern personalism: that we can only
find ourselves through the sincere gift of ourselves.
One chapter in that book considers the humanizing role of sexuality in general.
Another considers marriage as a way of fulfilment through sexual self-gift and
union. Now, in attempting to tie together the main elements of feminine
identity, I would like to take these considerations a bit farther and center on
two realities that some might regard as opposed, and which I see as
complementary. Further, the proper understanding of each and their relationship
is basic to the attainment of feminine sexual identity. These two realities are
virginity and marriage.
Virginity.
True friendship, with its sincere elements of mutual self-giving, can be a step
toward fulfilment. Whoever lacks a capacity for friendship does not come out of
self and will not find fulfilment. Calculated friendship, by which one wants to
receive at least as much as one gives, inherently limits happiness and
fulfilment.
But the gift of self that truly fulfils must be total; and a total gift
of self can only be made to one. There are two forms of total self-giving: the gift
of self to God, and the gift of self in marriage.
The sexes are made to give, to each other, but not to give easily; to give for
the first time, and to give completely and exclusively. Casual or
indiscriminate sexual self-giving, which really implies partial self-giving,
tends to reduce the very power to give oneself, for it reduces the self that is
given. This is why the self-giving of sexuality should be a virginal
self-giving, for then it is indeed the total gift of self - of a self that has
never been given to anyone else before.
We will leave aside the virginal giving of self to God, just noting that since
the sexes - man and woman - "image" God, virginal giving to God is to
transcend the image and give oneself to the Reality that is imaged[10].
On the human level, virginity means keeping oneself in order to give; keeping
what is unique so as to be able to give oneself uniquely. Only in the context
of marital self-giving can the greatness of virginity be understood - the
preserving and maturing of one's self so as to have a worthwhile self to give,
and to be able to give it whole and exclusive, as any true gift must be.
A virginal union in marriage says so much, much more than any words can say. It
says in effect: I have been tempted to give or to throw away parts of myself.
But I have managed to keep myself entire, for love[11]. I was waiting for the
one person whom I could feel to be worth all of my love, all of my heart, all
of myself. And you are that person. I give myself entirely now for the first
time. Take me; I am yours. This speaks so much of the past and promises so much
for the future.
Marriage.
Self-gift - to love, to life
The truly human attraction between the sexes is toward a corporal union that
incarnates a spiritual union; a mutual gift of the body that represents a
mutual gift of self. A gift, however, not a loan or a mere
permission to use - which is a travesty of the human meaning or exercise of
sexuality.
The readiness to give implies the disposition to receive. Our fulfilment depends
on our openness to values and our receptivity towards them. Does that mean a
dependence? Of course! The false exaltation of a closed and impervious
independence is one of the main blocks today to human fulfilment. The
phenomenon of human love - I want you, I need you, and if you will take me and
give yourself to me, I will give myself to you - belies the pitiful and
destructive myth of total personal autonomy.
Perhaps you have read Sigrid Undset's Kristin Lavransdatter, her
Nobel Prize winning novel. In one of her earlier books, Jenny, the protagonist,
in a juvenile assertion of independence, says to the man she will eventually
fall in love with, "You can't love something you're dependent on, can
you?" [He does not quite agree]. "I don't know. Aren't you always
dependent on what you love? You're dependent on your work, aren't you? And if
you're fond of someone, isn't that when you first become truly dependent?"
- "Well, yes..." She thought for a moment. "But then you've made
your own choice," she said briskly. "I mean, you're not a slave; you
voluntarily serve something or someone that you value more than
yourself"[12].
Precisely. None of us can achieve our human identity unless we discover
something we value more than self, and to which and for which we are prepared
to give our self.
That is not the way we are encouraged to think in today's world. We are rather
taught the opposite. Take what you can get from life. Expect that others will
esteem you not by what you give but by what you manage to get. We are taught to
love nothing else than our sterile independence, our bubble self-esteem and the
self-importance of our work - as if this could fill us. In that same novel,
someone comments to Jenny, "maybe you think that it's only women who find
life meaningless or feel their hearts frozen and empty when they don't have
anything but their work to love? Just their own impulses, and nothing else to
rely on! Do you think there's a single soul alive who doesn't have moments of
self-doubt? No, there has to be another person with whom you can deposit the
best of yourself - your love and your trust - and that's the bank you must be
able to rely on" (ib. p. 168). Is it possible that the current global
collapse of confidence in our financial institutions could help people clutch
their way back to a different sense of values and to the commitment of self
which underlies any firm investment in their own happiness?
Creativity;
the family project
Self-gift - to love, to life - go together. Love for another is love for the
life of another. It is love for life withanother; and for what
eventuates from that united life. Love and life and creativity go together. One
of the major impoverishments of our value-free world is that we are no longer
artists, no longer creative in any true sense. What sort of creativity can
spring from a life-view which refuses to envision limitless beauty, goodness,
love, life, glory, generosity - or their opposites? Without a
personal sense of being involved in a win-all/lose-all affair, life itself is
banalized.
That is why another reason for the shakiness of feminine identity today is, I
think, woman's loss of her sense of distinctive creativity. True; some women,
like some men, get engaged in creative activities - gardening, design... But
what motivates them? What does it all amount to? Maybe just the satisfaction of
looking at something I did 'of my own'; maybe the self-centered vanity of
hoping others will admire it; maybe the desire to leave behind a bit of myself.
But how is it that woman in particular should have lost the sense of the wonder
of her greatest artistic capacity, her power to create new life itself, to
pro-create - which is really to co-create, to be joint creators with God
himself?
Yes, of course this applies to men as much as to women. The privilege is the
same. But the miserable presentation of the contraceptive movement in terms of
women's rights - the right to be free from the burden of child-bearing - has
blinded so many women to the peculiar privilege of motherhood.
But surely - one may object - it is undeniable that the woman has the greater
part in this: in pregnancy, in giving birth; and yes, in rearing? And is this
greater burden not unfair to woman? Greater burden? Is that all there is to be
said? Is it unfair to her that she has the greater privilege and
that as a good mother she will stand higher, at least in her children's
estimation, than a good father?
Motherhood demands more of a woman than fatherhood of a man? Yes, because
maternity is a greater mission and a unique privilege. But girls are no longer
brought up to regard it so. Men should indeed be blamed for their neglect of
their role as fathers. And thank God there is a growing number of feminists who
are campaigning for a radical reform in this matter - not through getting men
to wash an equal number of dishes, but by reviving in them the sense of what
their man's role as a father calls for. But that will never be achieved without
women who have a deep pride in their role as mothers.
VI. THE HUMANIZING OF
SOCIETY
Let me here try to forestall an objection; i.e. that what I have expounded so
far seems to suggest that woman's place is in the home; and that she should go
back there...
In a certain sense, yes I am suggesting that we all need to go back to the
home. The only trouble is that, practically speaking, there is no home to go
back to. Home needs to be remade. To be homemakers is one of the highest ideals
for both men and women, especially today. It draws them on to true personal
fulfilment, and involves them in the great enterprise of rehumanizing our
modern world.
To anyone who has real eyes to see with, the dehumanization of present-day
society is evident. It will continue unless the family, as a source and stable
reference point for a person's values, is remade. And woman has a privileged
role there. She needs to stop allowing herself be exploited by those who would
have her both stir up the worst of men's instincts and imitate the worst of
men's defects. We need the active presence of woman in public and professional
life; but a presence by which she brings with her the best of her feminine
qualities, and not one where she declines into a servile imitation of men in
the ruthless efficiency, the heartless dealing with persons, the manipulation
of people and circumstances that so many men seem capable of.
The woman truly aware of her feminine identity, has a special sense of her own
dignity and of the respect due to it, and hence of the dignity due to every
single human being. She aspires to give life and, in giving life, she learns to
respect life. She has an intuitive awareness of the deeper human concerns - and
not just the technical issues - at stake in so many problems facing society.
But she will never develop her feminine identity without a sense of sexual
complementarity, without an appreciation of man's strengths and man's
weaknesses, without a sense of the dignity of virginity and of the glory of
motherhood; without a sense that humanity is especially in her care.
Many women, with no pride in their feminine identity, try to live off pride in
their masculine or pseudo-masculine achievements. Such achievements add nothing
human to personal or societal enrichment. But if their professional competence
carries with it a feminine stamp, then they are fulfilling themselves as well
as exercising their peculiar ability to humanize society.
Are we far from that? Yes, indeed, for we have gone through a century in which
woman has stepped down from her pedestal, has cast away her throne and her
crown, and preferred to have the democratic right of being just one guy more.
Some - few, I think - manage to be the tough guy and make the boardroom level.
But most, as I see it, just end up as weaker guys and then grasp at the only
power left to them - their sexual ability to exploit men's weakness. It is a
degrading role, and a choice for degradation.
This is the situation to which radical feminism has led us. I am inclined to
think that its radicalism could be traced to a few very intelligent and perhaps
professionally successful women of the last three or four decades who became
progressively more and more 'anti-men', maybe due to men's scant appreciation
of their professional achievements. Along with that, not a few of them would
seem to have had a highly unsuccessful experience of love or marriage and
family life. That would also explain why some appear so keen to enlist their
daughters into their radicalism. If, as it seems, many of their daughters don't
respond, this can certainly add to their resentment. And my impression is that such
feminists are already among the most resentful elements in our resentful
society. No society characterized by growing self-pity and resentment can for
long survive.
For this is what we are faced with: a dehumanized, devalued, civilization
where, having stupidly mortgaged our life's possibilities, sinking them in the
acquisition of material things, we see society totter on the verge of
bankruptcy. In a frenzy of accumulating possessions and experiences, we have
pawned or jettisoned the treasure of selfhood and self-gift, and now we are
tempted to think there is no way of redeeming what has been so recklessly
thrown away. Oh, but there is. It will take time, but there is a way to
redemption, and it depends very principally on woman's proudly recovering her
feminine identity.
Virginity marks a stage toward that identity, inasmuch as it matures one for
life and for love. Marriage and motherhood are the normal next step in personal
development. A virgin has identity. A mother has identity. Both are ideals - to
be sought, to be lived, to be proud of. Do young women today regard their life
in the light of such ideals? Or if what sadly passes, if not for an ideal, for
an aim among them, is that of - neither virgin nor mother!, what identity can
possibly be left to them?
It is impossible to develop any worthwhile human identity without some
worthwhile human ideal. But if you have no ideal! - just goals of money, or
power or pleasure - can you develop an identity worth having?
What a poor mentality is shown by the one who rejects the family project!
"I am not interested in future generations, in people who may come after
me, not even in those who could be a continuation of me, of my effort, of my
dedication, of my worth as a person, of my love". But then, what am I interested
in? In me? - in such a worthless me? Yes, then it is sadly logical that I
should not want to perpetuate my valueless life. But, is that life of mine
inexorably without values? No, no. I can change. I can help others to change,
and to be proud of it.
It is only natural to want to do something of worth with one's life. Marriage
used to be considered the common, and yet individual, worthwhile adventure to
which each one is called; and a large part of one's adolescent life was guided
by the call to prepare for such a sacred venture. There was a sense of
greatness in this preparation: the greatness of preparing oneself to share life
with someone one can trust, to be someone who can oneself be trusted, to found
a family, to continue the work of creation... There was and is a good pride
here - that the pusillanimous person can indeed turn his or her back on, and
then be left with all the sadness of having had no ideals.
Some years ago a teacher who had found one of his students very down, referred
him to me. I talked with him a couple of times. Indeed he was down. It was hard
to find any spark of life or ambition in him. Finally, perhaps in a moment of
impatience, I asked him, "But man, don't you have any ideals?" He
hesitated and finally answered, "No". A bit taken aback, perhaps by
the directness of his answer, I asked him again: "But, doesn't that seem
sad to you?" His answer, once more after a pause, was just as direct:
"Yes".
How much a No and a Yes can say about a life. Today if more men, and I think especially
more women, asked themselves the question, "what ideals do I have in my
life?" and answered sincerely, they would be in a better position to grasp
the real value of their lives, and the prospect of real sadness and real
emptiness that may be facing them.
A truly feminine identity - in the home no less than in the public square. It
is in both worlds that women can fulfil themselves. But - as women, not as
ersatz or pseudo men! The fact is that those very qualities which fit woman to
be a home-builder - her tact, here sense of justice due to each one, her
readiness for service, her gift for being a peace-maker (when she wants), just
to mention a few - are the very qualities needed so that she can play an
outstanding role in rehumanizing our professional and public life. That is the
way our feminisms need to go: not forming tough guys, but forming thorough
women.
However, the conditions should be clear. If women are going to mature in their
sexual identity, they need to overcome the contempt for virginity, for
home-making and motherhood, that has become so widespread today. Otherwise
their intervention in professional and public life will lack that truly
feminine and humanizing influence contemporary society so badly need.
What would our society gain from more women who have indeed managed - pace Henry
Higgins - to be more like men: more efficient perhaps; at times even more
ruthless? And what would they have gained? More power, more
dominance perhaps? But - More personality...? More identity...? More sense of
belonging? More sense of mission?
Not a few feminists hold that the ills of the world have been largely the work
of men. A case could be made for their point of view. But, then, why be so keen
that women become more like men? Let's give a chance to women who, by asserting
their identity, become more like women, and see if they make a better job of
things. I think they can. But it is no small task; and, I repeat, the
conditions are clear.
So many women, in these years of radical feminism, have set themselves the
challenge of beating men, beating men taken at their worst. And, even when they
were successful, they have missed the mark. For the challenge facing them is
much greater, and is yet within their possibilities. Not to beat men at being
men, but to beat themselves at being women: with minds and hearts large enough
to care for a family, and as a result large enough also to humanize society.
Society needs, badly needs, what truly feminine women, and only they, can give.
NOTES
[1] Henry Higgins had at least one thing to be said for him. He thought woman
would be better if she were more like a man. I don't agree, but at least he had
an idea that a certain way of being is better. Today we don't have any idea
that any way of being is better; except that my own way is better - for me.
This is mindless. Better than what? Better due to what? If one can become
better, one can also become worse. Better implies a scale, a sense of values,
it suggests higher or lower, the possibility of rising or falling, of gaining
or losing...
[2] Cf. A Secular Age, Harvard University Press, 2007.
[3] In slight anticipation of our main theme, let me confess to the impression
that some women today feel it would be an advantage if they did not have to
identify themselves as women.
[4] Not thinking about I am meant to be, or what I mean myself to be;
pretending not to care about what I am or am becoming: that is the problem of
so many today. No goal, no challenge, no idea of a story to be told or an
identity to be conquered; just letting self drift, as if one became oneself by
drifting. The drifter dissipates self, disintegrates self, loses self. We have
largely been educated into this. In so much of modern psychological and
educational theory the goal of education is that of forming 'independent'
persons, persons whose maturity is shown in being self-sufficient,
non-committed, non-connected, having no bonds, being directed to nothing, being
dedicated to no one...
[5] The self-sufficient, non-connected, I'm-my-own-good-cause mentality rejects
the idea that we are inter-dependent, that we need one another. There it is
wrong, with a wrongness that can totally frustrate personal as well as social
development. And then emerges the lonely crowd, the lost people, the faceless
generation. There can be no true human relationship or bonding principle
between faceless people, people who can't look into each others' eyes and see
something there that can complete or complement their own lives.
[6] Something which I tentatively consider in Man and Values, pp.
101ss.
[7] I did not quite see eye to eye with a recently reported theological opinion
that man's besetting sin is lust, while woman's is pride. Pride, after all, is
the besetting sin for all of us. Nevertheless, it may be true that in matters sexual,
woman sins more through vanity, while man does so more through lust.
[8] Why does one offer a flower to a woman and not to a man? The girl who does
not appreciate the gift of a flower, who perhaps laughs at it, shows a
deficient sexual consciousness. Perhaps she has never sensed the connection
between the giving of a flower to a girl and the placing of a flower on an
altar.
[9] An important point here. Feminine grace is a quality that
all women can cultivate, even if today few seem to do so - or even to
understand the concept. When it is genuine, it reflects, also on the outside, a
particular feminine trait capable of evoking the best in men. See Man
and Values, pp. 106-107.
[10] It should be noted too that the virginal gift of self to God expands the
heart, with the result that there is more of it, and not less, to give also to
others.
[11] There is a challenge, that shows worth, in virginity: the challenge of
being a woman who prizes herself and will not let herself be easily won. What
worth can a woman have if she does not prize herself? Whatself-worth -
in this age of self-esteem - can she attribute to herself?
[12] Jenny in The Unknown Sigrid Undset,
Steerforth Press, 2001, p. 37.
