Saturday, September 26, 2015

An Elegy for Gender? The Encroachment of Androgyny



"REALLY? You think you received something different from your mother and father?" is a question my college student daughter was recently asked in disbelief by a group of young women and a professor. These are all Christians.  In their perspective, mother and father are interchangeable in terms of what they give their children--neither has something unique to give that the other could not just as easily give--if it was in their personality to do so.  Man and woman are just not that different.

So here we are, having to defend the uniqueness of gender.  In spite of having all of art history and the canon of literature defending in image and story the uniqueness of man and woman, as well as biology itself,  it is a difficult conversation to navigate.  It is not in a list or a description of roles that one could outline the differences in the two genders.  It is captured in the heart.  But we are now pressed into definitions out of desperation to preserve something so precious that is being lost in this generation.

I cannot understand why it is so attractive for men and women not to have unique contributions to the world. And the people that are pushing hard for this are women...and the men that take up their cause.  Do we really need to begin a different kind of feminism: The need for Woman?  I think that probably women just don't want the unique aspect of Woman to be what it is.  Power, influence, recognition, worldly reward seem stacked on the other side.

This position--that women and men are not essentially different is nothing other than gnostic. Gnosticism is a shunning of the material in favor of the spiritual.  It is an elevation of mind and soul over the body.  It believes in a special knowledge that frees us from material constraints.  This is an ancient heresy that the early Church had to fight against in its understanding of Jesus.  Gnostics were uncomfortable with the idea that God came in a body.  It is likely that this is what the Apostle John was identifying as the spirit of the antichrist, specifically that Jesus did not come in the flesh.

People are not disembodied minds and souls.  They come in bodies.  Male bodies and female bodies. Rather than be ignored, these bodies have something to say about our mission and meaning in this world, in the same way that Jesus' body, conceived in and born through the body of a woman, had something to say about his mission.

The primary metaphor in Scripture for God's relationship with humanity is marriage.  The Bible begins with marriage and ends with the great marriage feast between God and his people.  This image is completely disrupted as our culture lists toward androgyny.  When we move toward believing that gender is a cultural construct, we miss a world of meaning that God is revealing.

The next generation is the group of people we should be concerned about as we work on "enlightening" the world that men and women are not distinctly different.  That is because we are saying that children don't need fathers and mothers, just parents.  It is only a construct of society that a mother would be nurturing the next generation and the father fighting for it.  I am concerned that in this worldview, the next generation is neither being nurtured or fought for--the next generation is not really being considered.

My husband and I have been involved in years of healing prayer, and deep in the core of so many is the loss of mother or father love or blessing.  The older they get, they are awakened to the unfilled longing to be known and loved in the unique way that a mother loves and knows and a father knows and loves. They become more aware of the holes in their own souls. And though personhood or love or well-being is not scientifically measured, the lack of them is crippling.

My daughter has not been raised in an ideology but within a theology.  So when someone tries to categorize her and dismiss her arguments as "complementation" or "you just think that because..."or she tries to have a genuine discussion free of labels and power moves, she is shocked to find that even among Christians there is a politically driven way to think, and any thought outside of that stream is dubbed "unintellectual" or "narrow."

I want to explore who has a narrow view of women.  I think my daughter has the more expansive view, as she thinks that women actually can do things men can't do.  She actually believes that women are so important that they better not sabotage their own contributions.  She believes that a mother is so important that not to have one is a travesty that only God can redeem.

I am not saying that every child who is missing a mother or a father is going to limp through life.  A single parent who understands the masculine and feminine and the limitation of what he or she can give, can also search for other ways for the church at large and for spiritual fathers or mothers to bring that blessing into a child's life.  I have seen many single parents live this out in the context of prayer, presence, and the community of Holy Church.

In a debriefing of these conversations, Madeleine expressed that feeling of being called on to defend something so elemental and primal as "woman" or "mother" and being at a loss for words and feeling like an idiot.  I know the feeling.  Defending the calling and person of mother as unique from father is like explaining the universe, a cosmos with sun and moon--both of which are absolutely necessary to sustaining life.  Once we have to quantify, dissect, and chart mother love, we have already lost something so profound, I'm not sure where to begin.

Karl Stern, in his book Flight from Woman, describes two ways of knowing.  Whether or not one agrees with the labels he gives them, the paradigm is helpful.  One way of knowing is by analyzing parts of a whole, thereby coming to know the whole.  The second way of knowing is by embracing the whole, thereby coming to know the whole.  He calls the first a masculine way of knowing and the second a feminine way of knowing.  He goes on to show how since the Enlightenment we have been fleeing from the feminine way of knowing and exalting the masculine way of knowing.  By doing this, we only partially know our world and the people in it.

In an amazing twist, Stern takes on four philosophers who exalt the masculine way of knowing over and against the feminine way of knowing and shows how they came to their very positions THROUGH a feminine way of knowing--through dreams and revelations.  So even as they dismiss the feminine and exalt the masculine, their own ideas depended on the feminine.

In our exaltation of the masculine way of knowing over time, it is possible that we are even losing the capacity to receive something that is not scientifically verifiable as real and true, which is so much of our human reality--love, forgiveness, nurture, and so on.

This is not to say that women cannot know in masculine ways or men in feminine ways.  The hope is that we are blessed by our mothers and fathers in such ways that we have an integrated capacity to know. Nevertheless, there is a special way that women represent the transcendent movement of the feminine in the world, and that men represent the transcendent masculine, and both must bless the next generation with their powers and instincts that young men and women might not be trapped in a very small universe,  such as the one they are living in now.

The disregarding of feminine ways of knowing naturally leads to a disintegration of our understanding of first: women, and secondly: men.  This is because personhood, while it can be studied and appreciated even from a scientific perspective, is also mysterious and often best expressed in and through art and poetry.

Women's bodies are not just different.  The way they think is different.  The way they know is different.  The way they see is different.  The way they process is different.  And I would hate for all of this to go out of the world in our day.

The disintegration of Feminine and Masculine as movements in the universe will lead to chaos in family and culture.  If children don't need mothers and fathers but only loving caretakers, then why not same sex parents? And eventually...why not polyamorous families in which three people marry each other--isn't the love of three better than the love of two? After all, we have reduced child rearing to making sure the basics are covered: food, clothing, sleep, shelter, education.  A mother being bodily present in real time is no longer of primary importance in the shaping of a person.

Mothers impart something of LIFE that is not recoverable somewhere else.  Yes, a mother has a womb, and though science may someday be able to grow a baby outside of it, I think we still have the remnant of understanding that some deep psychological piece would be unformed in a child grown outside the body of a mother.  So we still agree that being in a mother's body is essential for the first nine months of a child's life, and that the mother is imparting something other than the cells and food. She is providing personhood.

The mother also has breasts that were put there to nourish the next generation, and her body tells us something of God's intent.  But the breast is not just to make the healthiest food for a baby. Something happens in a baby's person when he or she is held close to the mother hour upon hour, when her body says, "You cannot be away from this tiny person for very long or else this little one will go hungry." The father was not given the body to nurture the next generation in the same way. Mothers have a unique calling to nurture the next generation that involves their bodies.

The more we conveniently reduce our own unique contribution to the next generation, the less responsibility we feel, and the more children suffer from anxiety, depression, and lack of direction. And the less we want to be with them.

I have written more extensively about womanhood on this blog in my article, "What is a Woman?" In that article I speak to the conclusions that can be drawn from the importance of the uniqueness of a woman's body for all women, not just those who will nurture children.

The loss of our understanding of Man and Woman is real.  But even more real is the God who created Man and Woman in his image and is always at work in restoring what has been lost.  So we can never lose hope, and we have to live into our callings in such a way that we awaken that true desire in the world for Father and Mother, which, even in deprivation and loss, can lead one to God, the Father, and Holy Church, the Mother.

7 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting this, Katherine--I appreciate reading your perspective on this topic. I'm curious if you have any books that you would recommend in particular that explore the biological and/or spiritual differences between the masculine and the feminine? I particularly appreciated the idea explored in this excerpt:

    "I cannot understand why it is so attractive for men and women not to have unique contributions to the world. And the people that are pushing hard for this are women... Do we really need to begin a different kind of feminism: The need for Woman? ... I want to explore who has a narrow view of women. I think my daughter has the more expansive view, as she thinks that women actually can do things men can't do. She actually believes that women are so important that they better not sabotage their own contributions."

    P.S. It might be worth re-rewording this sentence, because I had to read it 3 times before I realized that you were NOT saying that Jesus was incarnated AS a woman: "...in the same way that Jesus' body, coming through the body of a woman, had something to say about his mission."

    =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your feedback, Joy. I did re-word that sentence. I hope it is clearer now.

      Unfortunately, I think it is hard to find books that explore the mystery of gender, rather than the reductionistic delineation of roles for the genders. Here are some books that have blessed me: The Eternal Woman by Gertrud von le Fort, Woman by Edith Stein, Gender: Men, Women, Sex, Feminism by Frederica Matthewes-Green, Brave New Family by G.K. Chesterton, and writings by C.S. Lewis, including Perelandra and his essays.

      If anyone has other suggestions, I would welcome them.

      Blessings to you!

      Delete
    2. One book that was helpful to me was Carla Waterman's Songs of Assent. It was the first book I read that explained the feminine as something more than not-masculine.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for your thoughtful reflection on gender and identity. I share your concern that we avoid a reduction of gender to a meaningless androgyny in which men and women have nothing distinct or unique about them. Scripture says, "Male and female he made them." We are the same but also distinct.

    My concern though is that you've engaged with a straw man of what I will call (for lack of a better term) egalitarianism is truly about. As a person who would strongly identify with "egalitarianism" (again, for lack of a better term), I don't think what you've described conveys honestly or accurately the heart of the Christian egalitarian perspective. In fact, you seem to have conflated Christian egalitarianism and our cultural move towards androgyny and indistinct gender.

    I mourn that your daughter feels the need to defend herself and any feelings of foolishness. However, college is the place where students begin to explore and question their beliefs for the first time. There is hardly a college student , much less a freshman, that could accurately convey the logos or pathos of a nuanced theological position. As a result, it feels unfair to use the example of college students who are just beginning to explore and formulate their beliefs as the example of cultural/spiritual failing. We can -- and should -- have a conversation about why so many students do not have that experience before arriving at college at another time.

    in short, I believe you've made a case by mixing a truth (that men and women are different) with an appeal to fear (the cultural move to androgyny) that results in, at best, indirectly implying that Christians who are "egalitarian" are missing a central reality of the world and faith.

    As a father, I do believe I provide something unique to my children as does my wife. But the unique thing I provide is not leadership, headship or some preordained function. Additionally, I can provide nurture, support, intimacy and care similar to my wife. We both provide all these things.What makes us different is the unique ways we see and execute these abilities and gifts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for commenting. First of all, I would say that I was not trying to present the egalitarian view in the same way that I was not trying to present the complementarian view, mostly because I find both of these paradigms fall short and can become unhelpful in a dialogue of ideas. I think they both have a narrow view of women...for different reasons of course. In my experience, these are paradigms I do not even hear used among the twenty somethings. I will say that I feel that the conversation about womanhood and motherhood has taken a dramatic turn even in the last five years, and I have experienced a definite culture push toward androgyny in this next collegiate generation that is reflective, not just as their thought, but as thought developed in a larger cultural context. So rather than engaging a straw man, I simply presented a repeated conversation I have had with many people that was representative in a conversation my daughter had recently. And I only gave the tip of the iceberg that I have experienced. Fundamentally, however, I do agree with some of the core values of egalitarianism--that there is an equal dignity and value in man and woman, and though men and women do both nurture, lead, and invest in the next generation, there is an iconic way in which they embody gender mysteries as man and woman. In this post, I was simply trying to respond to a recurring conversation that is usually one-sided.

      A dialogue of ideas is what I think college should be. I am sad to say that I have heard from many professors and college students that certain ideas are not up for discussion--and a woman’s place in the world is one of those. There is a certain perspective allowed. I believe that a dialogue about ideas helps all of us move toward truth and clarity, and that is why I am grateful you opened dialogue with me on this blog. Also your comment highlighted for me that I do need to write about the reductionism of women from the other side (so to speak), a reductionism in which a woman may make coffee for the meeting but not lead the meeting, which is a different way her contribution is not valued as essential. God bless all of us as we try to live lives of love, surrender, and engagement!

      Delete
  3. This is excellent -- very well said.

    ReplyDelete

If you want to leave me a message, feel free.