Feminism and Otherness

I've been participating in an interesting conversation with regards to feminism over at A Son becomes a Father, Fr. Todd Reitmeyer's blog, and I thought I'd post my response to the following post:

XY is not opposed to XX. To say this is to suggest that men and women are opposites to one another when in fact men and women have much more in common than in difference. Why focus on difference? What good does it do anyone except maintain domination and subordination? And what of other chromosomal combinations? Suggesting that every individual is either XX or XY is scientifically untrue.

Sex and gender are both social constructions and as such any commonalities and differences are subject to change. You are confusing social construction of gender and essentialism.

Just as a woman might choose to be a mother, a man might choose to be a father. These choices run parallel to each other but in themselves do not make either person feminine or masculine. This would mean that choosing not to become a parent is countrary to being feminine or masculine. This again is false. One cannot be 'feminine' or 'masculine' without social context. And without this context these concepts do not exist.

Regarding chilvalry and its cohorts - the nature of the gift is complex in such a way that no act is truly altruistic. Given freely from person to person there is a potential element of gift, but with any attachment of gender to offerer and offeree, the gift is gone.

And still I ask, to which graces you were referring?

Posted by: candace at November 1, 2005 01:44 AM

Here's what I had to say in response to Candace:

I agree, men and women are not complete opposites, but we are persons of complimentary nature. To come to a true recognition of the complimentary nature of men and women leads not to domination and subordination. For a healthy relationship between man and woman this recognition of how our intrinsically feminine and masculine natures compliment each other is essential and leads to mutual respect, honour, and profound authentic love in which both parties give of each other freely, fully, faithful, and fruitfully (cf. Humanae Vitae, Love and Responsibility, and Theology of the Body).

Sex and gender are not social constructions, but rather are both spiritual and physical realities. The soul informs the body, which means that our physical bodies reflect the nature of our spiritual souls. We are soul-being persons. I have a woman's body because my soul is feminine. Depending on your background, you may not agree with this, but this understanding of the relationship of the soul and body is what I know to be true through the teaching of the Church and revealed in nature.

You stated that "Just as a woman might choose to be a mother, a man might choose to be a father. These choices run parallel to each other but in themselves do not make either person feminine or masculine." While I agree that woman might choose to be a mother, or a man might choose to be a father, the maternal role of woman and the paternal role of man is not simply removed by choosing not to have biological children. The maternal attributes of nurturinig, affection, compassion, receptivity, sympathy, etc... are most often (and should be) reflected in the lives of women who choose not to have children (or are unable) in the manner by which they serve the Church and Society (whether it be as a married woman without children, a single woman, or a consecrated woman). The same can be said for men. Their paternal role is also played out in the lives of those men who choose not to be physical fathers (whether they be married without children, a single man, a religious or a priest). Fatherhood and motherhood in men and women is not simply negated by the choice not to have physical children.

Finally, your last statement that "Given freely from person to person there is a potential element of gift, but with any attachment of gender to offerer and offeree, the gift is gone" is an explicit contradiction of the structure of love which we find perfected in the Trinity. The mystery of love is found in its perfection in the structure of the Trinity, since God Himself is love. This mystery, often referred to as the mystery of nuptiality, rests on three points:
1. Otherness (another way of being other)
2. Self gift in communion
3. The fruitfulness of comunion.
A person of the opposite gender provides for us the evidence of another way of being another person. The otherness is the very condition of communion through self-giving as we see in the Trinity that there is an irreducible otherness between the three persons of the Trinity.

In other words, I'd rephrase your statement to say that "Given freely from person to person there is a potential element of gift, but without recognizing the otherness in the other, the love cannot be authentic."

I know that you probably disagree with what I'm saying, and I'm not trying to force you to accept what I believe, but I just want to help you understand my position (which has been formed based on the teachings of the Church, particularly in relation to the Theology of the Body).

I'd encourage you (and anyone else reading this post) to take the time to read at least the two following encyclicals: Humanae Vitae and Mulieris Dignitatem (on the Dignity and Vocation of Women).

Fundamentally, a true recognition of our differences between men and women leads to mutual respect and appreciation. Unfortunately, our modern society has twisted the beautiful mystery and truth of our complimentary nature so that this fundamental element of our relationship to one another is often difficult to recognize.

Posted by: dilexitprior at November 1, 2005 09:18 AM

Feel free to weigh in and give your own thoughts or join in on the discussion. Yet another opportunity to discuss the Theology of the Body.