The discomfort of my feminism as I write that who I am as a woman makes no sense except in relation to man (and again as
I type it, and again as I post it) is palpable.
I have, for years, been on a quest to find the true meaning of femininity. As a good feminist, I set out to find the
definition of woman without reference
to man. I found two extremes: defining woman by a
certain cultural/historical set of behaviors and values or collapsing gender
differences to create a false equivalency. I was unsatisfied wherever I turned. If we can define man without reference to
woman, shouldn’t we be able to do the opposite?
When I read the beginning of JPII’s Theology of the Body, it
hit me. I’d been getting it backwards.
Man was defined in isolation, woman with reference to man. I knew woman was misdefined, so surely the
approach to defining her was wrong; I needed to imitate the definition of man.
But what if the definition of man was wrong too? What if man
only makes sense in reference to woman? This is the claim I make: masculinity and
femininity are mutually referential
and only make sense in relationship with
each other. Bodily, this makes
sense. Our physical bodies anticipate
the opposite as complement. I propose,
once more following JPII, that our physical bodies give exterior shape to our
interior selves.
In this case, it does woman no wrong to explain who she is
with reference to (and in contrast to) man; it does man no wrong to explain who
he is with reference to (and in contrast to) woman. Indeed, any attempt at an isolated definition
will do an injustice to femininity or masculinity, It cannot but be a reductive view.
Does this mean that I have reached a perfect understanding
of femininity, which I can now fully explicate for you? Alas, no.
That is still a work in progress (though I hope to continue talking
around the question here for a while yet).
A lot more work and research are necessary before I get there. I am, however, making progress in developing
the proper framework for asking the question, which is necessary for finding
the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment