Day-Maker #80

After a brief hiatus, I return to share this day-maker, which brightened my morning Facebook stalking.  Which Supreme Court justice are you?  I'm Kagan!

Before My Final Final

According to this Lifehacker article, rereading, highlighting, and summarizing note are poor methods of studying.  Instead, you should use good methods: taking breaks and spreading out studying.  Please tell me I don't have to explain the entertainment value of these statements.  Maybe today should be a day of one, long, effective study break...

Addendum I: Vocabulary for Frank

Frank asked me what the phrase “gift of self” might mean, with the disclaimer that as my “token non-christian reader” he didn’t know.  First of all, I want to give a shout-out to the other non-Christians who read this blog – I know that at least one other of my loyal 3.5 readers shies away from any religious persuasion.  Secondly, I want to give a shout-out to those Christians/Catholics who might read this and think, “Well, I don’t exactly know what ‘gift of self’ means either.”

It’s a hallmark John Paul II phrase, lifted especially from his Theology of the Body, so there is no way I will do justice to it in one post.  If you really want to understand the phrase, read Man and Woman He Created Them, JPII’s audiences on the theology of the body compiled into one book.  And read it with a competent moral theologian by your side.  (Ooh-ooh-pick-me-pick-me!  I’m looking for a job!)  I’ll do my best, however.

Gift of self, or self-gift, describes how persons relate to each other.  It means giving of oneself in a full and free manner, an openness towards the other that says, “I am yours,” and does not hold back.  It is a self-offering that is love.  For JPII, the preeminent example is the Trinity: the Father pours Himself out to the Son, the Son reciprocates this love to the Father, and the love bursts forth to be the Spirit. 

For my non-Christian readers, or the Christians who haven’t pondered the Trinity in this manner, the primary earthly example is marital love.  Husband and wife give themselves to the other in a love that encompasses all aspects of their being.  In the words of Scott Hahn, “this love is so tangible that nine months later you have to give it a name.”  It is total (hence, no divorce) and life-giving (hence, babies) and consists of an orientation of oneself to the other and a strong will for the good of the other. 

I feel like I’ve been talking around it for long enough now that hopefully this sheds some life on self-gift.  If not, question away, and I will revisit the topic – possibly while studying for my Theology of the Body exam!

Thoughts after Comps Season

Normally, I let exam grades fade into the past without comment, and the good disappear with the bad.  Since I made comps such a big deal on here, however, I figure I should mention: scores came out!  Everyone passed!  Even this girl right here, who managed to impress her professors some.  Thanks for the prayers and encouragement, loyal readers!

What I Have Taught My Feminism, Part III

(Go do your catch-up reading if you've missed Part II!)

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.