One of the strengths of the blogging medium is the ability, long withheld from authors of all persuasions, of posing a question in print, and actually receiving an answer. Taking advantage of this capability, I am posting a series of (at least to me) thought-provoking questions, in the hopes that anyone reading this blog will offer their perspective. This is post #1 in the series.
In the course of a recent conversation, it was pointed out to me that being 'girly' and being 'feminine' are fundamentally different things. Someone who is 'girly' may, for example, wear pink, flowery clothing; giggle a lot; be very flirty; and other outward expressions of femaleness. Someone who is 'feminine,' on the other hand, is characterized by certain internal qualities, such as modesty, reservedness, helpfulness, gentleness, and gracefulness. These inward virtues drive the best outward expressions of womanhood. The distinction is meaningful because one can be feminine without being girly, or girly without being feminine (and, of course, both or neither).
I have had more difficulty seeing the parallel distinction between 'manly' and 'masculine.' Certainly someone who is manly would be assertive, even aggressive; risk-seeking, showy, and a fan/participant of sports; and definitely stoic (or the preferred modern alternative, apathetic). But what are the internal qualities of the masculine? What inward virtues drive the proper outward expression of manhood?
HOW I FEEL WHEN I’M TWO WEEKS OUT FROM QUALS
9 years ago
Posts
5 comments:
Not to quibble, but I think that most guys I know could stand to have a great many more of those 'feminine' attributes. Having not thought it through very carefully, I'm not prepared to die on this hill... but it seems to me that if we're going to talk about the sexes having different virtues - as they no doubt have - we ought to be very specific. Just a thought.
I agree, we ought to be very clear about where the distinction lies and why, as there is of course a lot of overlap between virtues for both. So let's get specific: What is one distinctly masculine/feminine virtue?
I don't think sexes are not so very different as to have completely different sets of virtues. Women need aspects of leadership so that they don't get stepped on, and men need to submit so as to not become tin-pot tyrants.
I know I allowed that they were different in the previous comment, but I think I meant in the general sense: that being virtuous for a man need not look like being virtuous for a woman. There may be general differences: we might expect the man to be more aggressive in his relationships, and the woman to be more passive. But I can't think of any unqualified differences, nor virtues which the other sex can do without. It's always in terms of more or less.
Can you think of any?
I didn't mean to say that there are virtues that men ought to uphold that women never should. Obviously the practical distinction cannot be that sharp when both men and women are to emulate the same person, namely Christ. I was more thinking in terms of tapping into the commonly stronger tendencies of women and men, respectively.
I am assuming that there will be subtle differences in how you plan to raise up daughters and sons, and it's the specifics of this division that I am wondering about. How the principles might be applied would vary greatly, so I guess I'm indulging a bit in platonic idealism. So clearly I'm abstracting from reality, but I thought the exercise might be illuminating anyway.
Then perhaps we ought to say the difference is a dance: one must learn to lead - and not merely in relationships but in life - the other to follow.
But the leader must of course be led himself: there are rules of the dance that transcend his authority, and to stiffen his neck beneath them is to have it broken, and to wreck the song for everybody else; likewise the follower cannot be completely without will, or she will be led into a wall. But she must follow. And he must lead.
Using your example of rearing children, I do not believe that this distinguishes between activities (aside from certain obvious cases - little Susie on the boxing squad would probably not be terrific), but rather between the way those activities are approached. Obviously, whatever a child does he should do to God's glory, and this means doing it wholeheartedly. But perhaps with boys there ought to be a higher standard, excellence. Emphasise not just effort, but objective achievement in order to teach him discipline, which is essentially the art of leading oneself. So if he wants to play the flute, ask him why he's not first chair. Obviously one must be careful to avoid giving the poor kid a complex, but there seems to me to be significant room for challenging boys in a way that might not be appropriate for girls. On the other hand, girls ought to be nurtured and accepted - babied if you like - a little bit more; not of course to the point where they turn basket cases, but enough so that they do not feel it unnatural and confining to be led when they get married.
So there. I made a concrete suggestion. What do you think?
Post a Comment