Man and Woman: a hypothesis
Men and women are different. How, you ask?
I'm not sure that there can be in the end a real difference in "definition," since men and women both share a common essence, a common source, a common destiny. The material differences, however, are obvious, and point -- for all you Theology of the Body fans, this is part of the nuptual meaning of the body -- to the following general charaterization.
Man is creative.
Woman is nurturing.
Of course, there are nurturing men and creative women, but I think that it's less part of man's psychological makeup to be nurturing, just as it's less part of the woman's to be creative. I'm basing this characterization on the differences in our bodies. The woman's body is clearly made to be a domicile for the child as he comes into being and to feed him after he is born. The man's body is made to impregnate the woman and to protect and provide for the family. Thus, I take the body to be an exterior expression of a profound psychological distinction. What do you think?
I'm not sure that there can be in the end a real difference in "definition," since men and women both share a common essence, a common source, a common destiny. The material differences, however, are obvious, and point -- for all you Theology of the Body fans, this is part of the nuptual meaning of the body -- to the following general charaterization.
Man is creative.
Woman is nurturing.
Of course, there are nurturing men and creative women, but I think that it's less part of man's psychological makeup to be nurturing, just as it's less part of the woman's to be creative. I'm basing this characterization on the differences in our bodies. The woman's body is clearly made to be a domicile for the child as he comes into being and to feed him after he is born. The man's body is made to impregnate the woman and to protect and provide for the family. Thus, I take the body to be an exterior expression of a profound psychological distinction. What do you think?
posted by Whiskey at 11:11 AM
2 Comments:
I agree with this: I'm not sure that there can be in the end a real difference in "definition" since men and women both share a common essence, a common source, a common destiny.
I also agree with this: I take the body to be an exterior expression of a profound psychological distinction.
I even agree with this: Man is creative. Woman is nurturing. However I don't find it convincing as a "general characterization."
I'm also unconvinced by this: it's less part of man's psychological makeup to be nurturing, just as it's less part of the woman's to be creative.
Let me try to explain why, starting with the very examples you gave.
First, the example of the conception of a child. As I understand it, this holy event involves both man and woman equally in the God's creation of a new human being. I think it is impossible to identify either the mother or the father as more creative at this moment. Both are offering themselves completely as instruments of God Creator. Neither is dispensible, neither is ideally less involved than the other in this act of creation.
Second, the example of the roles of the father and mother after the child is born. Protecting and providing seem to me no less acts of nurturing than feeding is.
So, physically, both man and woman are designed to participate in God's act of creation at the conception of a child. And, physically, both man and woman are designed to nurture the child and each other. On the physical level, both are creative and nurturing, but in different ways.
God creates and He nurtures what He has made. The two actions are hardly separable. Any act of creation involves the nurture of the creature. In each human being, male or female, made in God's image, the creative and nurturing impulses are similarly united. (This may be why Hopkins compares the act of bringing a poem into being to a pregnancy.)
I have more to say, but I think this may be a good place to stop for now. I am however curious about your reasons for formulating the general characterization as you did.
I agree that the man and the woman are both participating in God's creation in the marital act. But still, phenomenologically, it is the man who is giving his seed to the woman. As I understand it, she must be open to receive his gift, and he must be open to her love in her openness. This is what I take Paul to mean when he instructs the wife to submit to her husband the husband to love his wife. The whole context of marriage is love; Paul begins that passage in Ephesians by saying "Love one another." But way the wife loves is by receiving the gift of the man's seed, whereas the way the man loves is by giving his seed.
Once a child is conceived, the mother is the home to the child, nurturing it and helping it to grow. In this the father can have no direct part, but can only participate vicariously, by helping the mother as her body changes to accommodate the new life within her. It's true that he must provide for the family, and thus is nurturing in a way, but this is what we call a necessary but not sufficient condition. For example, for me to see the picture on my wall, there must be some medium between me and the picture through which light can pass (usually air, but water, or even the void, if you believe in such things). This medium is a necessary condition for seeing, but not a sufficient condition. Light must also be present, and it is light which is properly the cause of sight. In a similar way, the care of the father is necessary (or at least really helpful) for the nurture of the unborn child, but is not strictly speaking the nurture of the child.
I think this last point is supported (from something a friend said who has thought about child-rearing to a much greater extent than I) by studies in infant psychology. As I understand it, a child right after it is born will panic when separated from its mother. This can be told by measuring the heart rate of the child. The child instinctively needs the mother for security and comfort, and hates to be separated from her.
Of course, you can easily respond to all of this by saying, what does he know? He's not married. And that is true, I am not married. But all I'm trying to do is state what I understand Christopher West to say, and thus, indirectly, what our late pope taught in his Theology of the Body. So I admit to not having direct experience with any of this, but I appeal instead to Mr. West, who does, and whose arguments I am trying to understand.
Post a Comment
<< Home