MALE AND FEMALE are more than biological realities. They are spiritual essences and cultural ideals. Bonald, a writer who takes his pseudonym from the French  monarchist Louis de Bonald, describes these ideals at his site, Throne and Altar. He writes:

Of course, each nature has its characteristic deformations, but it is always a gross error to identify a thing with its deformation. Machismo is a deformation of chivalry for men who have forgotten that their prowess is to be put in the service of the weak. The bully’s manliness is imperfect. Similarly, one should never identify femininity with girlish vanity and frivolousness. Masculinity and femininity are essentially relational virtues. They inform all of our closest relationships, which are always relationships of dependence. It is only for very superficial relationships that I can say that the relationship would be no different if my partner were a man rather than a woman, or vice versa. This is why the drive to eliminate masculine and feminine personalities must be resisted. An androgynous person would lack both the male and female capacity for intimacy. A man who sacrifices masculine virtue does not thereby acquire feminine virtue. Nor does a woman gain masculine virtue by losing her femininity. An effeminate man is not maternal, and a tomboyish woman is not paternal.

                        — Comments —

Hannon writes:

Thank you for posting the observations of Bonald on these principles. This sentence especially struck me:

“An androgynous person would lack both the male and female capacity for intimacy.”

Wow! What a thought! It reminds me of something I heard suggested by a friend many years ago about “bisexual” persons. He expressed pity for anyone tied to the “fence” that divides the rest of us and never able to join either camp. It must be a tormented existence.

Please follow and like us: