WHAT IS masculinity? What is femininity?

Here is a description with perfect clarity from the Catholic Encyclopedia in its entry for “Woman”:

The same essentially identical human nature appears in the male and female sex in two-fold personal form; there are, consequently, male and female persons. On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator. It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected. The untenable medieval definition, “Femina est mas occasionatus”, also arose under Aristotelian influence. The same view is to be found in the “last Scholastic”, Dionysius Ryckel (“Opera minora”, ed. Tournay, 1907, II, 161a).

Notice how feminism, like ancient paganism and this medieval error, does take masculinity as the standard of value, i.e., a woman is not complete unless she can compete equally with man in all spheres of life.

The entry continues:

The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul. On the other hand, woman has qualities which man lacks. With truth does the writer on education, Lorenz Kellner, say: “I call the female sex neither the beautiful nor the weak sex (in the absolute sense). The one designation is the invention equally of sensuality and of flattery; the other owes its currency to masculine arrogance. In its way the female sex is as strong as the male, namely in endurance and patience, in quiet long-suffering, in short, in all that concerns its real sphere, viz., the inner life” (Lose Blätter”, Collected by von Görgen; Freiburg, 1895, 50). On account of the moral equality of the sexes the moral law for man and woman must also be the same. To assume a lax morality for the man and a rigid one for the woman is an oppressive injustice even from the point of view of common sense. Woman’s work is also in itself of equal value with that of a man, as the work performed by both is ennobled by the same human dignity.

The fact that there is no sexually neutral human being has, however, a second consequence. The sexual character can be separated from the human being as something secondary only in thought, not in actuality. The word “person” belongs neither to the soul nor to the body alone; it is rather, that the soul informing the body constitutes the full conception of the human personality only in its union with the body. It is in no way, therefore, permissible to limit differences only to the primary and secondary peculiarities of the body. On the contrary, the indisputable results of anatomical, physiological and psychological research show a difference so far-reaching between man and woman that the following is established as a scientific result: the feminine personality assumes the complete human nature in a different manner from the masculine. According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled. Just as it is not permissible to take one sex as the standard of the other, so from the social point of view it is not allowable to confuse the vocational activities of both. The most manly man and the most feminine woman are the most perfect types of their sexes.

From this far-reaching sexual difference there follows, thirdly, the combination of the sexes for the purpose of an organic social union of the human race. which we call humanity, that is to say humanity cannot be represented by any number, however large, of individuals of like sex but is to be found solely in the social and organic union of man and woman. Thus each man and each woman is, indeed, by nature a complete human being with the high moral vocation already mentioned; on the other hand the entire male sex in itself represents only the half of humanity and the female sex the other half, while one man and one woman together suffice to represent humanity. Consequently each of the two sexes requires the other for its social complement; a complete social equality would nullify this purpose of the Creator. Evidently the intention at the basis of the differences mentioned is to force the complemental union of the two sexes as a necessity of nature. Accordingly, notwithstanding the equal human dignity, the rights and duties of the woman differ from those of the man in the family and the forms of society which naturally develop from it.

And the entry continues:

If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up. On the other hand, as the result of this, a certain social subordination in respect to man which in no way injures her personal independence is assigned to woman, as soon as she enters into union with him. Consequently nothing is to be urged on this point of equality of position or of equality of rights and privileges. To deduce from this the inferiority of woman or her degradation to a “second-rate human being” contradicts logic just as much as would the attempt to regard the citizen as an inferior being because he is subordinate to the officials of the state.

It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the world of the Apostle: “The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). The Apostle in this reference to the creation of the first human pair presupposes the image of God in the woman. As this likeness manifests itself exteriorly in man’s supremacy over creation (Genesis 1:26), and as man as the born leader of the family first exercised this supremacy, he is called directly God’s image in this capacity. Woman takes part in this supremacy only indirectly under the guidance of the man and as his helpmeet. It is impossible to limit the Pauline statement to the single family; and the Apostle himself inferred from this the social position of woman in the Church community. Thus her natural position is assigned to woman in every form of society that springs necessarily from the family. This position is described by St. Thomas Aquinas with classic clearness (Summa theol., I:92:1, ad 2um). This doctrine, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church, was repeatedly emphasized by Leo XIII. The encyclical “Arcanum”, 10 February, 1880, declares: “The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty”.

Thus the germ of human society, which a sound sociology must take as its starting-point, is not the abstract human individual but the living union of man and woman primarily in the home. The different characteristics in the equipment of the sexes point to such a division of labour between the two that man and woman are to watch over the training of the growing generation, not apart from each other, but jointly and in partnership. [emphases added]

Please follow and like us: