femininity revisited
On her blog, Kari posed a question about the meaning of femininity a couple of weeks ago - something she and others and I have discussed during various conversations offline. I simply LOVED all the comments that were posted on the topic (spanning several blog entries) and have been reflecting on them over the past couple of weeks, in addition to reading various books and doing some writing. (Ok, a lot of writing! Woo hoo!) So, what I offer here are some of my thoughts and reflections and just that. No conclusions, no "truth" necessarily - just what came to my mind as I have processed a bit about the concepts of femininity and masculinity. And I'm not done processing or reflecting, but seeing as this already a supah-long entry, I have decided to share. Take it as you will...
Ready? Ok, here we go.
There were a number of comments on Kari's blog that particularly moved me. Some (not all) of them are, in no particular order:
1. Lev's reflection on how according to the Writings gender is an "exigency of the physical world."
2. Shannon's comments about "images... when misapplied to reality, make me guilty of limiting and boxing in humans with my expectations..."
3. Rebecca's comments were profound: "...ever since Tahirih took off her veil 150 years ago, women have been trying to redefine femininity... everything in creation reflects a spiritual reality..." So what is the spiritual reality of the 'feminine'?
4. Jessica's list of feminine qualities - wow! I totally agree with all that.
5. What Kari said about otherness: "many of us are likely to be attracted to someone who has characteristics that are different than ours... characteristics that are foreign and intriguing... there's something intriguing about the "otherness" of men... however that otherness manifests. And if equality doesn't mean sameness... then embracing a sense of femininity doesn't feel like it’s in opposition to being a woman who enjoys her own strength. But at the same time... being a woman who enjoys her own strength isn't the same... or doesn't have to be the same... as becoming masculine."
AWESOME REFLECTIONS!!
To these, I would add some of what Rainer Maria Rilke has to say, only because I've been reading his stuff lately. In a series of letters to an aspiring poet (aptly named Letters to a Young Poet), among other topics, he attempts to break down his view of human relationships and the true meaning of "sex" - both in terms of gender and also in terms of human relationship. He suggests that sex means something more - something more like the way in which male and female relate to each other. So, for example, he asserts that the world of sex is heavily male at the moment - overwhelmed by male tendencies. (At the moment for him meant turn of the 20th century, but I dare say we haven’t come too far since then.)
He says, in the context of his assessment of the works of a fellow writer, "Here is no thoroughly mature and clean sex world, but one that is not sufficiently human, that is only male… laden with the old prejudices and arrogances with which man has disfigured and burdened love. Because he loves as man ONLY, not as human being…" I think the same could be applied to the world in which we live today, however, and not only to the writing to which he refers.
He goes on to talk about the value of man embracing his own "fruitfulness" more in life, that quality which is inherently female. (I think you and I talked about this that one night we were on the phone late.) And then, and I LOVE this part, he says, "And perhaps the sexes are more related than we think, and the great renewal of the world will perhaps consist in this, that man and maid, freed of all false feelings and reluctances, will seek each other not as opposites, but as brother and sister, as neighbors and will come together as human beings, in order simply, seriously and patiently to bear in common the difficult sex that has been laid upon them."
WOW!! And keep in mind, folks, he was about 28 years old when he wrote this stuff. 28!! Every time I read that I just can’t take it. I am not even sure I fully understand what he means, but it really resonates for me. That we ought to be advancing toward a kind of relationship that makes us advocates for each other and ourselves, that through our actions we may ENHANCE the experience of the other sex – support it, nurture it.
Here’s the last bit I’ll share, otherwise I’ll end up transcribing the whole book! He talks about how things will change with time. "The girl and the woman, in their new, their own unfolding, will but in passing be imitators of masculine ways, good and bad, and repeaters of masculine professions. After the uncertainty of such transitions, it will become apparent that women were only going through the profusion and the vicissitude of those (often ridiculous) disguises in order to cleanse their own most characteristic nature of the distorting influences of the other sex. Women, in whom life lingers and dwells more immediately, more fruitfully and more confidently, must surely have become fundamentally riper people, more human people, than easygoing man, who is not pulled down below the surface of life by the weight of any fruit of his body, and who, presumptuous and hasty, undervalues what he thinks he loves. This humanity of woman, borne its full time in suffering and humiliation, will come to light when she will have stripped off the conventions of mere femininity in the mutations of her outward status… [my quick thought here is 'mere femininity in the mutations of her outward status' is the same thing as 'pink and frilly' as some people commented - no judgment about that, btw, as we are products of our social conditioning] …some day there will be girls and women whose name will no longer signify merely an opposite of the masculine, but something in itself, something that makes one think, not of any complement and limit, but only of life and existence: the feminine human being."
He wraps up this letter by saying how this advancement will contribute to the reshaping of human love, changing it to "be of one human being to another, no longer of man to woman. And this more human love… will resemble that which we are preparing with struggle and toil, the love that consists in this, that two solitudes protect and border and salute each other."
Ok, so short of writing a dissertation on this guy’s stuff, for which I am not remotely qualified to do anyway, let’s start putting some pieces together. Add all that stuff into a big pot and stir it around a bit. Here’s what I came up with, which is only valid at this transitory point in time. And I can't wait to hear other people's perspectives!
Let’s start with "gender is an exigency of the physical world."
The dictionary definition of gender is "sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture and often based on reproductive anatomy." So, we might say gender relates to FUNCTION – we identify things in this world to understand their function, yes? If an object is identified as being an apple, we know it is for our nourishment. If an object is identified as a dodgeball, we know it is not for our nourishment but for our sport or entertainment. So, if we say "Susan is female" we understand her reproductive function to be that of bearing eggs and carrying a baby to term. Ok. But in the context of culture or society, function can mean how a female is supposed to relate to or fit into the world around her. So, if we say "Susan is female" we know that Susan is (possibly) limited to certain kinds of jobs, is supposed to marry a male, perhaps bear children, etc. There are certain boxes or limitations (as Shannon said) with which we restrict females when we think we understand their "function" in society. At least this is a traditionally male-imposed view of the function of females. In fact, in looking up "woman" and "female" in the dictionary as well, I found definitions that were also limiting: female = of or denoting the sex/gender that produces ova or bears young; and woman = adult female human; female servant or subordinate; wife, female lover or sweetheart. So, according to these definitions (I’m not kidding! That’s what was on dictionary.com) we pretty much function as subordinate lovers/wives/servants who bear children. Fantastic.
In this respect, we see that gender is an exigency of the physical world, because the human spirit cannot be bound by these kinds of limitations. And especially not when we read 'Abdu'l-Bahá's or Bahá'u'lláh's words about the station of maidservants.
Ok, so back to "everything in creation reflects a spiritual reality" and redefining femininity since Tahirih removed the veil. Was the veil a symbol of the limiting definitions of women? If so, then removing it invited us to redefine ourselves, redefine our function, redefine what it means to reflect our spiritual reality.
I began reflecting on the "two wings of a bird" analogy – certainly, equality is a spiritual reality. So, both wings actually have the SAME function as each other – even if one is woman and the other man. Both have to work to make the bird fly. They both have the same function in that respect. BUT, they can be VASTLY different in character or quality and still perform that function. So, one wing can be fluffy, light purple and iridescent, and the other might be red, sleek and opaque. Yes? But both function the same. This supports what Rilke was saying about how we are reshaping human love to "be of one human being to another, no longer of man to woman" and how that love "consists in this, that two solitudes protect and border and salute each other." They are not necessarily the same exact thing – but they salute (respect) each other. Then we might be prepared for "the great renewal of the world" in which "man and maid, freed of all false feelings and reluctances, will seek each other not as opposites, but as brother and sister, as neighbors and will come together as human beings, in order simply, seriously and patiently to bear in common the difficult sex that has been laid upon them." To me, this sounds an awful lot like being two wings of the same bird. Each wing is of equal value as the other. But their nature or quality might be slightly different.
So, what is the spiritual reality of a maidservant, the female wing? What are the qualities that make a maidservant feminine? What is it about woman that sets her apart from man, that makes her different in quality or character? What is our "otherness" that is attractive?
Ok, so in terms of spiritual reality, one might draw upon this analogy: a bird is a bird, and a fish is a fish. I think we can agree on that. So, what is the nature of a bird? It flies, it has wings, it dwells in the air, etc. What is the nature of a fish? It swims, it has fins, it lives in the water, it breathes through gills, etc. Both are equally valued in the sight of God, yes? So, perhaps our question then is what is it in the bird’s spiritual reality that needs to find its fullest expression in this world? And the same question of the fish.
Well, if a bird’s function is to fly, it needs to achieve higher heights, faster speeds, more agile flight patterns, longer flying time, etc. In transferring this logic to humans, Bahá'u'lláh lays out for us the path to our fullest expression in this world, yes? The Hidden Words, all of his Tablets, Gleanings, etc. - in so many volumes! But what is interesting to me here is that he does not distinguish a separate path for women than for men. Does he? I mean, in relation to marriage and relationships there are certain role or function differences between men and women, but in terms of knowing and loving God and transforming ourselves spiritually there is no difference.
After sending all this to Kari in a looooong email message (God bless her for reading through it all!) she suggested I read a passage from Some Answered Questions - a collection of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's responses to various questions posed by individuals in the early 1900s - about "Soul, Spirit and Mind" I have not yet had a chance to do that, largely because I don't have the book with me here. (You know you're in the middle of nowhere in the south when you don't have a copy of SAQ on hand. Haha!) But the point Kari raised was that she found it interesting that there is not a distinction made between feminine spirit and masculine spirit - there is only HUMAN spirit. Hm. So, this supports what we just said about how human transformation and growth is not divided between men and women, like there is a different kind of "truthfulness" to which women aspire than men, for example. Well...
Then, I get stuck again. So, what is femininity? What is the "feminine reality"? I’ll posit this: If we were to take Rilke’s words at face value, "life and existence" would surely characterize the bulk of what femininity means in that true femininity has no limits! It is truly as large and vast as life and existence, and if only we were to open ourselves to experiences beyond what we commonly think of for ourselves, we might find ourselves embracing that world of life and existence more broadly – embracing our femininity more. By defining ourselves (giving ourselves our OWN names, not simply the feminine forms of masculine names) without limitations and opening the door wider and wider, perhaps we become as feminine as it is possible to be!
Now it's your turn again... thoughts? Questions? C'mon, don't be shy!
Comments
i got wordy with my comment. almost every paragraph in Delara's entry stimulated a paragraph or two of my own thoughts. i couldn't see taking up so much space here. so, i've posted my response on carlson.typepad.com. sorry if this makes the discussion disjointed... feel free to comment back here if it keeps things more fluid.
oh - don't worry - i didn't post ALL of my thoughts on my own blog. i just covered the concept of the veil and Rilke's thoughts on sex being burdened and disfigured... which was, by the way, a cool (and intense) articulation!
anyway, stop on by.
Posted by: kari | December 29, 2004 01:13 PM
i am in awe of you all. thank you for sharing your thoughts, yourselves.
george, what you said really resonated for me - about learning how to be a human and live like one. so true. every day i remind myself that THAT is my journey.
leila and abi, redefinition is, in a sense, what i think Baha'u'llah's revelation is all about - that new spirit with which everything in the universe has been infused. the more we question what has been spoonfed to us over centuries, the more the "definitions" become aligned more with spiritual truth, which in a way means the definitions become more flexible and blurry, if you will. so, "how we honor our own spirituality" as women or men is as limitless as the heavens.
so much more to say, but i'd like to reflect a bit more on these precious words you all have shared in this space.
i feel really blessed to know people like you - my life is so much more enriched. keep it coming!
Posted by: delara | December 28, 2004 12:41 AM
Pierre and Arya - Thank you so much for your contributions. These are two quotes I've been thinking about but just hadn't looked up yet. I'm going to have to read your comments again before being able to synthesize them into my own thought process. But, thanks for bringing in other dimensions of a spiritual view.
Posted by: kari | December 27, 2004 11:57 PM
Ok, Delara, you told me not to be a lurker, so heres I yam. I really liked the story that Lev told about Mac on Kari's site. Perhaps because it was a good story and I liked the writing style, or perhaps because I know people like Mac. In the comments here, I was struck by the force of Abi's words. It was especially interesting how the idea of the 'system' became responsible not only for the continued division of the sexes but everything right down to the suppression of the human spirit. I'm reminded that the system is indeed us humans, and I'm happy to see the people posting here challenge the ideas that we create and accept.
There's something about this femininity/masculinity thread, perhaps the mention of yin and yang, that keeps steering me towards the concept of duality in existence. It seems there's a struggle to reconcile this genderless human spirit with its outward physical manifestations, often dual in nature. I think that can be an issue with many facets of life, not just sex/gender. Unfortunately I don't have any 'answers' per se, though I'm not even sure anymore that that's what I'm looking for. It is some small victory for me, however, to realize that all these struggles, whether gender identity, career, naming (I see alot of definition quoting), service, spirit, and expression are manifestations of the same uphill journey to discover what it is to be a human and how to live like one.
Posted by: george | December 27, 2004 10:32 PM
good stuff, y'all! and arya - thank you for contributing! i was hoping you would and want to hear even more...
Posted by: delara | December 27, 2004 02:15 PM
Wow! Great topic and very thought provoking!
Interesting enough the book that Delara mentioned is the exact one that one of my best friends just bought me as a Christmas gift over the weekend. We talk about relationships and the role of women in them often, and one of the things that Rilke says in the book is...I'm not quoting because I don't have the book with me but... "Relationships should be one in which each person preserves the solidarity of the other." To me this means that each of us in marriages or relationships with men or even with each other preserves the others right to be who they are without taking away from the self or the individual.
Too often I believe women and men loose themselves into their relationships and change to please the other but without letting the other be who they are. Becoming as "one soul" in a marriage does not mean to loose your identity and take on the identity of your spouse or your boy/girlfriend, whichever applies.
I also think that in this day and age of the "feminine" movement the roles of men and women are being redefined and a lot of confusion ensues, however, until they are defined to be, in my opinion, "unity in diversity" and not just equality of roles than there will be this level of confusion on where each stands.
Some women think that equality means taking on the role that men have traditionally played, for example, "being the breadwinners" and loosing what women have traditionally done -stay at home with their children - I do believe that women have a right to choose and that choosing to stay home with their child is very important to the education of the next generation of people and a very important job and should never be looked down on, as some shortsighted people tend to do.
I look around and think to myself that men do not know where they stand anymore nor do women so there is a lot of confusion and anger for that matter on both sides. However, I do see a generation of people working towards redefining what it means to be a man or a women - rahter to be a spiritual being - to be two wings of one bird...each wing being equal to the other...each job of each wing playing a significant role in aiding the whole of the bird to fly and to be one unit.
Posted by: Leila | December 27, 2004 01:38 PM
great topic and discussion! my thought on this subject revolves around the quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha:
"Love is the most great law that ruleth this mighty and heavenly cycle, the unique power that bindeth together the divers elements of this material world, the supreme magnetic force that directeth the movements of the spheres in the celestial realms. Love revealeth with unfailing and limitless power the mysteries latent in the universe. Love is the spirit of life unto the adorned body of mankind, the establisher of true civilization in this mortal world, and the shedder of imperishable glory upon every high-aiming race and nation."
if the underlying force in the universe is love, then love is what causes the electron's attraction to the proton, what causes the earth's attraction to the sun. these are all symbols of opposites that are drawn together by love, and in being drawn together, create life. this leads to the concept of oneness. how do you demonstrate oneness if not by the coming together of opposites? therefore, the symbol of oneness is the unity of two opposites, united by the force of love. in the same way, the male and the female are opposites that create oneness and life when drawn together out of love. our life in this world and our gender is our chance to participate in this demonstration of oneness. each gender has a role to play. to gain insight on the purpose of that role, we can look at other "twin" examples that show the interation of opposites that come together to demonstrate oneness, labeling one yin and one yang. this is a subject in and of itself but i'll list some that i can think of:
1) the UHJ/the elected (yang) and the ITC/the appointed (yin)
2) Baha'u'llah (yang) and the Bab (yin)
3) the sun (yang) and the earth (yin)
this also applies to man/woman and i think even the races. we will demonstrate oneness when we each play our assigned role and come together out of oneness. i think that our roles are not so much about the details and responsibilities we take on as women or men but more about the role we play in our marriages, our families and the world. and perhaps the reason gender is limited to this world is that we achieve oneness when we enter that world by becoming a functioning wing in unity with our opposite.
Posted by: arya | December 27, 2004 10:31 AM
i think the essential point that Sholeh brings up is at the center and heart of any discussion that involves the definition, redefinition, liberation, progress, alleviation, or exaltation of any group that has been marginalized and created as an "other". And it pisses me off to no end. Not because of the general injustice of hegemony, but because of the unretrievable mess it makes of the selves of individuals. Even having recognized the choices available to us, what woman, even the most worldly, can truly say those choices are 100% hers? As Delara said, we are products of our social conditioning. Even those choices presented to us are just that - presentaions. They come from somewhere. And 95% of the time they come from a hegemonic system trying to compensate to maintain its equilibrium. What kind of system pits women against each other about whether to raise children or earn money? Whose values are these? What kind of system could fathom a woman feeling guilty for postponing or even adapting her career to nurture a family? What kind of system has a page in the manual about "women in the workplace" and finds it unecessary to even coin the phrase "men in the workplace"? What system is it that lets us think we have to choose between careers that mean saving the world and children who we are ssaving it for? What system says how things must be done in such a way that that illusion becomes a reality? What %$*&ing system says we have to define ourselves before we can BE out SELVES? The same system that said men and women are separate. The same system that says they can be defined. It is the same system, also, that said black and white are biologically different species, the same system that determined that where difference exists, inferiority and superiority must also exist. The same sytem that decided that money is more important than human life, that power is more valuable than service, that appearance is more important than expression, the status quo is more important than the spiritual advancement of mankind. The system that defines feminity and that says we would do well to live by that definition is one committed to maintaining the barriers that let it persist, to keeping its subordinates in a state of disarray such that they will find themselves unable to arise in unity to dismantle it. Our nature is spiritual. As women, that is what there is to honor. How we choose to honor our own spirituality will manifest in all the many ways there are to commune with God. To hell with a society that asks us to define ourselves in any other way.
Posted by: abi | December 27, 2004 02:52 AM
Hmmm......Very interesting stuff!!!! As I read the entries and everyone's comments(from Kari's blog as well) I too have been trying to process what the true meaning of "Femininity" really means...The thing that came to my mind off the top of my head was a passage from 'Two Wings of a Bird' where it states:
"The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated over woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting; force is losing its dominance, and mental alertness, intuition, and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine and more permeated with the feminine ideals . . . an age in which the masculine and feminine elements of civilization will be more evenly balanced"
Now this may not give a complete definition of " true femininity" but I think this passage may give us some direction in terms of the "spiritual reality" of women and men. I think the only way to true feminity is through a spiritual foundation and nothing less. It's no surprise to me that someone in the early 1900's could express in such a profound way the course of women and men in regards to "Femininity"...Anything that has happened since 1844 is just a testament to the spirit that had been infused into every created thing...So while living in a distorted "male dominated" society where inequality between man and woman are of such a disproportionate measure it would be extremely difficult or next to impossible for anyone to find "true femininity" within this realm...UNLESS:) they are detached from the things of this world and totally focused on their spiritual reality which is their "true nature"...
"Baha'u'llah declares the absolute equality of the sexes....Whosoever serves humanity most is nearest God -- for God is no respecter of gender." (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 82)
I truly believe that "true feminity" is found within "true religion" where it is natural and not defined by the things of this world but clearly defined as spiritual attributes of God...
Alright, let me have it!!:)
Posted by: Pierre | December 26, 2004 10:21 PM
funny that some might say attention to family is a sign of a corrupt society, huh? i guess everyone's coming from a slightly different point of view.
Delara - I'm still working out my thoughts on this topic. But, I think I'm just inches away from a new connection for you... I just want to write it out to see if it makes sense. You'll be hearing frm me soon.
Posted by: kari | December 26, 2004 05:34 PM
right on, sholeh. i think you touch on something here that is so important - choice. and specifically, choices without limit. it implies non-linear thinking and "thinking outside the box" - both characteristics that i would say have been conspicuously missing from our society for a long time... perhaps, one might argue, because we are very male-dominated society - whatever that might mean. :) but i agree - to me as well, one of the highest expressions of femininity or womanhood is the ability to create, bring life into this world. amazing!
Posted by: delara | December 26, 2004 12:19 PM
I'm not remotely "qualified" to comment on this subject, except as a woman. I found myself increasingly frustrated in my Gender & Society class this semester, however, when any comments to the effect that "raising children and giving up your career to make sure they are raised in a loving home is commendable" were shot down and insulted. Even the professor made the assumption that females "lose out" in the child-rearing process. Traditionally, this has been true (in that women were not given the CHOICE). However, I think it is important to realize that by trying to specifically define what femininity entails, we run the risk of pigeon-holing ourselves again. I'm personally a very maternal person (although I've yet to bear children of my own). Someone else might feel differently. Does this define our "femininity"? I've literally had people tell me that I've been sucked into the societal/cultural conditioning of the corrupt society around me because I want to have children and stay home with them! I would never think to say that a women that doesn't want children is a bad person, but the opposite doesn't seem to hold true. People are different...the key seems to be education. Let women make the choice to be who they want, whether it be a high-powered executive, a stay at home mom, or an engineer...or all of them. Just make sure that they know that there is a way to uplift oneself from the craziness that exists in society today.
Posted by: Sholeh | December 26, 2004 04:25 AM