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!
