DUDES! Get in touch with your feminine side.
This post is for guys. Dudes. The macho ones. The ones who must be THE MAN. You know who you are. It strikes me that much of who you are is defined by what you don’t do. You don’t read sappy books or watch sappy movies (and if you happen to by accident, you roll your eyes), you don’t write or read poetry, you don’t dance, you don’t go shopping for clothes, you don’t use hand lotion or exfoliate. Sure there are manly things you do. You hunt, fish, drive big loud cars, and try to speak in an unnaturally low voice. But, hey, girls can do those things too (other than the voice thing), so big deal.
Well, I’ll stop the description of the total stereotypical dude right there and turn my attention to the broader principle: that every man, woman, and child is ultimately feminine. Masculine and feminine is rather defined by degrees as far as we are usually concerned. Men are only “masculine” because they are more masculine than women. Some men are more masculine than others. But on a purely objective scale, all may be defined as feminine.
What is masculine and feminine? Well, first what is it not? It does not refer specifically to the biological. Men are men, and women are women, and there is a clear definition there. Rather, the masculine and the feminine is a function of speech. It does not describe anatomy, primarily. Rather, it describes function of action. The masculine acts. The feminine is acted upon. The masculine is initiates and the feminine responds. This is common to virtually every language.
And that is why we may rightly say that ultimately all mankind is feminine. Because we are, and are to be responsive.
C.S. Lewis says, in the context of a discussion of the priestly role of men:
Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him.
There is definitely something to be said for this. The reason why all the human race is ultimately feminine is because God initiates. Man responds. When God breaths life into dust and speaks the imperative: live, man lives.
Likewise, Christ initiates His covenant with us, His people, and we respond, receiving Him in faith. Each one of us as an individual received the call of God and responded to Christ’s sacrifice. Corporately, we, the Church, are the Bride. Christ initiated this relationship on the cosmic scale as well, taking on our humanity and coming to redeem his beloved.
We were lost. Dead. He revived us, and we responded by living. Jesus’ Bride receives Him in faith and in love. The Church is forever “she” to Him.
So what does that mean for us guys? Well, first, be masculine in relation to those who are properly feminine (women). Masculinity initiates and leads, protects, guards, and courts. That is the picture God has painted in His creation of humankind. That is why men are to take the commission and to represent Christ to the Church corporate, as Lewis suggests.
Second, get in touch with the feminine. By this I mean: submit to God’s ordained authority of Church, family and government. Don’t be so caught up in your masculinity that you forget that you are feminine as well—that you refuse to receive and respond, insisting on always being the initiator. For we all must receive and respond to Christ.
Therefore, cultivate responsiveness. If that means watching a sappy movie or two, taking a dance class (which actually is an exercise of a man’s masculine, which I might write about at a later date), or reading and actually feeling poetry, so be it.
. . . we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.
Further reading:
Origin of Speech, by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy
Tags: C. S. Lewis, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, feminine, gender, masculine, speech
Books and Literature, Theology, Trinitarian Romance | Christopher Kou | 
August 26, 2009 11:34 PM
Subscribe
it's imperAtive
The Church is forever “she” to Him.Is the Billy Joel echo conscious or subconscious?
"Second, get in touch with the feminine. By this I mean: submit to God’s ordained authority of Church, family and government."Ah. Well put.If a man must love and look after a woman, he must indwell her and seek for her to indwell him. He can't do that without coming into very close touch with femininity, thinking her thoughts, feelings her feelings.
Imperative. Right. Sorry, typo. Which, you can't claim, since you repeated your misspelling about five times . . .:cP
i'm so not THE MAN sort of guy … counter-tenor, worked in women's retail, wear white pants ^^/, love shopping, etc.
I hope this isn't in response to my rants on modern american women. I AM very in touch with my fem side. I cry at a good movie and Enya is my favorite singer. Case closed. lol
"you don't write or read poetry, you don’t dance, you don’t go shopping for clothes, you don’t use hand lotion or exfoliate."I do all of these.
In fact, I am about to play Enya here at work and there will probably be some office bitchin'
Haha! That's great, Jay. No, I wasn't responding to your rants, which I find rather amusing.GENERAL DISCLAIMER: Just because I tagged you in this note does not mean I think you're an over-macho and insensitive jock.
Yes, my insensitivity does not need a note to confirm it.
I can't believe I actually spent a few minutes reading this entire note. I think the whole "Feminine" distinction in relation to our individuality is more than a bit artificial. I agree with what C S Lewis briefly stated about being feminine corporately though. So I suppose my beef is more with Lewis than the author of this note.
Well, Jon. How would you define "feminine" from a grammatical standpoint? It is not a strictly biological distinction, since inanimate objects are often distinguished by gender. In fact, English is quite different from some older languages in which EVERYTHING has gender.
Well it would be a mistake to equivocate the use of the term "feminine" as though it could be applied to my argument simply because every grammatical term has gender (which technically is not true depending on how ancient the language goes…). My disagreement was simply with Lewis' comment on us all being "feminine" individually. I am using the term "feminine" in one of its two distinct senses, that being "that which is characteristic of females." Unless you think Lewis was making a distinct comment grammatically, I don't think Lewis had an argument. And as far as your article goes, you mention that we "men" are to be submissive to Christ, etc… and that is somehow (!?!) "feminine". Does that mean that Christ was "feminine" in submitting to his Father? I'm hoping for a little bit more of philosophical consistency with the article….
>>>I am using the … Read Moreterm "feminine" in one of its two distinct senses, that being "that which is characteristic of females." <<<Jonathan, this is a dictionary definition, which necessarily has been sort of abstracted from its linguistic and cultural context. There is, however, arguably a feminine principle that transcends the biological, and may even precede it logically.My question about grammar as relates to Lewis is due to a reading both of Lewis and Rosenstock-Huessy on gender in speech. If you're going to take issue directly with the grammar usage, you'll need to refer to him. Granted I'm taking it a step further, and I may not even be fully understanding him. But I think I have the general idea.
Lewis cannot avoid making a distinct comment grammatically because he was using language to make his comment.Is the Son feminine in relation to the Father? That's a good question, which delves further into theology proper and the intra-Trinitarian covenant. Not quite ready to answer that yet.As for being individually feminine in relation to Christ, I don't see an issue there. In Heaven there is no male or female biologically. We do not take or give in marriage. Our biology is for the sole purpose of imaging an eternal truth of Christ and the Church.If you're part of the Church Catholic, then you're feminine in relation to Christ.
First I was like… "Waahhh??" Then I was like… "Huuuh?" Then I was like… bored. Hehe. J/k.I agree with everything. A very nice piece of writing, Chris!
First I was like… "Waahhh??" Then I was like… "Huuuh?" Then I was like… bored. Hehe. J/k.I agree with everything. A very nice piece of writing, Chris!
This is nothing more that the nutering of man. Get is touch with your feminine side. Look Man was made for a reason. It was not to be Feminine. We do not walk around in dresses (well most of us anyway) Emotion is not a symptom of being feminine. It is a symptom of being HUMAN. Man inherantaly can not be feminine. Woman was made of MAN. Not the other way around. The spiritof MEN naturally chafes at the bridle of being feminine and most will fight to the end on this subjectNo where in the BIBLE does it mention anything about man being feminine to the father. C.S. Lewis is making stuff up every bit as much as L Ron Hubberd. It does tell men not to dress an women and women not to dress as men.Use your Bible as a final reference. Suplication and submission is not feminine. It is reverence and obedience again, not femininity.
Okay then.Ephesians 5:22-24Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.Now. Is the role of wife feminine or not, and are we or are we not each members of the Church universal?
Also, I did not say that emotion was inherently feminine. But neither is it inherently human. God has emotions. Man has emotions only because he is created in God's image.As for your concern in maintaining the distinction between man and woman. That is not a problem here. Male is never to be feminine in relation to female. It goes against the created order, as you said.
The role of a woman is not to be feminine. This is a character that a woman has, a demeanor if you will. You are mixing up things.The role of a woman is to be companion, wife, and bearer of children. OH also, a woman is EQUAL to a man. A man has a position of authority, this does not make him any better than a woman. It make him RESPONSIBLE for the woman.Here is an experiment for you…Go to your father and tell him he needs to be feminine to God. See what happens.You are taking things as many academian’s do and chopping up meanings and re-arranging them. Philosophically you can change the meaning of anything to anything you want. This does not change the facts though.You arrived at the wron conclusion from Ep.
>>>The role of a woman is not to be feminine. This is a character that a woman has, a demeanor if you will.<<<That is not what I asked. I asked if the role of WIFE is feminine or not. "Woman" is not a role. It is simply the description of biological matter of fact.>>>OH also, a woman is EQUAL to a man. A man has a position of authority, this does not make him any better than a woman. It make him RESPONSIBLE for the woman.<<<I don't believe I ever said otherwise.>>>Go to your father and tell him he needs to be feminine to God. See what happens.<<<I will be surprised if he does not agree with me.>>>Philosophically you can change the meaning of anything to anything you want.<<<Not validly, you can't. You are still bound by the laws of logic, the laws of speech, and the rules against self-contradiction. And, of course, you are bound by the Bible. Speaking of which . . . were you going to say something about Ephesians 5:22-24?
As I use the term Woman it is general. Wife is still a woman. . And I did not say woman was a role. I stated Feminine is a character, a demenor. Again you are twisting meaning. Wife is a role, just a husband is a role. This does not change the character of either. Man as being masculine and woman as being feminine again are characters not roles.
>>>Wife is still a woman . . . woman as being feminine . . .<<<So is the role of wife feminine or not? And if yes, then . . . Ephesians 5:22-24?
>>>And I did not say woman was a role. I stated Feminine is a character, a demenor. Again you are twisting meaning.<<<No meaning twisting here. I was simply agreeing with you and restating that point.
OK my missunderstanding sorry. It did seam the opposite.
I stated what I wanted about your conclusion or question from Ep.
>>>You arrived at the wron conclusion from Ep.<<<Yeah, I saw this. But you understand that just stating something doesn't make it so. You kind of have to address the actual text if you want to discount or disagree with the reading.
Ephesians 5:31-32Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
This last statement is incredibly obscure. These are teaching on how to act and is descibing attitudes for men and women toward each other after marriage. This has no context relating to or even a subcontext of being Christ to the church. There is no inferance at all. I am not sure how you are arriving at this conclusion.
>>>This last statement is incredibly obscure.<<<Well . . . I'm sorry you think so. But those aren't my words. They're Paul's That's part of the Scripture reference.>>>These are teaching on how to act and is descibing attitudes for men and women toward each other after marriage. This has no context relating to or even a subcontext of being Christ to the church.<<<No, it's not in the context or the subcontext. It's the main point. Paul telling us how marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ and His relationship to us His people is the reality that marriage symbolizes.
Marriage is not merely similar to Christ and the Church. Rather, it is directly analogous to Christ's relationship with us. That is, marriage is an institution created by God specifically to picture Christ and the Church. That is why Paul says "I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" and not the other way around.Yes, this passage is teaching us about how to behave in marriage. But Paul is using our relationship as the Bride to Christ as his logical proof. He is exhorting us to image Christ and the Church properly in our roles of husband and wife, which are temporal and temporary symbols of the greater reality.
Well said, Chris.
Well said, Chris.
Paul also stated that it is better not to be married. His position was that if you are weak and succum to the desires of the flesh you it is better for you to be married. Otherwise it is better for you not to be married in order to serve God. So I ask, If Paul thinks that marriage is analgous to Christ and the Church why does he state that it is better not to be married. Now you can say that in the physical form it is better not to have distractions and that is where he is comming from. But in the bigger picture and his statements taken as a whole I think that they in could be concidered in direct opposition.Also,I also take it that your position and CS Lewis position is that God is masuline as opposed to feminine. This is surnised based on masculine and feminine not f/f or m/m.
I counter that God is either neither or he is both. He is spirit and not of temporal form.MNow if man was made in his immage that would make man what God is or was (God is perfect). Man was perfect. If God made man in his immage he could not be other than what God was. Masculine or both but not feminine alone. This precludes man from being feminine if he was indeed made in Gods immage.Again though I surmise that God is not a temporal being andc an be neither masculine or feminine as we understand it.
A long time ago, I was only wanting to point out that Lewis' passing 'distinction' that we are "all" (universally) "feminine" individually seems to be artificial. Once we clarify (philosophically) what is ESSENTIAL to being "Feminine", then I think that will clarify what is, and is not, artificial in this article. The article is interesting, but a waste of time if we continue to argue over the individual's femininity. I don't see why my submission to Christ as a man is not masculine, or, in other words, why that is essentially feminine.That's my opinion. I can back it up philosophically too. Take it or leave it.
Peter,When Paul says it's better not to be married, consider the context. He says "because of this present distress" (1 Cor 7:26) i.e. 1st century persecution. That is not intended to be a general principle. Ironically, though, that verse supports my argument. A man who does not marry, and so does not take on the masculine role of husband does so so that he might be even more devoted to his role in the Bride of Christ, the Church. In other words, he forgoes the symbol so that he might increase his role in what the symbol represents.
As for being made in God's image. Genesis states: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."In other words, mankind, both male and female together, are the image of God.>>>If God made man in his immage he could not be other than what God was.<<<Exactly. So there must indeed be feminine qualities in God, else they would not be found in humanity. Unless you think that man possesses something that God does not. Which would lead you to the conundrum of trying to explain the source of those qualities in man.>>>This precludes man from being feminine if he was indeed made in Gods immage.<<<It certainly does not.>>>God is not a temporal being andc an be neither masculine or feminine as we understand it.<<<Perhaps not as we understand it. In which case we ought to change our understanding of it.