The Reluctant Gatekeepers

Following on the work of St. Edith Stein and St. John Paul II, I feel no embarrassment in saying that men and women are different in fundamental ways. And again following Saint Edith, I observe that femininity, which women tend to have more of than men do, and masculinity, which men tend to have more of than women do, have been adversely affected by the Fall. Just as we live in a fallen world, a creation warped by Original Sin, so masculinity and femininity are fallen, too. All the more reason to look to Our Lord for the best example we have for what masculinity should look like and to His Blessed Mother, conceived without sin, for prelapsarian femininity.

St. Edith notes in her writing that Our Lord was the New Adam and Our Lady was the New Eve, and she reflects also that it is significant that Our Lady's principal role was not spousal but maternal. Both Saint Edith and Saint John Paul hold that all women are called to be mothers of one kind or another.

Saint Edith does not think that men's principal role is paternal. She thinks fatherhood is just a subset of the male call to leadership. Since the Fall, of course, this leadership contains the seeds of selfish tyranny. And fallen motherhood, I would add, contains the seeds of selfishness, too. Mothers have a huge amount of emotional power, and some use this power for evil. Think of the female mentor who develops relationships of trust with younger women at work only to stab them in the back. Yikes.

However, I think a much more likely female sin is to abdicate maternal responsibility, either letting their own kids run wild, or even indulging their bad habits, or giggling foolishly while their male friends behave badly, or just giving in when their boyfriends start to take their relationship "to another level" in the front of a Honda Civic.

At this point readers may shout, "But he shouldn't start to take the relationship to another level in the back of a Honda Civic! Why do I have to be the one who says no?" And I would say, "Because he's the one being excessive." According to the traditional scheme of things, masculine men take leadership in sexual advances. (I would add that more feminine men expect women to seduce them and feel disappointed when we don't.) This leadership is, thanks to the Fall, flawed. And therefore it is a principal of redeemed motherhood to say "No. Stop. This is getting a bit crazy, so I think we'd better cool it."

Frankly, whoever is being excessive is the one who needs correcting. I am sure B.A. could give you examples of feminine excess at the Historical House. Let me see. Oh, I suspect I am way too interested in my friends' lives. And I even used to mope or cry occasionally when not invited to certain parties, which B.A. thought was ridiculous. Saint Edith Stein would say that this was textbook fallen feminine behaviour, had expressions like "textbook behaviour" been current before 1942. Of course, B.A. gets excessive in his leadership, e.g. haranguing me in an over-exasperated tone, which I counter by wailing, "You're not making me feel better! I'm sorry I mentioned it. I should have called a WOMAN!" Etc, etc. Ah, the joys of marriage.

But actually that is what marriage is for, other than having babies, I mean (of the body and/or of the spirit). Man confronts fallen femininity and helps his wife rise above it, and woman confronts fallen masculinity and helps her husband rise above that. To use a very basic example, husbands question the practical advantage of expensive if pretty shoes, and women ban sexual sin. The thought of B.A. saying "Aw geez" upon finding out I spent 65 quid on a new pair of pretty shoes generally stops me from buying a new pair of pretty shoes. And the force of my yowls that he change that channel, makes B.A. change the channel. I was so outraged by that rapey sexual scenario with the Turkish guy that poor B.A. never got to see "Downton Abbey" again. However, how dare they beam such filth into gthe sitting-rooms of Britain? (I admit it was an example of feminine excess to insult All Britain, e.g. What's wrong with you people?, at the time.)

Camille Paglia (you didn't see that name coming, did you?) thinks sexually active hom*sexu*l men are heroes for spitting in the eye of Mother Nature, but even she was shaken by the excesses of urban American gay cult*re in the 1970s. She blamed the excess on the fact that there were no women involved. Given that there was no feminine check on masculine sexual behaviour, she was not surprised by the AIDS epidemic. And, lo and behold, in current discussions around same-sex "marri*ge" the very concept of sexual fidelity is being held up to ridicule. I thought the Sex and the City franchise, though straining every fan's credulity in marrying off Anthony Marentino to Stanford Blatch, was refreshingly open about the fact that Anthony had no intention of curbing his polyandrous sex life just because he was married. And actually it could indeed be that Stanford wouldn't care, as long as Anthony respected their emotional bond, treating all his other partners as, I don't know, less than. For one thing, Stanley might take it as tacit permission to do the same thing. And thus they would encourage each other not in virtue but in excess. Most women, however, naturally and laudably draw the line at such self-indulgent (and destructive) promiscuity in the men they love.

I am not saying, by the way, that women do not suffer from sexual temptation. Of course we do. Obviously this is not something to brag about although certainly chastity educators {who trains these people? do they all have certificates from accredited institutions, or what?*) need to learn about contemporary realities instead of repeating the tired cliches that might have been true back in 1950, when pop culture was not giving girls a 24/7 training in vice. But I am saying that one thing hasn't changed, and it is that women are called to confront masculine excess, both in men and, increasingly, in themselves.


*Here's a thought. No Catholic school, parish or organization should host chastity speakers who have neither a certificate or diploma in moral theology (or philosophy) from an accredited institution nor episcopal oversight. Both would be best. Me, I have an M.Div., but no oversight. You should remember that, especially if you are young, and if teenage readers are ever troubled or enthusiastic about anything I write, I want you to discuss it with a wise and trusted adult who knows and loves you, okay? Just because someone on the internet seems smart or fun does not mean she or he has all the answers.