Whether there is one "standard" of femininity?  

Posted by The Glo-ness in ,

Objection 1: It would seem that femininity is variable, and defined by whichever woman you happen to ask, since femininity is merely "how women act", and different women act differently. Therefore, femininity is different in each woman, and can't be defined universally.

I answer that:

There is one "standard" of femininity, because God created one feminine nature. This nature is universal, and aspects of it are found in all women. The more women develop this nature, the more they become the creature God intended them to be, and thus, the more closely do they become united to Him and follow His Will.

Reply to Objection 1: If you are using a human-centered view of femininity, it is indeed true to define femininity by what individual women think it is. If you are using a God-centered view of femininity, it is true to define it as participation in that universal nature by which God distinguished the woman from the man, and gave her the qualities which suit her for the particular work He has set aside for her. Since we are to live according to God's definitions, not our own, the true definition of femininity is the God-centered one.

This entry was posted on September 28, 2009 at Monday, September 28, 2009 and is filed under , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

24 comments

good post!!!

October 1, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Whether there is one "standard" of masculinity?

Objection 1: It would seem that masculinity is variable, and defined by whichever man you happen to ask, since masculinity is merely "how men act", and different men act differently. Therefore, masculinity is different in each man, and can't be defined universally.

I answer that:
There is one "standard" of masculinity, because God created one masculine nature. This nature is universal, and aspects of it are found in all men. The more men develop this nature, the more they become the creature God intended them to be, and thus, the more closely do they become united to Him and follow His Will.

Reply to Objection 1: If you are using a human-centered view of masculinity, it is indeed true to define masculinity by what individual men think it is. If you are using a God-centered view of masculinity, it is true to define it as participation in that universal nature by which God distinguished the woman from the man, and gave him the qualities which suit him for the particular work He has set aside for him. Since we are to live according to God's definitions, not our own, the true definition of masculinity is the God-centered one.

October 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Nice work, Glo-ness and Edward!

October 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM

how deep

October 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM

coolio

October 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM

I like it. Now, if only I could convince Assumption girls of so much, that they might wear dresses rather than sweats and hoodies identical to the men's, save that they're pink. There would not be such a dearth of feminine beauty!

October 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Hey, I thought it was kind of amusing, not deep, that's why I posted it. :)

October 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Good luck with the Assumption ladies, Crusader... or, if you're in the mood, drop in at St. Mary's Assumption parish in St. Louis to find a lot of Assumption ladies who already wear skirts.

October 2, 2009 at 12:34 AM

Edward it's called sarcasm....you know
S-A-R-C-A-S-M?

October 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM

you would think he would get it...hes the genius that fixed our computer

October 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Stop plagiarizing my posts, Corey!!! :P!!

October 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM

What's up, crusader88? Are you new on here? I saw on your profile that you like manga-do you like Bizenghast?

October 5, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Apparently nobody has noticed that my modification of Glo's post is probably heretical. :P

October 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM

i didnt read it...its too long

October 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM

wow bubblefeet....what a compliment

October 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Where is the Viking??

October 6, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Busy... he's a paterfamilias, he has to work hard! Unlike all us irresponsible single youngsters here! :P

October 7, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Who you callin' "irresponsible", eh? I run a business for cryin' out loud!! ;P

October 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM

i like your pic glo-ness its purty

October 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM

LOL... I forgot... and Edward is a hardworking man too... but other than that?... :P

(Kidding, don't kill me Jude...)

eet waz joak...

October 9, 2009 at 6:55 PM

whats with the cat-like spelling?

October 11, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Thanks, Bubblefeet!

October 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM

So, do these divine standards condemn me for knitting better than hammering nails or a girl who is better at hammering nails than at knitting?

I am perfectly aware that a man is supposed in general to be a provider, and that most ways of doing that traditionally include rather hard than precise work.

Does this stamp me as a faggot in your eyes?

Does this mean I have a duty to change every ambition of getting paid for precise rather than hard work (as writing and composing, if not knitting)?

Here in Paris, at St Nicolas de Chardonnet, apart from meals at monday soup kitchen, young people tend to treat me as an outcast. If I have to go by internet to get in touch, why not on your blog? So what do YOU think?

February 26, 2010 at 6:20 AM

There may also be a divine standard for age characters.

I am past the age for relearning.

A "girl" my age is past the age for marriage (not canonically, nor morally, but gynecologically when it comes to first good of marriage). Thus no longer a girl but an old maid.

February 26, 2010 at 6:23 AM

Post a Comment