"The pursuit of what is true..."

Recently I embarked on a vendetta against the word “pursue” in the context of romance. I really hate it. It’s such an inappropriate word to describe true (i.e. real) love. Webster says, “pursue: 1) to follow with enmity 2) to follow usu. determinedly in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat… 4) to seek to follow, obtain, attain to or accomplish.” It’s very similar to “persuade” which is “1) to induce by argument, entreaty; to win over by an appeal to one’s reason and feelings; bring to belief, certainty or conviction; argue into an opinion or procedure...” etc etc.

“Pursuit” or “persuasion” should not be necessary because it presumes two things. First, I’m no animal and you’re no hunter. I won’t be a trophy; I won’t be conquered; not something passively surrendered. I, for one, will not be prevailed upon. (You could read gender roles into this whole vendetta, but I don't think that's necessary.) I will not be “convinced” of someone’s goodness or of the rightness of a certain relationship. It should be obvious. If I give myself up, I guarantee that my surrender will be active. I will initiate my own self-sacrifice. I will go willingly because it will be something that I deem worthy of my very LIFE.

I think what bugs me about part 1 of the problem comes out of a stereotype that culture perpetuates through chick flicks and all that nonsense that bugs me so much. The stereotype is that “women don’t know what they want.” In all the stories, men try to figure out what women want but are unsuccessful because not even women supposedly know what they want. So then the man just ends up sweeping this girl off her feet because she has no idea of what she’s really searching for.

This denies the first rule of philosophy: know thyself. Not only should we know our weaknesses, our strengths, our purpose, our passions, our origins, our values and our worth, but we should know what we want. It should come out of our whole “practical ontology,” as Jason Dorsey said in church yesterday. And though this may sound arrogant or presumptuous, I do believe that I know what I want. I want goodness.

That leads into the second presumption, which is that I need to be convinced of someone’s virtue. No, goodness does not hide itself. Like a city on a hill, goodness cannot be disguised or obscured and therefore does not need to be drawn out or revealed. I’ve consciously decided that I don’t seek friends or romance or some sort of secondary fulfillment. I seek goodness and goodness is apparent, clear, and straightforward.

Not to say that I’m lacking any of the former, however. Maybe my standard sounds too high, but I do know some who meet it. No, those people come more naturally and more wholly when it is part of the greater pursuit. The men and women whom I call my friends are people I’ve met along the way, even stumbled across inadvertently. Yet the common purpose that we share, the passion for something beyond ourselves is the ultimate objective, not one another. Pursue goodness.

I’ve struggled to find a good replacement word though. Whatever it is, it must be something that expresses mutuality as well as the context of the action as part of another bigger pursuit. I think the only word that is appropriate is “sacrifice.” There’s a sense of meeting in the middle, of each giving something—giving of oneself, giving of your own desires or self-interest in order to serve others. That is what love is, not a chase or a hunt or an unveiling. It’s consistency, willingness, action, and daily dying to the self.

Treatise Revisited

Woah, woah, woah, kids. I think I've almost come to half of a conclusion to part of my treatise question.

I asked a great friend whether he was a complementarian or an egalitarian. His perfect answer: "both."

I've been mulling this over and looking at it from a hundred different ways in my mind and I've almost come to a conclusion for myself. Last time I wrote on this (some five months ago), I didn't really have a conclusion because my head and my heart had different inclinations. Head said there's no reason why I should defer to a man considering my own intellect and generally rational approach to issues. Heart said yeah, but I want a man to step up and take responsibility and be a leader. My problem was reconciliation of these two organs and I think I've done it.

I think the feminism movement has had a bad effect on men. For everything it has done to promote women and equality of the sexes, it seems that many of the men who give way for this not only let women step up, but do in fact themselves step down. Put a different way, they seem to think that there's no room for both men and women to be simultaneously in first place.

Obviously there are some who aren't so passive (e.g. the friend who got me thinking about this). But I think that, with my general faith in women, I am confident that women can rise to the top without help, without any kind of affirmative action or bias in their favor. Men don't need to give up leadership in order for women to claim it as well. I have no worry for women because I'm dead confident that hell yes, I'll be a strong, influential leader. No problem there. What my heart was wanting is for men to be men. Be leaders, be strong, be influential. Rest assured, I will be too. In fact, you'll have to step it up to compete with what I have to offer. But you sure as hell better step it up. If you don't, it's almost just as disrespectful as discrimination against women.

Yes, I'm a libertarian. It all comes down to liberty in the end. Unfortunately, feminism has become to equality what a tariff is to free trade; it demands preference for one sex over the other rather than judging a person based on their individual qualities.

The question is this: if girls would be women, would boys be men?

I've never struggled with the concept of equality in a marriage. If both husband and wife are single-minded, rational, loving individuals, who does it matter who's "right"? They'll work it out in the end. What my heart was not wanting was for the man to be the weak one, deferring or abdicating any leadership responsibilities to, well, me. Not that I'm incapable. However, I would see him as not living up to his full potential and would therefore have less respect for him. And respect is pretty close to being #1 on my list of required emotions in a relationship (yes, rationalism and emotions meet!)

So my perspective is thus: I know what I'm capable of. And if we're in this together, I don't want some gimpy guy dragging me down. So you just better be prepared to match my effort, heck, maybe even make up for some of my weaknesses. Complement me. We'll complement each other.

That, my friends, is egalitarian complementarianism. And that is where this part of the treatise concludes.

Treatise pt. II - Aristotle and Sexism

Philosophy presents so many brilliant ideas and Aristotle's sexism is hardly to be discounted because it's dated.

That was meant to be an inflammatory statement. Heck, I'm a girl, er, I mean woman--and I'm hardly sexist against my own sex. Even so, lots of "outdated" ideas--including the idea that a man should be the leader in a relationship, in the church, in what-have-you--still ring true with something in me.

A solid half of me wants to be an egalitarian because then I would not be confined to roles that might never satisfy me. I honestly don't know if I'm cut out to be a mother. I love children. (I love them even more once they develop rational and growing minds.) But could I raise some of my own? I'm not the most sympathetic person. Be confident that if I express sympathy or concern, I really do mean it because I'm bad at feigning that. But kids need and want compassion even when their troubles are minuscule and insignificant in light of life as a whole. And they require a devoted audience for their sometimes uninteresting stories... I know--I have little sisters (whom I love). But of course I digress.

Really, my strongest desire to have children comes from the idea of sharing something like that with a man I admire and respect. And that's the half of me that is very attracted to the idea of complementarianism. I like the idea that I could trust someone to be a leader, to tend to the needs of others, and to be a partner whose strengths and weaknesses complement mine.

So once I am able to discern the nature of "femininity" as a quality (whether of the soul or something else), the major question will be, what does this mean for me as a woman?

I hope femininity manifests itself in many different ways. What are the implications of my role as a woman? Does femininity require that I be submissive or relinquish some of my liberties? If my femininity is demonstrated in my role as a mother or a wife or by my taste in movies or books or music, how does that restrain me? How could I be feminine and run a company? Or listen to metal music? Or be inspired by war movies? How can I tell men what to do and reject the overly emotional examples of women that my culture throws at me?

At the same time that I ask these questions, I'm very comfortable with the idea of a man (a wise, godly leader, mind you) taking charge. If I was in a "relationship," I imagine that I would trust him to judge the progress and direction of that relationship. I would trust my life to him. And if I didn't I wouldn't date him.

How can a woman be "strong, independent, and utterly feminine" as someone described Sarah Palin recently? How does that strength and independence mesh with utter femininity?


What? Why are you waiting like that?? I don't have the answers. I just ask the questions.

A Study in Form and Qualitative Definition

I was recently speaking with a 21 year-old male friend who described his interactions with “women,” meaning other females on my college campus. My internal reaction was, “Oh. Does that include me now, too?” Have I reached that point where I’m now a woman? When the hell did that happen??

When I was little, I avoided calling myself a “woman” because I always thought it demonstrated immaturity to presume to be more mature than you are. I guess I still think that. But the problem with “woman” now is different and more significant.

If I’m going to call myself a woman, I’d like to know what that means. I would state the obvious to say that society offers us skewed examples and inadequate (and sometimes downright false) definitions of woman and man. So where does sexual definition come from?

Am I “feminine” because of my physical composition? Is it because I have ovaries instead of testicles? Is it based in appearance? Here I am, sitting in jeans and a hoodie with no makeup on. I don’t think I look “feminine” today. Yet I retain that quality somehow.

Is it mental then? Is it related to maternal instinct? What of the women for whom motherhood is not instinctive? If this quality is mental (inherent to the way a woman thinks), how does that fit into the assertion that women can behave and perform as well as a man?

Is this quality emotional? I’ve always feared that possibility. People often scoff at females for being overly emotional. I scoff at women for being overly emotional. I hate most chick flicks because they encourage the emotional roller coaster that many women put themselves on.

*If I may take a moment to rant, I have to say that Grey’s Anatomy is one example of the self-imposed emotional overload. Sex, love, affairs, infidelity, flings, drinking binges, putting people’s lives at risk because someone can’t put personal desires aside…

Anyway, if femininity is emotional quality, can something be overly feminine? If an object can be too much or too little of something, is the quality itself inherently neutral?
What about the etymology of the word? WoMan. Is femininity merely a complement to masculinity? (I confess, sometimes I’m nearly convinced of this and it frustrates me. It doesn’t bother me so much that my significance or some essential part of my soul is incomplete or unrealized without the presence of a man; the struggle is that I may be incomplete but he isn’t. If we are both incomplete without each other (here I speak of woman and man as general beings, not any two people specifically), I could see some bigger purpose in that, some design, equality, and intention.

Perhaps that brings me to my final option. I’ve left one possibility for last. What if femininity is spiritual? What if it is a quality of my soul and therefore, part of my ultimate purpose in life? The question that follows is, how does that impact my goals, relationships, role, and desires?

So I cannot define this thing that I am or soon will be: feminine and woman. Even so, I cannot help but desire it and admire it. Perhaps my desire is an element of my femininity. But I confess, when my friend--someone I indeed deem a man himself--spoke of "women," I felt pride. I was proud of this quality and entity that he holds in esteem, of this thing that I have spent my entire life coming into (to whatever degree I have attained it at this point in my life).

This is merely an introduction to the thoughts that concern me regarding my own identity as well as this thing/quality/characteristic that God designed but society has skewed to the point that I no longer understand it. I don't know if I can answer these questions. I don't know what "experts," other women, men, or God think about the answers to these proposals. I may have to content myself with non-answers; maybe I'll even come to the answer by simply discovering what femininity is not. Whatever my odds for success, this is an exploration that is worthy of my time and energy and I think I want to really invest myself in it.

More to come?