August 2007 Print

^{Ed Willock}

The rhyme about Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sprat and their divergent tastes in meat is a refreshing relic from some earlier day when it was considered more important that mates should be complementary than that they should be similar. The fact that Jack could eat no fat and the Mrs. eat no lean, is as apt and typical a condition of marital dissimilarity as one could find. My wife abhors sugar in her tea, whereas I dislike cream. My friend's wife loves brilliantly colored furnishings, while he prefers neutral shades. This divergence in tastes, rather than making married life difficult, is the factor most contributive to its preservation as an institution. Diversity makes for beauty.

In this factor we see but one in a legion of reasons why the idea of the family and the true relation of its parts is almost incomprehensible to the modern mind. In the modern scheme of things the concept of unity is not that which one finds in an organism such as a flower or a vine, but rather that kind of unity found in a heap of ashes. Instead of dissimilar things brought to a common fruition by a sharing of functions, the modern unity is achieved by the reduction of all things to their elemental form. The relations of persons is no longer a meeting of minds, but a wedding of valences, or, in marriage, the reconciliation of metabolisms. Consequently the solution to divorce is not the marriage of likes, but marriage based upon a concept of life that finds order and beauty in diversity. The sole requirement for pairing off under such a concept would be that the man be manly, the woman, womanly, and both more or less willing to accept the fact that the children would be childish. All that needs to be common to a man and wife is a common Faith, common sense, a common bed and board, and common children. Beyond this, all other common interests can only cement the marital bond, if they are interests normally common to either sex.

To the peril of the institution of the family, men are seeking to build the common bond upon those habits of the man and woman, which by their nature should remain autonomous. Rarely sharing a common Faith, the marital expert insists that the mates read the same books or smoke the same brand of cigarettes. Commonly lacking common sense, the man and wife are counseled to share the same intellectual prejudices. Frequently lacking a normal quota of common children, the couples are advised to baby each other, and play the same games. Now if the basis of marriage harmony is playing the same games, you may be sure that it will be a losing game, and one in which it will be more and more the custom for one child to pick up the marbles and look for another playmate. To say that marriage is companionship is the same kind of lie as saying that Christ was a good man. If that is all that He is, or all that it is, then the human race has been victim of a malicious fraud. If marriage is a question of a man leaving a number of male companions to cling to one female companion, then marriage is a mad institution indeed. It is just a mad kind of card game in which the dummy has the children; it is a kind of tennis match in which the children are the balls and love is a way of keeping score. It is a race in which the human race is bound to lose.

Marriage is a wonderful thing that only God could have invented. The Church compares it with the union between Christ and His Church, for there is no other comparison on earth to do it justice. This should serve as warning to us that we should approach a study of marriage with great humility, realizing at the outset that this institution has only the faintest resemblance to the modern substitute falsely classified under the same title, and listed in the same book at City Hall.

St. Paul has something to say about marriage which is of more than passing interest. The Church, in her wisdom, has incorporated it into the nuptial Mass. The good saint says, "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord: for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church. He is the Savior of His body; therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in all things." On the basis of this testimony, with that nasty dogmatism so characteristic of Catholics, I present the statement without debate that "the man is head of the family." This is a conclusion hardly substantiated by statistics. Generally speaking, the American male is not the head of the family. This difference between the counsel of St. Paul and the evidences of our senses in the matter of masculine headship is of prime importance, if we are intent upon reforming the family. The restoration of all things in Christ must include, well up on the agenda, the restoring of the man to his proper position within the family economy.

The Differences Between the Sexes

The most obvious fact and consequently the one most overlooked except by simpleminded Christians, is that marriage is a happy relationship because of the difference between the sexes, and not because they are similar. The proper end of marriage is the propagation of children and depends, it has been whispered, on functions peculiar to each sex. This evokes a problem very upsetting to the equalitarian. Difference of function implies difference of status. You cannot say that a woman is the equal of a man, any more than you can say that an apple is the equal of a peach, unless you have a different definition of equality from the rest of mankind. This difference between the sexes is not only physical, but also psychological, and it is because of these natural differences, and not because of any ecclesiastical decree that man is the normal head of the family.

Man's physical qualifications for the job of headship are seldom questioned. His superior physical strength makes him the logical breadwinner, and for obvious reasons the breadwinner should be the head of the family. Women, during long periods of pregnancy and while nursing, are dependent. This dependency indicates the function of the man. The head of the family must be independent. Adequate as these reasons may be for the establishment of headship, it is more the psychological peculiarities of the man which indicate his proper function as husband and father.

The outstanding male tendency is to be objective. The man can more readily stand off and consider a thing apart from its relation to himself. In a woman this quality, though possible, is rarely developed. She, on the contrary, is personal and tends to measure all things with her heart. For that reason she is more readily sympathetic and willing to serve. It is this tendency, when brought to virtue, which makes a woman the warm, pulsating heart of the family. When she is free to do so, a woman gravitates to certain interests and occupations different from those which capture the fancy of man. Seldom is she interested in those sciences which demand the utmost in objectivity. The fields of theology, philosophy, mathematics and academic law have been, and always will be, the fields of the man. Anything which requires human sympathy and selfless friendship will be most attractive to women. Women succeed as novelists, on the whole, because of their easily stimulated sympathies, and wherever the male novelist is superior, it is usually because of philosophic content. Since man's objectivity makes him more interested in universals than particulars, the composition of music and the making of art objects in their purest form, will always be predominantly male occupations. It is neither by accident nor conspiracy that women have always been homemakers, nor is it male arrogance to say that that is their proper place. The female temperament is most happy surrounded by particular and familiar creatures on which she may be free to exercise her tremendous capacity for loving devotion.

To tell a man that he is illogical is as much an insult as to deny a woman's intuitive abilities. Wives will always say, "John Jones, you make me mad. You're always so coldly analytical!" The husband will eternally retort, "But you are always jumping to conclusions!" This is the method proper to each for attaining a deeper understanding of truth. The combination of the logical genius of man and the intuitive genius of woman is one of God's most beautiful syntheses, and it is the natural gift upon which the parents' authority to teach the children is based.

Man's other tendencies are a consequence of his objectivity, and his physical prowess. He is by nature aggressive and direct. It is his to initiate and to envision. The woman is by nature more retiring, satisfied to find strength in her husband's protection. She is circumspect, using devious methods to gain her ends, resorting to tact or diplomacy as expedient instruments. All of these innate characteristics help us to determine man's proper place in society and in the home.

Difficult to Prove

What I have said here is not all that can be said about the relation of the man and wife in marriage, and you can't prove any of it by the isolated case of John Dee or Mary Daa. It would be even difficult to prove the aptness of categorizing male and female temperaments in this way, by taking a poll among your friends. That is the sad part of it! There is a condition in modern times which, for lack of a better word, I will call feminization. It is a condition both in the family and in the community which is the result of a preponderance of feminine virtue being exercised under circumstances that demand the masculine approach. The blame, if there were any advantage to placing it anywhere, is upon the men. The women are not usurping the places of the men, nor would denying them that questionable privilege solve anything. Wives and mothers are being forced to take over the throne from which the husband and father has abdicated. The man has become inoperative.

Where it is the function of the woman to be heart and center of the family, it is the function of the man to relate his family to the rest of society for the mutual benefit of all. This relating of the family to the community is the root foundation of the married man's vocation. This is his field, his domain. If the man does not control this field then the woman must, and the result will be a disregard for the common good and an over-emphatic concern for the well-being of the individual family. Since the well-being of the individual family should proceed from the common good and not merely be a sum total of all the individual goods, an overconcern for the individual family's welfare will bring about a state of affairs spelling chaos for the whole society. There is a normal tension between the man and wife in regard to the question of the common good. It is the kind of tension that makes for balance. The woman will usually place the good of her family first. For her to do so is normal. The man, if he is truly head of the family, realizes that his family's well-being depends upon the common good and thus will make the common good the first end of his work. With him, that sense called "social consciousness" will not be merely a part-time hobby, but the motivating force in everything he does. When called upon to do so, he will even jeopardize his family's welfare in order to serve the common good. Men have always done this in time of war. It may sometimes be asked of them in time of peace. Today, faced as we are with the need for reorganizing the social order, this responsibility to serve the common good cannot be shirked if we are to avoid complete disaster.

As it was of St. Joseph, the greatest praise for a man is that he be a "just man." The masculine temperament, being objective, logical and direct, is a fitting occasion for the virtue of justice. This is the virtue most lacking in persons and their affairs today. We have evidence of charity, goodwill, emotional sympathy on the part of many people, all of which fail to compensate for the lack of justice. It is typically feminine to be sympathetic for the lot of the impoverished. It is typically masculine to crusade against the injustices which are the root causes of the deprivation.

Matriarchy

The average American family is approaching a matriarchy. Sons are adopting the virtues of their mothers for lack of a substantial display of masculine virtue by the fathers. The movies, radio and comic strips have all adopted this theme of masculine inferiority in the home, and it rings appallingly true to life. Among the faithful in the Church, it is as evident as elsewhere. The expression of the Faith today is primarily private devotion and not public apostolicity, and it is the former that appeals most to women and the latter which appeals most to men. Even the parochial men’s groups have taken on a feminine flavor, hardly relieved by an occasional "Sport Nite." Not the least misfortune that results from this feminization is that these male parochial groups act as buffers between the clergy and other men who, though possibly less pious, possess an aggressive masculinity ripe for conversion to the apostolate.

The constant and endless regard of today's good husband for the well-being of his family, so that he saves from the time of their birth for the education of his children, while his neighbor's children starve, or while his local political system grows corrupt, or his Faith goes unchampioned, or his brother is exploited, is a sign of the times. It is goodness measured by the standard of the wife, and thus she is the actual head of the family. This is not good headship measured by any objective standard. Such a father may leave an inheritance of wealth to his sons, whereas what they need most is masculine virtue lived out for their emulation. The son in such a matriarchy of predominately feminine concerns, becomes one of those lads whose lack of masculine virtue has been called "momism." Under stress he becomes inoperative for lack of the soothing hand of a tender woman on his brow. He is of little use to the army, and is poor material for Catholic Action. Unless he mend his ways, the son of such a father will prove to be a greater handicap to his future wife than was his dad. He will be just another child for his wife to care for. Until men go back to the masculine pursuits of devotion to the common good, relating the talents of their children to that end, they will fail to fulfill amply the office of head of the family.

The Causes

The cause of a lapsed fatherhood is not difficult to find. I think there are two root causes. The first is immodesty on the part of women and incontinence on the part of men. The second is intellectual irresponsibility bred by modern methods of work.

Modesty and continence go hand-in-hand. Without either or both virtues men become the slaves of women. The natural tendencies to sexual promiscuity and feminine coquettishness as consequence of original sin, have been aided and intensified by the popular use of contraceptives. Previous to their widespread distribution, male continence was encouraged by women if not by the moral law, for fear of the social tragedy of bearing illegitimate children. Nature, permitted to take its course, rendered a punishment that few women would dare risk incurring. Thus for reasons of respectability as well as morality, certain social precautions were taken to save men from themselves. The most effective of these was modesty in dress. Another was the custom of chaperons, both good Christian customs. The manufacture of contraceptives (made possible by mass-production methods) changed all this. There was nothing to fear now but God (which is ironic, because if God were genuinely feared, neither contraceptives nor mass-production would ever have come into existence!). Women set out to be attractive, and men gave up trying to be continent. The whole social attitude toward woman changed so that today a pious virgin can dress to the point of being indistinguishable from a harlot without evoking any comment more adverse than a whistle.

This change in the character of womanhood drastically revised the common attitude toward marriage. Having children became arbitrary. The female instrument of contraception placed the decision for having children on the shoulders of the mother. It became her prerogative to say how few children she should have. When you add this fact to the obsolescence of the male virtue of continence, it is no wonder that the modern male has become subservient. We would be astonished to discover how many kept women decide the policies of our nation, due to the judicious use of their wiles and the extreme vulnerability of incontinent men.

Wherever the Catholic family continues to maintain the Christian principles of morality in relation to the marriage act, it has to be done unaided by social customs and habits of the same order. Although a wife may be of good will, she may still subscribe to the current social views on female decorum wherever they do not obviously clash with morality. She may still feel that children are arbitrary and encourage the practice of Catholic (?) birth control indiscriminately and for motives hardly sufficient to warrant so dangerous a practice. The man may consider his wife an exception while continuing to hold the current views toward womanhood. This will not only try his fidelity, but also make him unfit to guide his growing sons and daughters. Private virtue in regard to chastity will always be seriously threatened until it is accompanied by public customs of morality.

The second cause of the loss of male headship may very well be a remote consequence of the first. It is otherwise difficult to explain why men have for so long tolerated a social system so detrimental to the fulfillment of their vocations. The concentration of productive property in the hands of a few has left the average husband no alternative but to let himself out for hire. He no longer possesses either the skills, the property, or the tools to set his own motives or standard of work. Returning home from an office where all his conquests have been of doubtful merit to the community at large, or from a factory where his efficiency is measured by mechanical standards, he can maintain dominion over his family only by reversing the habits which have characterized his day. What virtues he does possess can only be revealed to his children under home circumstances much more favorable to his wife. He finds himself helping her in tasks of her own invention, doing work which she initiates. In the eyes of the children and his wife, he soon assumes a subordinate role. It is small wonder that the suburban husband, in more cases than one, seems somewhat less formidably masculine than his wife!

To Reassure the Ladies

A casual glance at the foregoing arguments might lead my lady readers to arm themselves against a turbulent and bloody revolution espoused by the menfolk. Housewives might run to the dry goods store for scarlet draping material to match the color of the blood soon to be shed in their living rooms. Dear old dad, they may suspect, will go about like some Charles Laughtonesque lion seeking whom he may devour. Becoming once again the head of the family might go to father's head. By contrast, with the new regime, the Barretts of Wimpole Street will be considered a family with a hen-pecked father. For that reason, before jumping to such conclusions (or, if you will, arriving at intuitive perceptions), I hope that the ladies' glances will be more than casual. Whatever a male headship may add to a household will be something more satisfying than bruises or broken heads. It might be that peace of mind so vainly sought by neurotic matrons in the book of that same name. At any rate it will be a state of affairs which a more sane people than we considered normal.

Whatever the specific remedy may be, the general prescription is this. Men must return to the concept of manhood in which each man is considered to have a mission to fulfill. This mission is related to first, the honor and glory of God; second, the common good, and third, to his specific contribution to each. In the work of fulfilling this mission, some men take a helpmate so that in one flesh and one mind and one heart, they may more effectively accomplish this mission. As a result of this holy union, children are born. These children, in turn, are educated by word and deed to a physical, intellectual and spiritual maturity so that they, too, may take up the mission to which God has called them. As you can also see that it calls for a kind of apostolicity, and more than that, a conversion. Without this Christian concept the family has only half a meaning, and that is the woman's half. When only this half-meaning is known the children are all dressed up with no place to go. They are prepared, but no one knows for what. Everyone is getting ready for a great occasion which never happens. The meaning that the man gives to the family is purpose, direction, motive and end.

When groups of families get together to discuss these things, Christ will be there in the midst of them, and so, too, Mary and Joseph. The job of the men will be to discover what their specific missions are. The job of the women will be to discover how they can best assist their husbands in the accomplishment of their missions. As time goes on with corporate discussion and personal meditation, the men will see, as their Holy Father has, that their vocations must be part of the Church's crusade to restore the affairs of men to Christ. This will become the end which gives meaning to their every act. What was first an evening spent in companionable and neighborly discussion, will become for them a new way of life. As they look back on their lives they will see as its milestones, not their first pair of long pants, or their school graduation, or the first dollar they earned, or the first time they met their wives, but rather they will see those magnificent steps to maturity in Christ, baptism, penance, the Eucharist and matrimony.

The work which fills the days of these men will fall under greater scrutiny. They will reform it to coincide with the laws of charity and justice courageously without fear of consequence, knowing how ridiculous and imprudent it is to seek security elsewhere than in the furtherance of God's Will. They may conclude that the work they are now doing is without merit and directed solely toward the profit of the owners at the expense of the common good. Then they will consider ways and means to abstract themselves from that job, so that they may better use the talents that God has given them for His purpose.

These are the things that men can do to regain the headship of the family. You may wonder that I have said little about religious practices or the cultivation of virtue. Can it be that I am putting too much emphasis on the social problem and not enough on the problems of the spirit? That is not my intention. Once men have become aware of the magnificent mission to which they have been called, they will hunger for the Eucharist as they have never hungered before. Their virtue will not be cultivated merely by quiet spiritual exercises, but rather come as the consequence of Christ acting through them in their daily apostolate. With a new purposefulness, the new Christian man will lift his fellows from the quiet desperation of their lives, and in acting Christ-like, he will be setting for his children an example which is the crowning glory of fatherhood.

 

 

Ed Willock was born in South Boston in 1916. A football accident kept him laid up for five years during which time he taught himself cartooning and devoured Chesterton's writings. The Church's Last Sacrament unexpectedly gave him an extension of life. He used this borrowed time to marry, have ten children, build his own house and lavish his talents on Integrity magazine which he founded along with Carol Robinson in the 1940's. Integrity's specific purpose was to examine the relationship between religion and life in the modern world, using for light the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. He was one of the founders of the Catholic community Marycrest, New York. He died in 1961.