215
286. Nor can we ignore the fact that the con-
guration of our own mode of being, whether as
male or female, is not simply the result of biolog-
ical or genetic factors, but of multiple elements
having to do with temperament, family history,
culture, experience, education, the inuence of
friends, family members and respected persons,
as well as other formative situations. It is true
that we cannot separate the masculine and the
feminine from God’s work of creation, which is
prior to all our decisions and experiences, and
where biological elements exist which are impos-
sible to ignore. But it is also true that masculinity
and femininity are not rigid categories. It is pos-
sible, for example, that a husband’s way of being
masculine can be exibly adapted to the wife’s
work schedule. Taking on domestic chores or
some aspects of raising children does not make
him any less masculine or imply failure, irrespon-
sibility or cause for shame. Children have to be
helped to accept as normal such healthy “ex-
changes” which do not diminish the dignity of
the father gure. A rigid approach turns into an
overaccentuation of the masculine or feminine,
and does not help children and young people to
appreciate the genuine reciprocity incarnate in
the real conditions of matrimony. Such rigidity,
in turn, can hinder the development of an indi-
vidual’s abilities, to the point of leading him or
her to think, for example, that it is not really mas-
culine to cultivate art or dance, or not very femi-
nine to exercise leadership. This, thank God, has