Teatime with Freud

[shortnun]

My goal in my reply is to be both articulate and respond directly to what has already been asserted:

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']Okay... Acknowledging the differences men and women have from birth -- you say you see physical differences and differences in the cognitive process. I doubt you would say that this was not the intentional design of God for the man and the woman. How then do you come to the belief that these have no real bearing on what the roles of men and women possess? These natural differences would also create naturally defined roles, would you not agree?
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']You go on to say: "I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarily of men and women as one attempt to understand human creation and our relationship to the divine." Would you not agree that the relationship with the divine is the most perfectly designed relationship that there is? Unless you disagree, why then would you want to stray from the design? Why would you put pride and a feeling of necessarily needing to be accepted as just as good as the man standing next to you (in your eyes) in order to feel at ease?

I feel as though you are intimidated by the status that men have had in past time.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.

My question to a man would be, “Do you need to feel better than the woman next to you in order to feel at ease?” My desire to be accepted as equal as the man or woman next to be stems from my belief that we are ontologically equal. What you detect as intimidation of men’s status in history is not so much intimidation as it is, perhaps, discomfort.

In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']Hesitate no more! But seriously... when I say that we should "return" to a specific state, this case I believe I have said "natural state", I am implying simply the state we are born in. I will elaborate more if you need me to but mostly I want to clarify that I do not believe that returning to the ways of "yesteryear" would help society any more than cough drops help with a cold. That being said, I do believe we have done things correctly in the past and could apply those same principles to today’s society. I agree that it is not practical to assume that we can isolate positive aspects of history and expect great things, however, I do believe that principles can be adapted to today's culture. I think it is also necessary to recognize mistakes in the here and now. Hindsight is wonderful but if we can self-evaluate and admit mistakes and be okay with anxiousness about fixing them then I believe we can do great things and make huge strides towards making our Lord the "all in all" of which you speak.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I’m glad, hughey, that you and I are at a state where we can acknowledge the dangers of uprooting previous historical behaviors and replanting them in the present.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']I am struggling with understanding why you feel so suppressed by men's roles in our lives. I think it is fair to say that yes, Complementarity would imply that each person has certain obligations or roles that they must play in the relationship. I do not think, however, that it is fair to anyone, the men or ourselves, to say that this will necessarily result in something negative. Could this result in a hierarchy and is that okay? Yes and yes. It says in the bible that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The man is, in the end, the head of the household. I know that a lot of women struggle with that issue and I see that as a problem in society. I see that as an indicator that something has gone horribly wrong in the raising of youth and what it means to be respected and valued. It is a humbling thing to be under our husbands and a very beautiful thing. Now things of course change in the workplace and that is something that of course has changed because of the number of women in the workforce today.
[right][snapback]851616[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings. Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict.

I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']I will quote you again for clarity: "Equality does not negate the obligations that one person has to another. It allows for a partnership between a man and a woman to not have exclusive obligations to one another (such as who is the "nurturer" or "protector"). Thus in an equal relationship where the roles and obligations are held in common and shared, both persons still find fulfillment in the relationship (as is the claim made in the Complementarity view)."

I do believe that much of what you are calling equality is found in "the complimentarity view". Complimentarity does not automatically cancel out the relationship's communication. It takes two people to make it work and in order to have a healthy relationship the two must work together on just about everything. I do not believe though that natural roles or established roles could hinder this. Could the roles be pushed to the extreme that there is a chance of hindrance? Of course. There is with anything. However I would disagree with you if you said that any establishment of roles, flexible or not, would hinder the relationship and establish a negative hierarchy.

…

I would dare say that if a person has trouble finding fulfillment even though she is submissive to her husband, there are some issues that go back again to society's view of suppression of women. Submission is a beautiful thing.
[right][snapback]851616[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']I will agree with you in that I think it is unhealthy for men or women to feel as though they are completely dependent upon the opposite sex in order to have a fulfilling life or to reach salvation. However, in saying that it is also necessary to point out that the relationship between a man and a woman could potentially help a great deal in reaching salvation. [b]After all, is it not the responsibility of the spouse to help the other get to Heaven?[/b]
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[emphasis mine] Without a doubt!

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']I believe that hierarchies, in certain cases, can be unhealthy and detrimental to the relationship. However, I do not believe this to be the case is every situation or even the majority of situations, especially when the couple has good values. Each relationship must be evaluated based on morals and mental health of course but I do believe a relationship can be successful with the "hierarchy" in place.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']… Complementarity sexes would exclude the possibility of a single life, excluding the priesthood, convents and monasteries. This is simply not the case. We are whole in and of ourselves without the other sex but there is a different kind of union, a different kind of wholeness, that stems from the joining of the two that is, in my opinion, quite undeniable.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I too do not wish to understand human sexuality and human relationships as that which would devalue priesthood, vowed religious life, or the single life.

[shortnun]

Still attempting to maintain the atmosphere of [i]conversation[/i], I shall now reply to/for Socrates...

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']You see the Church's teachings as having "shortcomings" which need to be "corrected" by the teachings of liberalism and feminism.

Rather than reject the wisdom of the Church when it conflicts with feminist ideology, you should strive to understand Church teaching and conform your own ideas to it.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please understand me: Both “liberalism” and “feminism” have their shortcomings. But the Church has room for improvement, too. By engaging in this conversation, I am making a genuine attempt to reconcile, and bring into conversation, the teachings of the Church with “feminist” and “liberal” ideas. The Church I am a part of, that [i]we [/i]are a part of, [u]does not condone[/u] blind obedience to its teachings. If it did, there would be no need for a well-developed conscience.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']….

The modern social movements of which I speak are:

1) The "sexual revolution," spurred by contraception and abortion, which has helped break down the complimentary nature of the sexes. Man and wife are no longer in the complimentary union of marriage and raising of children, but are now "independent," "equal" "partners" at each other's disposal, serving only the purpose of gratifying one another's lust.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please find that the position I have asserted on “equal” views of the sexes does not condone seeing the partners as “at each other’s disposal, serving on the purpose of gratifying one another’s lust.”

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']2) Feminism, which seeks to give women a false "equality" with men, and pridefully spurns the role of wife and mother. Feminists seek "equality" with men by trying to become the same as men, and independent of men, rejecting the beauty of their feminine role as man's help-mate, but setting themselves up as rivals and enemies of men.
Abortion becomes a "woman's right."
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Women are equal to men, and pride remains a sin all sexes are to avoid. Where is the discussion on the beauty of the masculine role as woman’s help-mate? A feminist philosophy where women are the rivals and enemies of men saddens me greatly. A feminist philosophy where women and men are seen as co-creators and partners in the salvation of themselves and others is beautiful.

Abortion is, in my opinion, indirectly related to the discussion on this thread, though I would be happy to engage in a conversation about it at another time.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']3) The homosexual "rights" movement, which rejects the complimentary role of the sexes entirely. Since the two sexes are no longer complimentary, and men and women are "freed" from their natural roles as mother and father, why should they need each other at all, if they do not desire? This is uncomplimentary "equality" taken to its logical extreme. [b]It now makes no difference in one's life whether one is a man or a woman.[/b]

These movements are all related. God created the human race man and woman for a reason, and he created woman to be man's help-mate.

If the two sexes were not created to be complimentary, there would be no reason to create man and woman.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.

THE END....



I'm very much enjoying this conversation. I thank Hugheyforlife and Socrates, as well as others, for their contributions. It may take me a day or two to respond, but I can't wait to read responses! God Bless

[Azriel]

I'm trying to digest this entire thread but I wanted to give a shout out to Shortnun for this:

[quote][Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.[/quote]

This is a really powerful statement. Thank you for it.

[franciscanheart]

just letting you know i am on and reading your post... very long! i am excited! thanks for responding so carefully shortnun!

[franciscanheart]

wow shortnun... you have truly outdone yourself. that was awesome. i must admit that i am not at this time ready or able to respond the way i would like so i am going to take a break (probably until friday night) to respond... unless of course that is too much time. i look forward to reading others' thoughts if they have them.

i will also admit at this time that i am at a loss for words. you make some really great points and things that i do agree with which makes me reconsider where i stand on all of this. quite frankly this view has only evolved and become one that i claim in the past couple of years. i thought i stood unwavering but i suppose its better that i do not. i will pray about this and think about it before responding again. -- mostly what concerns me is that i will give the impression that i do not agree with what you are saying or that i will agree to the extent that it would be presumed i had no feelings of nervousness about some of it. but again... i need more time to think about it all.

what an awesome conversation. i did not see this coming but it was a nice surprise!

[shortnun]

Hughey! God bless you... you're wonderful. Please reply at your leisure... and perhaps there are others who want to jump in in our lull.... after I get back into classes next week, I'll be on less frequently... so my length replies probably indicate how much less of a life I've had lately. :

As for me, I'm looking at how I understand human sexuality in light of the Church's teachings, and those of the social sciences. This too is only something I've really read about in recent history.

Awesome conversation indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit perhaps? :

[franciscanheart]

yes i too shall be on much less often. when im not in school i have absolutely no life ('tis better this way than what it used to be) so i have a lot of time to just goof off - or post at length to wonderful conversations. : anyway... thanks for keeping this up!


good luck to you in your schoolwork. st thomas aquinas, pray for us! okay... goodnight thread.

[Socrates]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 04:21 PM']Still attempting to maintain the atmosphere of [i]conversation[/i], I shall now reply to/for Socrates...
Please understand me: Both “liberalism” and “feminism” have their shortcomings. But the Church has room for improvement, too. By engaging in this conversation, I am making a genuine attempt to reconcile, and bring into conversation, the teachings of the Church with “feminist” and “liberal” ideas. [b]The Church I am a part of, that [i]we [/i]are a part of, [u]does not condone[/u] blind obedience to its teachings. If it did, there would be no need for a well-developed conscience[/b].[/quote]
You are wrong on that last part. As Catholics, we are to accept and obey the Church's teachings, whether we "understand" them or they agree with our own personal preferences or not. We must first obey, and then seek to understand.
We are not do disregard or dissent from Church teachings until we feel they make perfect sense to us. A well-formed conscience is one that is conformed to what the Church teaches, not one that simply follows one's own imperfect and fallible opinions.

And the Church is infallible, while feminism and liberalism are not (being merely human ideas). If part of these philosophies (or any other human philosophy) is contrary to Church teaching, it must be rejected.
The Church has no need of "improvement" or being "reconciled" to dubious human theories.

[quote]Please find that the position I have asserted on “equal” views of the sexes does not condone seeing the partners as “at each other’s disposal, serving on the purpose of gratifying one another’s lust.”
Women are equal to men, and pride remains a sin all sexes are to avoid. Where is the discussion on the beauty of the masculine role as woman’s help-mate? A feminist philosophy where women are the rivals and enemies of men saddens me greatly.[b] A feminist philosophy where women and men are seen as co-creators and partners in the salvation of themselves and others is beautiful[/b].[/quote]
That is what it means for men and women to be complimentary.

[quote]Abortion is, in my opinion, indirectly related to the discussion on this thread, though I would be happy to engage in a conversation about it at another time.[/quote]
Sadly, abortion is a major part of modern feminism and the sexual revolution. Its acceptance in society springs from the contraceptive mentality and the feminist rejection of motherhood.

[quote][Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.[/quote]
While this is true that both men and women may be saved through God's grace, men and women are called to live out their salvation in different ways.

For instance, as a man I could fulfill my vocation by marrying a woman and having children. I could NOT by "marrying" another man.
A woman cannot be a priest, though she can be a nun.
Men and women have different roles, and both feminism and the "gay" movement seek to deny this.

[quote]THE END....
I'm very much enjoying this conversation. I thank Hugheyforlife and Socrates, as well as others, for their contributions. It may take me a day or two to respond, but I can't wait to read responses! God Bless 
[right][snapback]853294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My pleasure.

[franciscanheart]

Forgive me if I come back to these quotes a number of times. It has been a while since we have discussed this and I have been thrown out of my groove so to speak. I do have a few elementary thoughts here but if I come up with something more in the next couple of days I might like to revisit them. [oh and i will put bolded numbers next to paragraphs in longer quotes in order to correspond them to my own answers and make reading a little easier for everyone]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]What about when Jesus was on earth? Not denying his divinity would it not be possible for his recognition of the roles/genders/differences in sex to be used as proof that the Divine does recongnize such things? What about the book of Hosea which speaks so much of the roles of men and women? What about Mary, our Mother, and her role in our life versus God, the Father? "Masculine" and "feminine" as defined by genetic makeup may not be one of the features which the Father chooses to dwell on for our bodies are purely devices in which to live on earth and serve Him. However, I do not believe that He would have created us with such hormonal differences (which create different feelings and interpretations in men and women) on accident or that He would do it without some real purpose. Such a question has to be based on the assumption that genders are in fact historical and social constructs. I am not sure I have reached a point in which I would be willing to attempt an answer. Let me think about it for a day or two and I will come back with something.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM'][b](1)[/b]I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.

[b](2)[/b]My question to a man would be, “Do you need to feel better than the woman next to you in order to feel at ease?” My desire to be accepted as equal as the man or woman next to be stems from my belief that we are ontologically equal. What you detect as intimidation of men’s status in history is not so much intimidation as it is, perhaps, discomfort.

[b](3)[/b]In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b](1)[/b]I agree whole-heartedly and feel much the same way though I do feel the word "friendship" is weak. I have yet to find a word that fits though so it will suffice to say that I completely agree.
[b](2)[/b]Intimidation - discomfort - all seem to fall back on the same kind of interior desires in my mind. I think it is a more recently historical and social construct which causes discomfort in the female mind when these issues are discussed rather than a historical and social construct which has created gender and gender roles. The later I would say more appropriately fall under a category like instinct.
[b](3)[/b]I suppose we would first point to biology to recognize what is male and what is female. I would not necessarily agree that such a huge emphasis is placed on the reproductive responsibilities (we know who needs to do what). And if by sexual characteristics and behaviors we are again referring to the marital act then I would say again that a great emphasis is not (and is not necessarily needed to be) placed on such things by the complimentary view. If however, by sexual characteristics we are speaking of gender roles then yes, emphasis is placed on such characteristics.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM'][b](1)[/b]In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. [b]By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings.[/b] Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict.

[b](2)[/b]I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). [b]The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.[/b][right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b](1)[/b]emphasis mine. I do not think it is fair to blame the seperation of the natural roles and insticts of the sexes for an unhealthy forming of a woman. I would agree that few women today truly develop a complete image of themselves as they should but I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of men or anyone for that matter due to the seperation of something so natural. I think women are degraded and less fully developed due to social ideas about weight, height, hair color, skin color, and other physical features which change depending on your region and still somehow determine "beauty". I would say that the "campaign for real beauty" by the dove company is not simply a good marketing strategy but a real recognition of a problem not based on gender roles. Men struggle with many of the same issues.

As far as anger and violence are concerned in resolving problems: it is not a problem seen only in men. In fact I have seen much more of this developing in a higher percentage of women that I know these days too. Gender roles do not necessarily define ones ability to solve a problem rationally nor should it be said that the seperation of sexes affects it. Until there is a study that says that unless all people are equal men and women will resort to violence and anger in order to solve problems, I would say that the majority of that behavior was established at a young age due to influences in biology as well as upbringing (not excluding the mother or sisters).

[b](2)[/b]emphasis (again) mine. I would agree with the end of that sentence. God is ruler and leader (or rather should be ruler and leader) of all of our lives. However, I would like to hear how you propose to run a household where the man is not the head of the household. I will hold off on my comments until that time.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities.[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Reading this it sounds as if we share the same views but label them differently. I do not yet see anything in this snipet of your post which I would disagree with. I will think it over for it is possible I have missed something. But I would go out on a limb anyway here and say we feel quite the same on this.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I am looking for the quote (I'm sure you know which it is) from the bible about women being submissive to their husbands and husbands being kind to their wives. It is hard for me to understand, knowing of these and other passages similar, how you could claim that a 'hierarchy' of sorts is not in line with the teachings of the Gospel. Another instance that comes to mind is when they ask Jesus about the coin which has Caesar's face printed on it. Here is a quote I found while looking for the verses. "We are not made for equality, but for obedience and worship." --C.S. Lewis

[franciscanheart]

I am really interested in this human hierarchy thing... you know, how you dont agree that it is in line with the Gospel and how I feel it is perfectly in line... ((yes this was an honest --but unnecessary-- comment used to bump the thread for shortnun))

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.
[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
To expound my previous thoughts on this I turn to a statement from Era Might... there is a debate (or was a debate) going on in the debate table about submission... Era Might had something to say which I agree with 100%...[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 12:44 PM']It is a mutual submission. But in the same way male and female are equal yet different, so this submission is mutual yet essentially different. The submission of a wife is to the husband as head of the family, as the visible sign of authority. The submission of the husband is to the wife as his own flesh. Her good is his good. He must humbly submit to her wisdom and her gifts, because they have become his own. He can't make decisions despite her, but with and for her.

John Paul emphasizes that the submission is mutual because ultimately, both are subject to Christ. The relationship is an ongoing, mutual effort to discern and carry out the will of Christ. This does not abolish proper roles (man is, by nature, a leader), but it puts them in proper light. It's much like Augustine and his own conception of the episcopacy: "I am a Bishop for you, but I am a Christian with you". Headship is not an occasion for dominance, but service.
[right][snapback]873132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 01:24 PM']Too many chiefs, not enough indians, as they say.

A husband has to trust in his wife's wisdom, because it is her gift as a woman. But a wife also has to trust in his decisions as leader and head of the family, because it is HIS gift as a man. This doesn't mean whatever he commands is law, if not motivated by charity and right reason. But if a husband and a wife are both working with the mind of Christ, then the husband must have the role of leadership. A humble docility to this leadership is a virtue on the part of the wife.
[right][snapback]873209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]He stated quite eloquently what I struggled to say above.

And YMNolan said this... (I cut out part that I felt did not apply to this.)
[quote name='YMNolan' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:01 PM']I think there's another way of looking at submission (subordination) that needs to be pointed out when referring to Ephesians 5:21-33

For the man, Christ asks him to make a sacrifice for his wife parallel to Christ's own sacrifice for His Church.  In marriage man must give everything he has to protect her, support her, and please her.  This is a big part of what love is, choosing to sacrifice your own personal agenda for the well being of another.  It is through the combined wisdom of both the husband and wife that decisions are made.

For the woman, she is asked to be submissive - not as a slave to a master.  Christ wants only the best for woman.  They deserve a man who is willing to sacrifice for them.  They deserve a man who chooses to love and protect and lay down his life for his spouse.  By being submissive, a wife is allowing her husband to make the sacrifices that Christ intended for both of them.  By submitting, she is agreeing to allow the man to carry out his vocation.
[right][snapback]873267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Their wisdom and eloquence far outmeasures my own but they have said what thoughts my mind produces.

[franciscanheart]

bumpity bump -- just in case.

[franciscanheart]

shortnun: check your inbox, silly!! :

[shortnun]

It's been ages, I know. I can only ask the Holy Spirit to guide my responses so that they may be appropriate to the subjects at hand and well-articulated. (And also, it's really hard for me to do the quotes within a quote thing, and w/o the quotes I would be totally lost as to whom I am responding. )

[quote][quote](shortnun @ Jan 11 2006, 04:21 PM)Still attempting to maintain the atmosphere of conversation, I shall now reply to/for Socrates...
Please understand me: Both “liberalism” and “feminism” have their shortcomings. But the Church has room for improvement, too. By engaging in this conversation, I am making a genuine attempt to reconcile, and bring into conversation, the teachings of the Church with “feminist” and “liberal” ideas. [b]The Church I am a part of, that [i]we [/i]are a part of, does not condone blind obedience to its teachings. If it did, there would be no need for a well-developed conscience[/b].[/quote]
You are wrong on that last part. As Catholics, we are to accept and obey the Church's teachings, whether we "understand" them or they agree with our own personal preferences or not. We must first obey, and then seek to understand.

We are not do disregard or dissent from Church teachings until we feel they make perfect sense to us. [b]A well-formed conscience is one that is conformed to what the Church teaches[/b], not one that simply follows one's own imperfect and fallible opinions.

And the Church is infallible, while feminism and liberalism are not (being merely human ideas). If part of these philosophies (or any other human philosophy) is contrary to Church teaching, it must be rejected.
The Church has no need of "improvement" or being "reconciled" to dubious human theories.[/quote]
I disagree, a well-formed conscience [u]does not equal [/u]a conformed one. Conformity, to me, implies passivity. We are not members of a passive Church. That having been said, as Christians we must understand that submitting our will to the will of God is the right and true thing to do. But will and conscience are two different things to me (and we can argue that tract if you want, but I'd really have to brush up on my philosophy for that one.... )

Yes, feminism and liberalism are fallible. I've never said otherwise. But Socrates, I'm concerned by your definition of the Church as infallible. If the Church said euthanasia is an acceptable medical practice, would we agree, of course not! Forgive my rash example, but the Church infallibility is a teaching of the Catholic faith I firmly uphold. Blind obedience and acceptance without questioning the teachings of the Church (that are authoritative, not authoritarian and not infallible) is just not right.

[quote][quote]Please find that the position I have asserted on “equal” views of the sexes does not condone seeing the partners as “at each other’s disposal, serving on the purpose of gratifying one another’s lust.”
Women are equal to men, and pride remains a sin all sexes are to avoid. Where is the discussion on the beauty of the masculine role as woman’s help-mate? A feminist philosophy where women are the rivals and enemies of men saddens me greatly. A feminist philosophy where women and men are seen as co-creators and partners in the salvation of themselves and others is beautiful.[/quote]
That is what it means for men and women to be complimentary.[/quote]
I'm trying, although perhaps not very well, that the definitions asserted in this thread of complimentary sexuality are not the same as equal sexes.

[quote]***[/quote]

[quote][quote][Emphasis mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.[/quote]
While this is true that both men and women may be saved through God's grace, men and women are called to live out their salvation in different ways.

For instance, as a man I could fulfill my vocation by marrying a woman and having children. I could NOT by "marrying" another man.
A woman cannot be a priest, though she can be a nun.
Men and women have different roles, and both feminism and the "gay" movement seek to deny this.[/quote]
My point is that there is no difference in how we are called to live out our salvation. If there is a difference it is between the path of lightness (which leads to God in heaven) and the path of darkness (which leads to an eternity of emptiness). The role men and women have to play in their salvation is [i]one that brings about the reign of God here and now.[/i]

[quote][quote]THE END....
I'm very much enjoying this conversation. I thank Hugheyforlife and Socrates, as well as others, for their contributions. It may take me a day or two to respond, but I can't wait to read responses!  God Bless  [/quote]
My pleasure.[/quote]
I pray this conversation continues to be a pleasure for all respondents and readers.

[shortnun]

And now, my long over due response to Hughey...

Grrrrrrrr I can't get the quote boxes to work. And if I wait until they do work, I probably won't have time to respond. So here's the key:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]Italics= My older post[/i]
[b]Bold= Hughey's response to that older post[/b]
[color=blue]Blue= My current response to Hughey [/color]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Forgive me if I come back to these quotes a number of times. It has been a while since we have discussed this and I have been thrown out of my groove so to speak. I do have a few elementary thoughts here but if I come up with something more in the next couple of days I might like to revisit them. [oh and i will put bolded numbers next to paragraphs in longer quotes in order to correspond them to my own answers and make reading a little easier for everyone].[/b]


[i]Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?[/i]
[b]What about when Jesus was on earth? Not denying his divinity would it not be possible for his recognition of the roles/genders/differences in sex to be used as proof that the Divine does recongnize such things? What about the book of Hosea which speaks so much of the roles of men and women? What about Mary, our Mother, and her role in our life versus God, the Father? "Masculine" and "feminine" as defined by genetic makeup may not be one of the features which the Father chooses to dwell on for our bodies are purely devices in which to live on earth and serve Him. However, I do not believe that He would have created us with such hormonal differences (which create different feelings and interpretations in men and women) on accident or that He would do it without some real purpose. Such a question has to be based on the assumption that genders are in fact historical and social constructs. I am not sure I have reached a point in which I would be willing to attempt an answer. Let me think about it for a day or two and I will come back with something.[/b]
[color=blue]Your point regarding the intent of the Creator in making men and women arbitrarily different is valid. My response would be, (seeing as all this is speculation since we don't know the will of God) perhaps men and women were intentionally created as man and woman. THE END... perhaps the differences between us are only so that we may further fall in love with God and see the image of Christ reflected in the faces of others.[/color]

[i][b](1)[/b]I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.[/i]
[b][B](1)[/b]I agree whole-heartedly and feel much the same way though I do feel the word "friendship" is weak. I have yet to find a word that fits though so it will suffice to say that I completely agree.[/B]
[color=blue]Ah the inadequacies of the human language... *sigh*....[/color]

***

[i][b](3)[/b] In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?[/i]
[b][B](3)[/b]I suppose we would first point to biology to recognize what is male and what is female. I would not necessarily agree that such a huge emphasis is placed on the reproductive responsibilities (we know who needs to do what). And if by sexual characteristics and behaviors we are again referring to the marital act then I would say again that a great emphasis is not (and is not necessarily needed to be) placed on such things by the complimentary view. If however, by sexual characteristics we are speaking of gender roles then yes, emphasis is placed on such characteristics.[/B]
[color=blue]In terms of reproductive responsibilities I am not speaking of "what needs to happen when you have sex", as I am speaking of what this translates to in our culture.... in extreme cases, this means women are submission and should always be pregnant. And men should always "be spreading their seed." (This example is intentionally hyperbolic.)[/color]

[i][b](1)[/b] In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings. Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict. [/i]
[b][B](1)[/b] I do not think it is fair to blame the seperation of the natural roles and insticts of the sexes for an unhealthy forming of a woman. I would agree that few women today truly develop a complete image of themselves as they should but I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of men or anyone for that matter due to the seperation of something so natural. I think women are degraded and less fully developed due to social ideas about weight, height, hair color, skin color, and other physical features which change depending on your region and still somehow determine "beauty". I would say that the "campaign for real beauty" by the dove company is not simply a good marketing strategy but a real recognition of a problem not based on gender roles. Men struggle with many of the same issues.

As far as anger and violence are concerned in resolving problems: it is not a problem seen only in men. In fact I have seen much more of this developing in a higher percentage of women that I know these days too. Gender roles do not necessarily define ones ability to solve a problem rationally nor should it be said that the seperation of sexes affects it. Until there is a study that says that unless all people are equal men and women will resort to violence and anger in order to solve problems, I would say that the majority of that behavior was established at a young age due to influences in biology as well as upbringing (not excluding the mother or sisters).[/B]
[color=blue]An articulate response with which I agree.[/color]

[i][b](2) [/b]I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.[/i]
[b][B](2)[/b] I would agree with the end of that sentence. God is ruler and leader (or rather should be ruler and leader) of all of our lives. However, I would like to hear how you propose to run a household where the man is not the head of the household. I will hold off on my comments until that time.[/B]
[color=blue]I think I may address your issues of heads of households in my responses to your subsequent responses. If I do not, I hope you will be kind enough to remind me to return to this point, if you wish for this discussion to go further.[/color]

[i]If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities[/i].
[b]Reading this it sounds as if we share the same views but label them differently. I do not yet see anything in this snipet of your post which I would disagree with. I will think it over for it is possible I have missed something. But I would go out on a limb anyway here and say we feel quite the same on this.[/b]
[color=blue]My suspicion is that we are more alike minded than we may have first thought. That having been said. I still hold firm to the fact that it is the starting point that offers the greatest distinction between equality and complimentarity. The former assumes that men and women are the same and digresses from there. The latter assumes that men and women are different and draws conclusions thusly. The bottom line may be that we are all human, and thus different from the Divine who created us. And in that sense, decisive answers to such questions will remain outside of our grasp.[/color]

[i]I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.[/i]
[b]I am looking for the quote (I'm sure you know which it is) from the bible about women being submissive to their husbands and husbands being kind to their wives. It is hard for me to understand, knowing of these and other passages similar, how you could claim that a 'hierarchy' of sorts is not in line with the teachings of the Gospel. Another instance that comes to mind is when they ask Jesus about the coin which has Caesar's face printed on it. Here is a quote I found while looking for the verses. "We are not made for equality, but for obedience and worship." --C.S. Lewis [/b]
[color=blue]Your quote from CS Lewis is certainly one for meditation. First and foremost we are made to obey and worship our God. This is certain. As far as scriptural citations are concerned. I hope to deal with this further in my next response. [/color]