Teatime with Freud

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']As for women and men being equal and complimentary at the same time... by saying that men and women are complimentary implies that there are roles that one person has obligations in the relationship to the other person. This does not result, for me, in a partnership, but can result in a hierarchy of one set of roles being more important than another. [right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Father and Son complement one another in their roles as Generator and Generated, yet they are certainly co-equal.

Complementarity does not mean inequality.

Complementarity simply means an interdependence of roles. A cop's role depends on the role of the attorneys who "finish" his job...but the cop and the attorney don't have a difference of ontological value.

As for hierarchy...the term technically refers to priesthood, and since this is philosophy, I think we need to use technically accurate terms.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 9 2006, 04:31 PM']The Father and Son complement one another in their roles as Generator and Generated, yet they are certainly co-equal.

Complementarity does not mean inequality.

Complementarity simply means an interdependence of roles.  A cop's role depends on the role of the attorneys who "finish" his job...but the cop and the attorney don't have a difference of ontological value.

As for hierarchy...the term technically refers to priesthood, and since this is philosophy, I think we need to use technically accurate terms.
[right][snapback]850849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Raphael, you're correct in that the Holy Trinity is comprised of co-equal beings (and is without sex and gender : ).

Part of the point I want to make is that [u]both [/u]complimentarity [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]. And because I'm arguing the other side of the coin in this conversation (and trying to develop my own thoughts on the matter), I want to propose that humanity remains interdependant on one another to further the message of the Gospel. I am not 100% comfortable saying that men and women must be seen as complimentary to one another. Men need not be dependant on women, nor women on men for salvation, a satisfying life, etc. However, men and women are called into relationship with one another and the Divine Creator to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

According to [url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hierarchy"]Merriam-Webster, hierarchy has five definitions.[/url] In my previous posts, I am using the fourth.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:06 PM']Raphael, you're correct in that the Holy Trinity is comprised of co-equal beings (and is without sex and gender  : ).

Part of the point I want to make is that [u]both [/u]complimentarity [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]. And because I'm arguing the other side of the coin in this conversation (and trying to develop my own thoughts on the matter), I want to propose that humanity remains interdependant on one another to further the message of the Gospel. I am not 100% comfortable saying that men and women must be seen as complimentary to one another. Men need not be dependant on women, nor women on men for salvation, a satisfying life, etc. However, men and women are called into relationship with one another and the Divine Creator to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.
[right][snapback]850901[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Holy Trinity is one Being, three Persons, just to clarify that.

I don't know what you mean when you say "that [u]both [/u]complimentarity [sic] [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]."

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 5 2006, 09:53 PM'] I guess all you can do is try to live your own life as a woman (or as a man if that happens to be your persuasion, though I know it's not hughey's)
[right][snapback]847629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[shortnun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:12 PM']The Holy Trinity is one Being, three Persons, just to clarify that.
[right][snapback]850914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes yes, I'm not Unitarian. I'm down with three in one.

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:12 PM']I don't know what you mean when you say "that [u]both[/u] complementarity [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]."
[right][snapback]850914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Both the position that men and women are complementary, and the view that they are equal, can become disordered to the point where individuals are not valued for the contributions they make to a relationship.

Recently I've argued that in some complementary relationships for there tends to be an inequality (or a hiearachy) of one person over another. Some more recent posts have asked if I think complementary relationships cannot be equal. My response to the wording we're currently using to describe complementarity is that complementarity does preclude equality. Equality of the sexes does result in fulfillment if the relationship is healthly. But in an equal view, men and women are not necessary for fulfillment.

[shortnun]

Bump for Hughey

[franciscanheart]

thank you shortnun. i will edit this for my reply.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']I'm back from my wedding (not [i]mine[/i], but one I went to) and will attempt to address all questions/comments in an orderly and articulate fashion....[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
glad you're back.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Hughey, for the sake of continuity, I too shall try to keep my argument focused on American culture. Whereas you hold that a manipulation of roles in society and the household results in their weakening, I ask if it is responsible for us as a Church to limit men and women into (in my opinion) narrow categories? I think the Church is slowly coming to terms with the idea that they must address those members of the body of Christ who (for good or ill) no longer fit into the prescribed categories for men and women. [right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
allow me to clarify my thinking: knowing that the Church is the head of the Body of Christ, that She is supreme on earth, when i think i think more as the way God intended things, not necessarily what the Church has emphasized throughout history. I do not believe this to be a matter so much of the Church (still again recognizing that in the end everything will be) as much as it is human nature.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']My starting point for understanding humanity begins with the moment of human creation. The God-give free will and intellect human beings possess separates us from all other creation. The responsiblity that comes from such gifts (that of intellect and free will) is huge. It is from here that I further strive to understand the role that humans have in bringing about the common good, the Kingdom of God, and how men and women interact to bring this about. I do believe that there are tremendous similarities in the biological make-up of men and women. That having been said, I acknowledge the differences as well (sheer physical strenght and cognitive processes are two differences that come to mind). As for whether or not these differences necessitate or illude to predefined roles that are divinely defined, I am not certain. I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarity of men and women as one attempt to understand human creation and our relationship to the divine.[/quote]
I am breaking up your quotes for clairty's sake.

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?

You go on to say: "I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarity 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 times.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']When I say "human beings exist in a constant state of change" I am implying that human beings, by our very nature (biologically and thus from the moment of our divine creation), are social. We exist in relationship with one another (and with our Creator), not as individual, isolated entities. So when you (or someone else) implies that there is a deficiency in our current existence (this is obvious, as we are sinful) and that there is something to which we must return, I hesitate. I believe that the graced existence we live in drives us forward each day, closer to the parousia--where God will be all in all. So when something of the past, or of yesteryear, is cited as ideal, I worry about how realistic it is that we could "return" to that. Is that reality of the past capable of being a reality now? and so forth. It is helpful to look to our past (as a human race, as a Church, a nation, a person, etc) and to learn from our mistakes. It is dangerous when we do not learn from our experiences. Likewise, it is also dangerous when are naiive enough to believe that we could isolate positive aspects of history and bring them into the future without any (negative) repercusions.[/quote]
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 todays 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.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']As for women and men being equal and complimentary at the same time... by saying that men and women are complimentary implies that there are roles that one person has obligations in the relationship to the other person. This does not result, for me, in a partnership, but can result in a hierarchy of one set of roles being more important than another. 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 complimentary view).[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
I am struggling with understanding why you feel so supressed by men's roles in our lives. I think it is fair to say that yes, complimentary 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.

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 complimentary view)."

I do believe that much of what you are calling equality is found in "the complimentary view". Complimentary 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 hinderance? 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.

One example that comes quickly to mind is the guitar. The left hand is in charge of the neck, placing fingers on specific strings at specific frets. The right hand is in charge of the strum and guides the piece along. Together, positioned and carried out correctly, a beautiful sound is made. Without the left the right does no good and without the right the left does no good. They each have their own role in making the sound and each of them is important.

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 supression of women. Submission is a beautiful thing.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Certainly such questions, when done in pursuit of the truth, are not foolish. And if they are, then we can start a "geniuses Club" together. I too am enjoying all those involved and contributing to this conversation.[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Thanks. For the record: I am still enjoying this conversation even though I had to wait for a good time mentally to sit down and reply.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Socrates, my own opinions and understanding about men and women and their roles toward spreading the Kingdom of Heaven remain unformed as pertains to complimentary and equal views of sexuality. Conversations such as this, that are genuine in their search for the truth, are helping my in my pursuit. In my understanding it is the complimentary view of sexuality that is the basis for the Church's teachings on family and society. My questioning of this teaching is done with a hope that I will better understand it and the implications (positive and negative) that come about as a result.[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Such a search as this for the truth behind it all is awesome. It definitely wins my admiration and respect.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Birgitta, I do not necessarily think that complimentarity precludes equality.

However, I do think that complimentarity can lead to an implied hierarchy that I am uncomfortable with. I would emphasis new definitions of such terms whereby [i]an understanding of equality includes a fulfillment of personhood[/i] in another.
[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do believe that the complimentary roles include such that you wish to see. I hope that through this conversation you will see more and more the equality that helps to strengthen the complimentarity of the sexes together in a relationship.


phew... im done. i look forward to reading your response! (i do apologize for taking so long)

[franciscanheart]

okay maybe not quite... haha.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:06 PM']Raphael, you're correct in that the Holy Trinity is comprised of co-equal beings (and is without sex and gender  : ).

Part of the point I want to make is that [u]both [/u]complimentarity [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]. And because I'm arguing the other side of the coin in this conversation (and trying to develop my own thoughts on the matter), I want to propose that humanity remains interdependant on one another to further the message of the Gospel. I am not 100% comfortable saying that men and women must be seen as complimentary to one another. Men need not be dependant on women, nor women on men for salvation, a satisfying life, etc. However, men and women are called into relationship with one another and the Divine Creator to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

According to [url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hierarchy"]Merriam-Webster, hierarchy has five definitions.[/url] In my previous posts, I am using the fourth.
[right][snapback]850901[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
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. After all, is it not the responsibility of the spouse to help the other get to Heaven?

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:23 PM']Yes yes, I'm not Unitarian. I'm down with three in one.
Both the position that men and women are complementary, and the view that they are equal, can become disordered to the point where individuals are not valued for the contributions they make to a relationship.

Recently I've argued that in some complementary relationships for there tends to be an inequality (or a hiearachy) of one person over another. Some more recent posts have asked if I think complementary relationships cannot be equal. My response to the wording we're currently using to describe complementarity is that complementarity does preclude equality. Equality of the sexes does result in fulfillment if the relationship is healthly. But in an equal view, men and women are not necessary for fulfillment.
[right][snapback]850939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
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.

Also, I would like to point out that many of the things you claim are missing from the "complimentary view", in my opinion, are not. Complimentary sexes would exclude the possibility of a single life, excluding the priesthood, convents and monastaries. 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.

[franciscanheart]

bump for shortnun when she returns

[Socrates]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 11:21 AM']I do not fully understand what you mean by "modern social movements" that you say work in opposition to the Church's teaching of complimentary sexuality. Yes, I acknowledge that some feminist and even economic and political views do not support the teachings of the Church. But at the same time, I know that those movements have at times called to the Church to acknowledge its short comings and have brought about much needed reforms.
[/i] in another.
[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This post shows serious problems in your thinking.

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.

Following the teaching of the Church brings about harmony and joy.
Feminism and other false ideologies have brought about the breakdown of the family and morality and social disentigration.

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.

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."

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. It now makes no difference in one's life whether one is a man or a woman.

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.

[franciscanheart]

bump for shortnun for the morning. good morning everyone.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/av-657.jpg[/img]

[shortnun]

I'm off to stuff folders and make photocopies at work.... but I'll be able to responsd this afternoon. And, I can only imagine that L_D's post means he's sitting in and listening to our conversation.... super!

Happy day to you all...

[Laudate_Dominum]