Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then it appears that I have been massively misunderstood. Let me clarify.

The only other option is that you have no clue what Ben is arguing for while defending him with all your might. Having a religion tell you what the gender role should be is NOT informed consent. Saying the Bible mandates the male being the head is NOT informed consent. You can say, well you can switch religions, but faith ain't exactly that easy of a thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't feel the need to put my beliefs away simply because my partner would like it to be otherwise. Maybe that's something you'll do in order to curry favor, though . And, of course, I've never had these same beliefs on the role of men and women in relationships before... oh wait.

First point is still well taken though. I was just yanking your chain.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, but what do you think BK will do if he happens to fall in love with a good Christian girl who, despite what his poorly generalized opinions indicate, is better at making decisions than he is?

I'd be as happy as a clam.

[Ben Kenobi]

He may not be, but I am. And there is no one in the King of the House role in my marriage. We're a team, and we make important decisions by talking about them together and arriving at a joint decision. For some things, we may decide ahead of time that the call will be made by either me or her, just so we don't have to worry about it. But there is no ONE in charge. We're both in charge. It works well for us (it is certainly possible that is so because we are very similar when it comes to important things, who knows?). When our daughter is born, we will use the same approach to determine the rules, responses to rule breaking, etc for the child. You can ask me how that worked out in a few years, but I've no reason to expect it won't work just fine.

This is the most important part of your whole post. I can't stress this enough how important it is that the big stuff be in agreement. That includes what I'm talking about here. I hope it does work out for you. Personally, I think it's important for Christians that this whole concept of headship is there. I would be very surprised if anyone who wasn't a Christian would adopt the same teachings on their own initiative.

[Felch]

Even if I worked and she stayed at home I would probably do the same. I'm not sure what you mean by 'head of households'. If you mean, 'preach Ephesians 5', then yes I have heard it in Catholic parishes. My main objection to what Ming posted is the whole concept that scripture does not preach the equality of men and women. Ming's parish sounds quite a bit like mine at the university which I had a very difficult time in RCIA.

Ephesians 5 is preached, but I've never heard it used as justification for patriarchy. Usually that's downplayed in the homily.

[aneeshm]

The only other option is that you have no clue what Ben is arguing for while defending him with all your might. Having a religion tell you what the gender role should be is NOT informed consent. Saying the Bible mandates the male being the head is NOT informed consent. You can say, well you can switch religions, but faith ain't exactly that easy of a thing.

You are either a Bennite, or not. If you are, for whatever reason, it's OK. If you aren't, it's still OK.

The problem lies where, exactly?



Again, you're confusing the two issues. You're saying that informed consent is made difficult because your religion has some standards. I'm saying that if we begin with the assumption of informed decision-making, I have no problem with the Bennite structure of a relationship. Please keep the two separate.

[Asher]

You are either a Bennite, or not. If you are, for whatever reason, it's OK. If you aren't, it's still OK.

The problem lies where, exactly?

Are you actually being serious?

Let's swap one word there:

You are either a racist, or not. If you are, for whatever reason, it's OK. If you aren't, it's still OK.

[aneeshm]

Your insane.

Yes? My insane what?

This idea that the "home" requires indivisible commitment on the part of one of the two in a relationship appears to be designed to keep women down. Why can't both share it?

It isn't designed, or anything like this. It's a realisation I've come to. That's what I said earlier - our definitions of what constitutes a "home" are different, so there's no point in arguing about it - we'll keep talking at cross-purposes. For you, it's the fulfilments of the physical requirements of the child (and the child-rearing process), and not very much else. That can, as Arrian said, easily be done by a woman who can then continue with her career as if nothing had happened.

I see the home as a much larger and slightly more intangible thing. The tangible part involves such things as the transformation of the functional elements of life into aesthetic ones, along with the creation and maintenance of rhythm and regularity in the smallest activities of daily life. The intangible is the attention to detail, the attitudes that it engenders, the sort of life that it makes possible, the psychological nurturing effects it has on the children and the mental stability it provides the husband (or wife, if she's the one working outside in your model), and so on.

This requires a full-time commitment from one person, whether it be husband or wife. It may be that women are better at it. It may be that they aren't actually better at it, but the couple is happier if she does it. Or it could be utterly the reverse, I don't know, I presume it changes from couple to couple. Research will tell. But given this definition, it remains a full-time job.

[aneeshm]

Are you actually being serious?

Let's swap one word there:

You are either a racist, or not. If you are, for whatever reason, it's OK. If you aren't, it's still OK.

The two aren't really comparable, are they?

[Asher]

The two aren't really comparable, are they?

Why not? Ben's a demonstrable misogynist bigot.

"Bennite" is just a terrible thing to be as a racist. Frankly, Ben is probably a racist also.

[Lorizael]

I'd be as happy as a clam.

And if you were both qualified to make a decision but could not come to a resolution, would she, being the better decision-maker, be the one to make the final decision?

[Imran Siddiqui]

For you, it's the fulfilments of the physical requirements of the child (and the child-rearing process), and not very much else.

Condescending strawmen... FTL!

But given this definition, it remains a full-time job.

No it doesn't. Unless your aim is to keep women down, which I'm convinced yours is.

[Arrian]

I guess our definitions of home simply differ, so there can be very little argument here - we'll just continue to talk at cross-purposes. I conceive of it as something requiring, by its nature, the undivided and full-time attention of one dedicated person

Indeed, then we are talking right past one another.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

This illustrates things pretty well:

The tangible part involves such things as the transformation of the functional elements of life into aesthetic ones, along with the creation and maintenance of rhythm and regularity in the smallest activities of daily life. The intangible is the attention to detail, the attitudes that it engenders, the sort of life that it makes possible, the psychological nurturing effects it has on the children and the mental stability it provides the husband (or wife, if she's the one working outside in your model), and so on.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. I tried, and I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

-Arrian

[Asher]

I'm pretty sure aneeshm studies philosophy...