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

[Asher]

Again, that's not really what I'm talking about.

Then you are not discussing what the rest of us are. Get with the program.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pretty much spot on. Some of the more controversial questions arise over headship in a marital relationship. Christianity bears different burdens on wives and husbands, in accordance to their complementarity, and assigns men the role of headship and final decisionmaking.

Women and men and equal and complementary, but MEN are the head and final decisionmakers... for everything! Yeah, that sounds equal. It appears the whole "complementary" arguement is basically code for men run the family while women get in the kitchen and churn out babies. But that was quite obvious to everyone in this thread aside from Ben and aneeshm, who, surprise, suprise, are the two biggest misogynists on this forum (they make Asher look like he loves women).

[aneeshm]

Then you are not discussing what the rest of us are.

Correct. If you're discussing the domination of one person in a partnership by another, with the second accepting it due to brainwashing, that neither I nor Ben have supported it, nor does anyone else. I tried to clarify the specific context in which he was speaking (in the very next post after the one you're responding to, actually), and he agreed that that was correct.

It appears as if most of the posts in this thread are talking past each other rather than talking to each other. I guess that's what happens when we don't make our positions explicitly and unambiguously clear from the beginning, taking care to avoid misunderstandings of connotation. Frankly, it would be better if these things could be specified beforehand, instead of after pages and pages of hostile discussion.

[rah]

Ben should go to his parish and ask any of the priests that teach the pre-canna class, if he tells the wifes that there husbands are in charge and should be the primary decision makers.
While I'm sure that there are probably a few sexists left, I'll bet that most of them laugh at him. Or should the nuns be teaching pre-canna since they're better at teaching.

[Ming]

Yeah... Ben can talk all he wants about how he will listen and not make all decisions, partnership, complementary, blah blah blah... but in the end, he's the first to claim, repeatedly, that it's HIS RIGHT to make the final decision no matter what. And simply because he is male. What a sexist pig.

[loinburger]

It's very simple. The question is, "a man and a woman are married. They have a disagreement. Which one (should) prevail(s)?" If you answer "the man by default" then you are a misogynist. If you answer "the woman by default" then you are a misandrist. If you answer "how the hell should I know, it depends on the dynamics of the relationship and the specifics and context of the disagreement," then you answered correctly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most Christians I know would be offended by your sexist comments... and would even be more so offended by many of your past blantant bigoted posts. They wouldn't consider you a true Christian.
And anybody that really understands what the "book" is saying would know that you obviously don't since you think it's your right to judge and condem others. True Christians preach love... you preach hate.

QFT x1000! The youth church my girlfriend goes to (and, I guess, I go to as well) is led by a female pastor (another strike!! )! She, btw, gives brilliant sermons, in case you were curious. I'm sure they'd love to be told in disagreements the man always has to be the final decisionmaker and the head. That would really sound Christian to them, which yes, is defined by love for everyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's very simple. The question is, "a man and a woman are married. They have a disagreement. Which one (should) prevail(s)?" If you answer "the man by default" then you are a misogynist. If you answer "the woman by default" then you are a misandrist. If you answer "how the hell should I know, it depends on the dynamics of the relationship and the specifics and context of the disagreement," then you answered correctly.

[aneeshm]

Women and men and equal and complementary, but MEN are the head and final decisionmakers... for everything!

That's not what he said. If you would have bothered to actually read through the thread, this concept of "headship" is applicable in one context, specified explicitly above in this thread.

Even in a hypothetical situation where the woman ceded this decision-making authority completely, in all spheres, to the man - though, again, this is not what Ben was talking about - and was happy and contented with this arrangement, and as long as her choice to do so was informed, I would have no problem with it.

I'd have no problem if the situation were reversed, by the way - if some hypothetical man ceded complete decision-making authority to his wife and was happy with this, and if his decision was an informed one.

Unlike universalist prescriptivists, I actually believe in human bio-diversity and psycho-diversity. Or, to put it in older words, different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, that sounds equal. It appears the whole "complementary" arguement is basically code for men run the family while women get in the kitchen and churn out babies.

It's not, as pointed out above. But you seem more fixated on power - in every walk of life - to the exclusion of everything else, instead of just letting people be.

Secondly, that's a very odd and, honestly, degrading way to talk about motherhood and and women who choose to be dedicated mothers and devote their time to caring for their children.

But that was quite obvious to everyone in this thread aside from Ben and aneeshm, who, surprise, suprise, are the two biggest misogynists on this forum (they make Asher look like he loves women).

I don't know where you get this idea.

Allowing men and women to choose their preferred distribution of duties in their relationship is now misogyny? Actually letting different women form their own standards of what they are happy with, instead of forcing a single, one-size-fits-all vision of what is "progress" and what is "sin" (doesn't matter who defines it, it's still oppressively prescriptivist), and what they should and should not do, now gets me classified as one who hates them?

[Asher]

Unlike universalist prescriptivists, I actually believe in human bio-diversity and psycho-diversity. ...blahblah

Am I the only one that has the urge to smack aneeshm based solely on how he writes?

Allowing men and women to choose their preferred distribution of duties in their relationship is now misogyny?

You and Ben are incapable of seeing this is not the case. What other people are advocating is this type of democratic system. What you and Ben are advocating is nothing of the sort.

[aneeshm]

If you answer "how the hell should I know, it depends on the dynamics of the relationship and the specifics and context of the disagreement," then you answered correctly.

And that is what Ben has said throughout!

Though he specified it later, this is exactly what he has been saying. If you want the context in which he has been saying it, look at my posts on the last page.

The "headship" concept applies, as far as I can make out, to the nature/structure of the relationship and family life (this isn't really in the man's hands, but in God's, and is pretty well-defined by both definition and tradition - a disagreement here means that there's something fundamentally wrong, and it doesn't fit within the Christian framework any longer, making all else moot), the relationship of the couple to God and his commands, and the guiding of their relation towards this goal. That's it.

[Drake Tungsten]

brilliant sermons

Oxymoron.

[loinburger]

And that is what Ben has said throughout!

You are not reading the same thread as everybody else.

[Lorizael]

I'd like to point out that what BK and aneeshm are advocating is not necessarily sexist. I'm friends with a woman - one of the most intelligent, strong-willed, and opinionated I know - who is in a long term relationship with a man in which she voluntarily chooses to engage in a subservient role. It is gratifying and natural to her to act this way within that sphere of her life. Both of the participants in the relationship understand that it is simply a mode of behaving and not a normative rule. And both of them are extremely happy together.

I would contend that the relationship BK and aneeshm describe may or may not be sexist, but it most certainly is stupid. Defining roles based on poorly generalized sets of behavior is a recipe for disaster. Relationships require nuance and compromise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not what he said.

Yes it is.

It's not, as pointed out above. But you seem more fixated on power - in every walk of life - to the exclusion of everything else, instead of just letting people be.

The sad part is when people fail to see power dynamics at work around them. Like they are blind or something... oh wait, I'm talking to aneeshm. You are blind.

Secondly, that's a very odd and, honestly, degrading way to talk about motherhood and and women who choose to be dedicated mothers and devote their time to caring for their children.

May you take your strawmen and shove them up your ass. Why shouldn't mothers be the head in issues of childrearing if they are making the better argument. Why should the man always be the head? And yes that IS what Ben said.

I don't know where you get this idea.

I read your posts. Usually women don't choose to be subservient (or, not the head). It is forced upon them by social norms or rules (like rules of a Church). The best way is to allow everyone to be completely free to make choices. So the head isn't determined by an authority. It is determined based on an equal relationship and dialogue based on each individual decision to be made. But you wouldn't understand that.