Female led relationships

[Walking_Home]

The only thing that has been shown – by those who continue to impose the “one sided submission” of wife to the husband – is the denial of Christ action in restoring/raising marriage to what God intended marriage to be ----from the beginning — before the fall.

The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit — looking deeper and bringing forth --the true meaning of Marriage in the Lord.

 

[thewanderer]

Well hello again Portrait, it certainly has been a while since I have seen you on CAF. I hope you are doing well. While it is very clear that the church has used language of submission in the past on the part of the wife but no the husband, and has spoken of the obedience of the wife towards the husband, I must most strongly disagree with this conclusion of yours.

Thus it is a grave error to speak of a one-sided submission being the result of some sinful spirit of pride or domination. On the contrary, a one-sided submission results from adhering to the Church and biblical model of family life, which surely ought not to be an issue for any pious Catholic who has not embraced a false egalitarianism. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII expressly spoke of “him who commands and her who obeys”, which, if words mean anything, plainly suggests a one-sided set up within marriage.

I have found, from my own study of this topic that the above conclusion fails to take into account the whole of Casti Connubi, and that a thorough and careful reading of the document clearly forbids a one-sided dominance in marriage as contrary to Christ’s ideal for marriage but also explicitly states that the submission of wife to husband in marriage that the Church speaks of will vary in degree and form depending on the individual people involved as well as the place and time in which they live.

In order to better understand this issue it is imperitive to read the entire section of Casti Connubi which pertains to this subject so that one is assured of gaining the whole picture of what the Church teaches.

Casti Connubi:

1. This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church,”[24] that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse.[25] The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds.[26] This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed “dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.”[27] For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God’s grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.

1. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

1. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,”[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.

1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it.

Note here the order of emphasis Pope Pius is placing here. He is saying that the Christ-like love of husband and wife for each other will naturally lead to the “order of love”. In other words, the duty of the spouses is not to follow the “order of love” but to love each other as Christ loves the Church. The claim is that if spouses do this, if they have this true love for each other, then the order of love will follow. There is no gaurantee, however, that if they follow the “order of love” they will gain this Christlike love. In other words, before even going on to explain what this “order of love” is, Pope Pius XI is making it very clear that while it is useful to understand this “order of love” we should not be encouraging people to assume this order, but rather we should be encouraging them to love each other with a pure love, to seek each others good, both here and now and for the afterlife. That is the key teaching and command in this document about the relation of husband and wife to each other.

It is also interesting that while he speaks here of the importance of the mutual love of husband and wife, he particularly focuses on the love the husband must have for his wife. The husband must live for his wife, must always act for her good, and must show his love through actions, not just words.

(Cont…)

 

[thewanderer]

(…Cont)

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

This is the part that causes trouble for so many people, but right below it we have a fuller explanation which is absolutely necessary for understanding it.

Lets work through this carefully, this section is extremely important.

**27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion;
**
The first limitation of this submission that we receive is that it must not take away the liberty and freedom that belongs to a woman because of their dignity as a person, wife, or mother. Seeing as your understanding of what dignity belongs to a person because of their role as wife or mother will depend, at least in part, on your understanding of this encyclical it would hardly be profitable to discuss this aspect until there is agreement on the encyclical as a whole. But I presume that we can both agree on the fact that forcing others through coercion of any sort is contrary to basic human dignity. Which makes it clear that any submission or “obedience” on the part of the wife must be freely made as her own choice as an act of love. It cannot be forced or pushed on her by her husband.

nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife;
nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.

Here things become even more interesting. Not only is it made clear that the wife is not being asked to “obey” or “submit” to her husband in anything contrary to right reason, it explicitly states that wives are not to be looked on as having inferior reason, judgement, or knowledge of human affairs than their husbands. In other words, if a dispute arises where the husband and wife disagree about whose solution is in line with right reason we cannot assume that the husband is correct and therefore ought to be obeyed or submitted to, to do so would be to assume the wifes reasoning etc is inferior. Instead we are left with an interesting dilemma. The very situation advocates of one-sided use so often as the reason one-sided submission is necessary, when carefully examined, brings up all sorts of problems. The “order of love” only asks the wife to submit if her husbands reasoning is correct. But how is she to know when his reasoning is correct and when it isn’t? She is to use her own judgement which is not to be viewed as inferior to her husbands. In other words, when they are at an impasse because they each honestly believe the others reasoning to be flawed one cannot assume that the wife should give in to the husband. The wife has no duty of any sort to submit if her husbands reasoning is flawed, so to assume that she should submit is to assume that her husbands reasoning is correct and hers is flawed. However, we are clearly told here that we are not to view her reasoning, judgement etc as inferior to her husbands. Which means that Casti Connubi is clearly telling us that this submission of wife to husband, this “order of love” is not a one-sided submission where the wife must obey her husband even when she disagrees with him on what is right. It is not a relationship whereby the husband always gets last say on how things happen, because such a relationship implicitly assumes either that the wife must submit to her husband even when his will is not in accord with right reason or that the wifes reasoning is necessarily inferior to the husbands, both of which are clearly rejected right here in Casti Connubi. I find it rather amazing, honestly, that the very document that is used to promote the “husband always gets the last say” relationship clearly rejects such a relationship as contrary to the Catholic understanding of the proper marital relationship. But there it is.

(Cont…)

 

[thewanderer]

(…Cont)

But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

Here instead we have a more positive description of what this “order of love” is. It is that which forbids exaggerated liberty which doesn’t care about the good of the family. It is saying that if the marriage or family is in grave and proximate danger of ** ruin** that right reason demands that the wife not decide that she doesn’t care about the family she wants to get her way no matter what, even if it leads to the destruction of her marriage. In other words, taking into account the first section which focused on the husbands duties, It is primarily the responsibility of the husband to care for the good of his wife and the family, but if he fails in that to such an extent that the family is in very great danger of being torn apart (not just in any small little thing) the wife, out of love for her husband and marriage and for the good of the family should, out of love, give in to his will as a sacrifice of love for the sake of preventing the ruin of the family. This is not an everyday kind of situation, this is not even your average “Move vs Stay” kind of disagreement, this obedience is reserved for situations such as “My husband is being selfish and will leave our family to follow his dream job if we don’t agree to relocate” kind of situation. Or “I think this is not the best way to do things, but my husband is so set on it that it he would very likely regret not doing it and end up resenting me for preventing him so much that our marriage becomes gravely damaged and will likely fall apart” kind of situations. Again, not exactly the interpretation most people get from Casti Connubi, but pretty clearly there.

1. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

And finally, what I find to be the most interesting inclusion. Here it is explicitly stated that the submission of wife to husband will vary in both degree and manner not only based on the individual people in the relationship (which could be explained away as being a concession for the odd case where the husband doesn’t fulfill his duties) but also on the place and time in which the couple lives!! In other words, the extent of the wifes submission to her husband and the form it takes, what it looks like to the outer world will be different depending on the culture they live in. So, for instance, if a woman lived back when it would be seen as a public disgrace on her husband for her to disagree with him, or to disobey him she would have more of an obligation to do so, not because it is inherently necessary for submission to take this form, but because to fail to do so would be so damaging to her husband and the family’s reputation as a whole it would likely lead to the relationship being seriously damaged. Such is simply not the case today.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So you don’t think women deserve equal opportunities?

Clem is out for Lent. He has chosen to sacrifice CAF as his offering.

Feminism must be used by it’s corrupted definition though.

Bear with me for a second. And your honor, grant me a little leeway here.

Tennis has long been an arena where gender wars are fought. I play, my daughters play. I have a state tile from my youth. I love the sport.

When Billie Jean King famously played Bobby Riggs in the 70s it was quite the spectacle. It was supposed to be a huge step for feminism and women in general. It got everyone talking, even people who never watched tennis. Billie won. (of course) never mind that Bobby only got one serve and Billie could play the allies.

But it was symbolic. Fast forward to a few years ago when the International Tennis Association decided that women and men should receive equal prize money at the Grand Slam tournaments. That is the big four. The Australian Open, The French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open. This was championed as a womens rights victory and a feminist victory. It was seen as equality. It is not.

Men, by far, play a tougher stronger and more physical game. Then there is the math. For men, a match in the grand slams consists of the best 3 out of 5 sets. The least you could play is three and the most is 5. For women, it is two out of three. There have been tournaments where the Men’s champion has come close to playing double the tennis of a womans champion. Never has a male champion played equal or less amount of tennis than a woman in a grand slam. Men are consistently putting in better work and more work. But the pay is equal!?

I play at a mid level ability. I can beat and beat handily women who play several levels above me in the ratings.

It is my assertion, that women are receiving an unfair amount of money in the tournaments. They are getting the same money as the men but the men are doing more work at a better quality. This is not fair. And by the mere definition of feminism as “equality” every feminist should agree. But they don’t, in fact Billie Jean King is a very prominent feminist and I am just another male chauvinist pig.

 

[thewanderer]

Well hello again Portrait, it certainly has been a while since I have seen you on CAF. I hope you are doing well. While it is very clear that the church has used language of submission in the past on the part of the wife but no the husband, and has spoken of the obedience of the wife towards the husband, I must most strongly disagree with this conclusion of yours.

I must make a correction, the Church has actually from the very beginning spoken of mutual submission in the Bible

In Ephesians 5:21 We are all told to submit to one another out of reverance to Christ. Which means that husbands must also, at times, submit to their wives as well as all others if they are to faithfully follow Christ. which is again a pretty clear refutation against the claim that submission in marriage ought to be one-sided.

(Not to mention the fact that men are told to love their wives as Christ loves the Church… Christ’s love for the Church expressed itself through the greatest act of submission ever yet to be witnessed, the submission of God to be tortured and killed by his creatures for their salvation. This means that in order for a husband to follow his orders and love his wife as Christ loved the Church he must also emulate Christ in submission, most particularly in submission through sacrificial action, continually dying to his self for the the good of his wife and family)

 

[on_the_hill]

got everyone talking, even people who never watched tennis. Billie won. (of course) never mind that Bobby only got one serve and Billie could play the allies.

There are also the conspiracy theories that Bobby was coerced to throw the game because of a gambling debt, and was in poor health. It was before I reached the age of reason, and through most of my life has been nothing but a footnote.

 

[on_the_hill]

I have to agree with Hoosier Daddy …(surely the end times are upon us)
I’d rather be associated with the other “f” word than with feminism
The only ism I subscribe to is Catholicism.

Fruitcake? Frappe? Fromage? Flaubert?

 

[Sarcelle]

the husband’s leadership ought to be the same as Christ: service. The husband leadership should be through service in the same way that Christ served his church. Not being the first but the last. Not expecting sacrifices from others instead sacrificing himself for it.

Isn’t marriage supposed to mirror the relationship between Christ and his Church?

 

[Sarcelle]

LOL.
Everytime I see you on a thread, I kick myself for not thinking of yer clever moniker first

In my experience and travels, and historically, I think most women have and do define “feminist” as I do.
But the definition on this forum seems to be one that is much more extreme–and every group has it’s ultra-extreme, angry fringe members, even Christians–and one that is not the majority.
The origin of the “feminist movement” is about women having fair treatment, opportunities, and respect–voting, following their talents, being able to support themselves and others with jobs and careers, being taken seriously in jobs like science, as your wife is.
None of this, as you know, was possible several decades ago.
Honestly…like it or not…your ability to do the switcheroo re working inside/outside the home would be considered by most “feminists” as the ultimate expression of the original “cause” of the “movement”.
I used quotations on those words because…the words are quite archaic now.

As you might see if you re-read what I wrote, I didn’t say anything about your masculinity/femininity or holy vocations and such.
I talked about the flexibility and reason you both have. You said your wife is the scholastic superior, so then it makes sense for her to pursue that. She has a respected career as a Scientist, so it makes sense for her to “play the career game” and “make the money” if it works for both of you.
When the movie “Mr. Mom” came out 30 years ago, this kind of set-up was considered rather shocking.

But this is exactly what the original “feminists” fought for, this kind of understanding and flexibility that doesn’t have to do with gender, but with personality and talents.
Women fish and pass gas and like football too, you know…I’m sure. That doesn’t make her less a woman. And you can take great care of the household and kids, and that doesn’t make you any less a “man”.

And as you can see, the “feminist movement” benefits not only women, but men, too…you are reaping the benefits and joys of this kind of liberation and you and your wife are able to carve out a more unique set-up that suites you both beautifully.

Forty years ago…this may not have been so “accepted” or possible.
So please, do not feel offended by the “F” word. Because what you and your wife are doing is exactly what women were fighting for all along

.

I would have agreed with you if I have read this some time ago. However even with moderate feminists, abortion has been raised to the level of a sacrament. This does not make sense , since, one of the most fundamental of rights a woman should have is the right to life. I grew up in Asia and I know that female babies are the most often the victims of abortion.

Having said that however, I am proud to say that my grandmother was a suffragette.

 

[Walking_Home]

I have been observing – that there seems to be a movement --that specifically wants to keep a negative connotation to feminism – in a way that buries the good the feminism has accomplished. The radical wing of feminism – used as a tool – to blanket feminism itself.

The Catholic Church promotes the new feminism – with respect for life of the unborn in the fore-front – as the way to transform culture.

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE THEME: “LIFE, FAMILY AND DEVELOPMENT:
THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS”
(VATICAN, 20-21 MARCH 2009)

To my Venerable Brother
Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino

I am pleased to extend cordial greetings to you and to all those taking part in the International Conference on the theme “Life, Family and Development: the Role of Women in the Promotion of Human Rights”. This event, sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with the cooperation of the World Women’s Alliance for Life and Family, the World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations and other associations,** is an exemplary response to my predecessor Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new feminism**” with the power to transform culture, imbuing it with a decisive respect for life (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 98-99).

Every day we learn of further ways in which life is compromised, particularly in its most vulnerable stages. While justice demands that these be decried as a violation of human rights, they must also evoke a positive and proactive response. The recognition and appreciation of God’s plan for women in the transmission of life and the nurturing of children is a constructive step in this direction. Beyond this, and given the distinctive influence of women in society, they must be encouraged to embrace the opportunity to uphold the dignity of life through their involvement in education and their participation in political and civic life. Indeed, because they have been gifted by the Creator with a unique “capacity for the other”, women have a crucial part to play in the promotion of human rights, for without their voice the social fabric of society would be weakened (cf. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13).

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/pont-messages/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090320_martino-donne_en.html

 

[on_the_hill]

I have been observing – that there seems to be a movement --that specifically wants to keep a negative connotation to feminism – in a way that buries the good the feminism has accomplished. The radical wing of feminism – is used as a tool – to blanket feminism itself.

The Catholic Church promotes the new feminism – with respect for life of the unborn in the fore-front – as the way to transform culture.

It’s good to see he wrote that. When people would ask me if I support “women’s rights” I always responded, “I support the rights of all women…whether they’ve been born yet or not.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

By way of response I would, dear sister, draw your attention to *Casti Connubii *1930 which quite clearly states that the wife is never to be placed on the same footing as a child or treated as if she was deficient in understanding and insight on account of immaturity.

Yet you cite:

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Do not parents ‘rule’ over their children, in the way you say a husband should ‘rule’ over his wife? And so in this sense, is not the wife but a child to the husband, only free to disobey him if his commands are sinful or deny her dignity? Is not this the same freedom that children enjoy, to obey the commands of their parents, only disobeying if the commands are sinful or deny their dignity?

And what does it mean, anyway, to deny the ‘dignity’ of the wife? Since she is but a ‘subject’ to his ‘rulership’, is it not his place to discipline her, chastise her, etc. in the way that one does to a child?

The fate seems all the worse for a wife as compared to a child, since the child will one day outgrow their status as a child. Whereas the wife can never “grow up” into something more than a wife, a woman.

Look here this mutual subjection notion, so much spoken of in contemporary Catholicism, is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

If it’s a conundrum, then we’re doing something wrong. Because this passage exists alongside the others that you speak of. How can one passage be of value but not another surrounding it?
Walking Home:

I have been observing – that there seems to be a movement --that specifically wants to keep a negative connotation to feminism – in a way that buries the good the feminism has accomplished. The radical wing of feminism – is used as a tool – to blanket feminism itself.

I see this too. One poster even went so far as to claim that women had it great in the West in the 20th century. To dispel this notion, I had to post the frightening truth about the pervasiveness of marital rape, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, political disenfranchisement and so on at that time and place.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

I have been observing – that there seems to be a movement --that specifically wants to keep a negative connotation to feminism – in a way that buries the good the feminism has accomplished. The radical wing of feminism – is used as a tool – to blanket feminism itself.

The Catholic Church promotes the new feminism – with respect for life of the unborn in the fore-front – as the way to transform culture.

It’s good to see he wrote that. ** When people would ask me if I support “women’s rights” I always responded, “I support the rights of all women…whether they’ve been born yet or not.”**

---

 

[Georgia1989]

My husband is very passive . The bulk of decision making , child-rearing , bill paying … is left up to me . It doesn’t work for me . I feel like I’ m pulling a wagon ( our life ) up hill and he is walking beside me .

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home:

I have been observing – that there seems to be a movement --that specifically wants to keep a negative connotation to feminism – in a way that buries the good the feminism has accomplished. The radical wing of feminism – is used as a tool – to blanket feminism itself.

I see this too. One poster even went so far as to claim that women had it great in the West in the 20th century. To dispel this notion, I had to post the frightening truth about the pervasiveness of marital rape, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, political disenfranchisement and so on at that time and place.

---

Glad to know – I am not the only one who has observed this. I have read – men railing against feminism – and turn around to say that it is “moral” and a man’s right to rape his wife – “punish” her with blows – when he “thinks” she “needs” it. And this is by some men today.

 

[Sarcelle]

---

Glad to know – I am not the only one who has observed this. I have read – men railing against feminism – and turn around to say that it is “moral” and a man’s right to rape his wife – “punish” her with blows – when he “thinks” she “needs” it. And this is by some men today.

Men can say all kinds of things. The abuse of wives however is not promoted or sanctioned by the Church. If a Catholic man says that, than I would hate to be him come Judgement day when he has to give a rendering of his actions. I doubt it would be well received by Jesus.

 

[severus68]

Yet you cite:

Do not parents ‘rule’ over their children, in the way you say a husband should ‘rule’ over his wife? And so in this sense, is not the wife but a child to the husband, only free to disobey him if his commands are sinful or deny her dignity? Is not this the same freedom that children enjoy, to obey the commands of their parents, only disobeying if the commands are sinful or deny their dignity?

Very well said.

 

[marymary1975]

Well hello again Portrait, it certainly has been a while since I have seen you on CAF. I hope you are doing well. While it is very clear that the church has used language of submission in the past on the part of the wife but no the husband, and has spoken of the obedience of the wife towards the husband, I must most strongly disagree with this conclusion of yours.

I have found, from my own study of this topic that the above conclusion fails to take into account the whole of Casti Connubi, and that a thorough and careful reading of the document clearly forbids a one-sided dominance in marriage as contrary to Christ’s ideal for marriage but also explicitly states that the submission of wife to husband in marriage that the Church speaks of will vary in degree and form depending on the individual people involved as well as the place and time in which they live.

In order to better understand this issue it is imperitive to read the entire section of Casti Connubi which pertains to this subject so that one is assured of gaining the whole picture of what the Church teaches.

Casti Connubi:

Note here the order of emphasis Pope Pius is placing here. He is saying that the Christ-like love of husband and wife for each other will naturally lead to the “order of love”. In other words, the duty of the spouses is not to follow the “order of love” but to love each other as Christ loves the Church. The claim is that if spouses do this, if they have this true love for each other, then the order of love will follow. There is no gaurantee, however, that if they follow the “order of love” they will gain this Christlike love. In other words, before even going on to explain what this “order of love” is, Pope Pius XI is making it very clear that while it is useful to understand this “order of love” we should not be encouraging people to assume this order, but rather we should be encouraging them to love each other with a pure love, to seek each others good, both here and now and for the afterlife. That is the key teaching and command in this document about the relation of husband and wife to each other.

It is also interesting that while he speaks here of the importance of the mutual love of husband and wife, he particularly focuses on the love the husband must have for his wife. The husband must live for his wife, must always act for her good, and must show his love through actions, not just words.

(Cont…)

Very well said

 

[marymary1975]

That’s because of the difference in physical strength and some other physical parameters, e.g. even a technically stronger or fitter woman’t isn’t gauranteed to defeat more of a log of a man due the physical differences; basically, women don’t have the best setup to take on men. But what we’re talking about here is basically physical danger, it doesn’t make the situation more insane per se.

While what you are saying is true at a general level…many men have more physical strength than many women, you are failing by not noticing individualities and forgetting that in reality it depends on individual circumstances.

I did martial arts for about 20 years and I can assure that Iknow a good aamount of women who most men would never be able to take on them. In fact I know one take Kean do champion who a gang tried to rape her. All seven members of the gang end up in the emergency room. Some women do have the build and strength to take not on one but many men.