Regarding Roles of Men and Women in Society According to Church Teaching

[CatholicWhovian]

VERY LONG POST BELOW. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

So I was surfing the Catholic Answers archives when I stumble upon these articles about women in combat roles:

catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/how-to-argue-against-women-in-combat
catholic.com/blog/christopher-check/women-in-combat-contra-naturum

They all say that women should not be allowed in combat - and the second link says that it is even morally wrong because it is against their nature, basing it on what Pope Leo XIII said about women’s roles in society:

Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.

However this AAA answers that there is no specific official Church teaching when it comes to women in combat.

This all points to the general question of men and women’s roles in society according to the Church’s teaching. I’m becoming confused here and a bit, how should I say, “challenged” by the CA articles above with the AAA answer below.

I know that the Church teaches that men and women are persons equally created by God with dignity. They are different with regards to being men and women, but they are of the same substance. Men and women are different in regards to their biological roles: men as husbands, fathers and protectors; women as wives, mothers and nurturers. This I wholeheartedly accept as true. I also know from experience that in their abilities, men and women can be different as well. What a man can do, a woman can’t; what a woman can do, a man can’t. What a man can do, a woman can do better; what a woman can do, a man can do better. Each sex shouldn’t be underestimated in their abilities so long as their biological roles and responsibilities are taken recognized. Abilities and responsibilities are different. A woman can have the strength of a bodybuilder and still be nurturing towards her son. Alternatively a man can be weak in strength and still be a good husband and breadwinner to his family.

I also know that women nowadays have occupied many jobs in society that have once been dominated by men more than a hundred years ago. Women are now in all kinds of jobs and occupations in society - including soldiers. It’s probably something that Pope Leo XIII had not foreseen. In fact I think Pope St. John Paul II noticed this sudden change and made the necessary response to it in Laborem Exercens:

Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons… Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother.

It is a fact that in many societies women work in nearly every sector of life. But it is fitting that they should be able to fulfill their tasks in accordance with their own nature, without being discriminated against and without being excluded from jobs for which they are capable, but also without lack of respect for their family aspirations and for their specific role in contributing, together with men, to the good of society. The true advancement of women requires that labour should be structured in such a way that women do not have to pay for their advancement by abandoning what is specific to them and at the expense of the family, in which women as mothers have an irreplaceable role.

So from what I can derive from this encyclical: women can have jobs previously dominated by men so long as they recognize their responsibilities or are in tune with said responsibilities. That applies to men as well. Men can be nurses, house helpers, and home cooks so long as they recognize and act according their role as breadwinners. Women can be police officers, construction workers and factory workers so long as they recognize and act according to their role as nurturers. Of course we have to take into account the circumstance of economic problems.

That’s what I think. And that includes women in combat roles. Women soldiers can go into combat so long as they recognize and act according to their role as nurturers. However I am willing to be corrected on this matter by you guys. I have no intention of going against Church teaching and I would never do that. But if you guys sense that something is wrong please be willing to correct my conscience as long as it is based on Church teaching. For some context: I come from a country with one of the most narrow gender gaps in the world - amazingly on par with the Scandinavian countries despite being a developing country. Men and women have equal opportunity in all occupations here. We have a respect for women in our culture, however I would have to admit some of my fellow male Filipinos treat their women like objects.

Now to my question: How can we reconcile biological roles with occupations? Can we really allow a woman to go into combat provided that she knows her role as a mother? Can we really allow a man to stay at home doing household chores provided it is out of his role as a father? Can we allow women or men to get into any occupation so long as they recognize their respective roles?

 

[Valdemar]

Now to my question: How can we reconcile biological roles with occupations? Can we really allow a woman to go into combat provided that she knows her role as a mother? Can we really allow a man to stay at home doing household chores provided it is out of his role as a father? Can we allow women or men to get into any occupation so long as they recognize their respective roles?

The short answer is “No”.

The definition of a role isn’t merely the ability to parrot the word. It is to live it thru life, to accumulate the wisdom, skills and character specific to the role. The belief that one can “know their role” without living it day in and day out is a modernist concept that belies the very essence of patience, long-suffering, care and genuine expression of what the role IS.

It also exposes a very popular idea that knowing is a head grab when instead it is a life commitment. Much like our walk with Christ. Sure there are those ecclesial groups that say all you need to do is make a decision to follow Jesus and you are “in”, but that is NOT the doctrine of the Catholic faith. The Church teaches that a salvation is both an act of will and of “cooperation” with the Spirit lived out in the participation of the sacraments and the life of the Body.

In short, we can sort of fake the roles while doing anything, but in order to truly model roles we must live the difference out day by day.

 

[HCTC]

Over time the actual duties of any role change. For example, women no longer have to draw water from a well and carry it home to the family. Modern conveniences and technology have drastically reduced the time necessary to “keep house.” In developed counties no one needs to stay home to wash clothes, wash dishes, prepare food, grow a garden, etc. Children spend far less time at home. They spend more time in school and have more activities outside of school.

At the same time burdens related to the rise of financial systems have changed the actual duties associated with “providing” for a family. The advance of laws and governance have changed the duties associated with “protecting” the family.

As the required duties change, it is to be expected that there will be some shift and sharing of roles. Anything else would compromise the family’s ability to survive and thrive

 

[Tomdstone]

The short answer is “No”.

This is not true because of the example of St. Joan of Arc.

 

[Valdemar]

This is not true because of the example of St. Joan of Arc.

An exception that proves the rule.

Much like the use of the mule by King David.

She is not the model for all women. She is the model of what God can do when men don’t rise up and assert their calling in God.

 

[Book_Worm]

The Gospel at Mass tonight concerned the servant who buried the talent his master gave him and was chastised severely for it. It made me think of this thread.

God has given us different talents. Many women have been blessed with talents that enable them to succeed in areas that were once considered to be the province of men, such as business and politics.

Why would women not be called to account for failing to use their God-given talents just as the servant was?

 

[CatholicWhovian]

The short answer is “No”.

The definition of a role isn’t merely the ability to parrot the word. It is to live it thru life, to accumulate the wisdom, skills and character specific to the role. The belief that one can “know their role” without living it day in and day out is a modernist concept that belies the very essence of patience, long-suffering, care and genuine expression of what the role IS.

It also exposes a very popular idea that knowing is a head grab when instead it is a life commitment. Much like our walk with Christ. Sure there are those ecclesial groups that say all you need to do is make a decision to follow Jesus and you are “in”, but that is NOT the doctrine of the Catholic faith. The Church teaches that a salvation is both an act of will and of “cooperation” with the Spirit lived out in the participation of the sacraments and the life of the Body.

In short, we can sort of fake the roles while doing anything, but in order to truly model roles we must live the difference out day by day.

So following your argument, you’re saying we should restrict certain occupations and job opportunities by sex? That means women should only be in the home and only men can go out into the world? Wouldn’t that be contradictory to what Pope St. John Paul II said that a woman can go into work so long as it doesn’t contradict or hinder her primary goals of her mission as a mother?

Or is your argument about not merely knowing one’s role but acting it as well? That women and men can go into work so long as they live out their respective roles that God has given them? That women should act in their roles as nurturers and live them out while being, let’s say, a corporate CEO as an occupation?

A segway question:
Is there a way we can carry out the argument in support of the biological roles men and women have and how they should act these out in society without sounding “misogynistic” by the ears of the seculars?

 

[CatholicWhovian]

The Gospel at Mass tonight concerned the servant who buried the talent his master gave him and was chastised severely for it. It made me think of this thread.

God has given us different talents. Many women have been blessed with talents that enable them to succeed in areas that were once considered to be the province of men, such as business and politics.

Why would women not be called to account for failing to use their God-given talents just as the servant was?

Which makes a good point regarding allowing women in politics. Women, with their role as mothers, should be allowed to fight for the advocacy of the right to life in the political arena where men fail to do so. And it kind of makes sense regarding the nature of women based on their roles. If a woman has a better ability than a man to sway the political mindset to disallow abortion in a particular state then let her do so.

And this returns to my original question: How can we reconcile biological roles with occupations?

 

[Valdemar]

So following your argument, you’re saying we should restrict certain occupations and job opportunities by sex? That means women should only be in the home and only men can go out into the world? Wouldn’t that be contradictory to what Pope St. John Paul II said that a woman can go into work so long as it doesn’t contradict or hinder her primary goals of her mission as a mother?

Or is your argument about not merely knowing one’s role but acting it as well? That women and men can go into work so long as they live out their respective roles that God has given them? That women should act in their roles as nurturers and live them out while being, let’s say, a corporate CEO as an occupation?

A segway question:
Is there a way we can carry out the argument in support of the biological roles men and women have and how they should act these out in society without sounding “misogynistic” by the ears of the seculars?

Of course certain roles are best met by one sex or the other. Any other interpretation is contradictory to Pope St John Paul II’s writing. The point he was making is that under certain circumstances especially in modern societies choices become dictated by issues other than the mere desires of the individuals. But even then they must live out their special roles. Of course modernists will interpret him to mean anything goes based on the feelings of the person, but that is really nonsense from what he taught.

There is no free lunch. One cannot simply “do it all”. No one can.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Of course certain roles are best met by one sex or the other. Any other interpretation is contradictory to Pope St John Paul II’s writing. The point he was making is that under certain circumstances especially in modern societies choices become dictated by issues other than the mere desires of the individuals. But even then they must live out their special roles. Of course modernists will interpret him to mean anything goes based on the feelings of the person, but that is really nonsense from what he taught.

There is no free lunch. One cannot simply “do it all”. No one can.

I get what you’re saying, but can you give a concrete example to clear things up?

 

[kozlosap]

…Is there a way we can carry out the argument in support of the biological roles men and women have and how they should act these out in society without sounding “misogynistic” by the ears of the seculars?..

I think that there should be a few words added to that last sentence such as “and Catholics*”***

 

[Valdemar]

I get what you’re saying, but can you give a concrete example to clear things up?

Sure.

I’ll bite off a tough one.

Take a women in the military or who is a corporate executive who travels extensively.

How can that person {maybe SOMEONE can, but we are speaking of mere mortals here…} hope to maintain the role Pope St JPII insisted upon if they ARE NOT HOME?

Many easy examples abound.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Sure.

I’ll bite off a tough one.

Take a women in the military or who is a corporate executive who travels extensively.

How can that person {maybe SOMEONE can, but we are speaking of mere mortals here…} hope to maintain the role Pope St JPII insisted upon if they ARE NOT HOME?

Many easy examples abound.

Oh ok. Yeah, maybe they can maintain the role but it would be really difficult. I don’t know any big companies who have women CEOs besides Pepsi’s. But I think there is a way that corporate executives can live out their role as mothers even if they are abroad. The occupation of a CEO doesn’t contradict a woman’s nature nor hiders it since that we live in a world of instant transcontinental communication. A CEO can still tell her children it’s past their bedtime or to do the chores in the house or give motherly advice - through Skype - even if she’s a thousand miles away.

I don’t know much about CEO’s lives but I do know about the lives of female politicians. This reminds me of a Danish television series (Borgen) where the main character becomes a Prime Minister and she had difficulty managing her country and her role as a mother, what being her first time in the front lines of politics and not just merely a member of the Danish Parliament. In the end of the first season she kept her office but everything in her personal life fell apart - with she and her husband having divorced. I think she shouldn’t have taken the advice of “learning from experience”; because if she didn’t she would manage her role as a mother and as the leader of her country.

Of course not all female world leaders experienced this. Our first female President, Corazon Aquino, took her role of being a mother seriously and cared for her children - while being the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. Denmark’s current prime minister (unlike the fictional one in Borgen) is still with her husband. I believe Margaret Thatcher was a good wife and mother while being Britain’s “Iron Lady”. Again some women have the ability to manage being a political leader while acting and living out her role as a mother. Same basic principle I guess.

Women in the military… that’s a prickly issue that I have to give some deep thought about.

 

[HCTC]

Oh ok. Yeah, maybe they can maintain the role but it would be really difficult. I don’t know any big companies who have women CEOs…

Women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies
Fortune 1-500 (26 CEOs)

Mary Barra, GM (#7)
Meg Whitman, HP (#17)
Virginia Rometty, IBM (#23)
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#27)
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#43)
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#59)
Safra Catz, Oracle (co-CEO, #82)
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#86)
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International (#89)
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#99)
Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#108)
Lynn J. Good, Duke Energy (#123)
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#137)
Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#245)
Kimberly Bowers, CST Brands (#266)
Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#267)
Barbara Rentler, Ross Stores (#277)
Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#282)
Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#315)
Susan M. Cameron, Reynolds American Inc. (#329)
Heather Bresch, Mylan (#377)
Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorporated (#412)
Jacqueline Hinman, CH2M Hill (#437)
Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#449)
Lisa Su, Advanced Micro Devices (#474)
Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#481)
Fortune 501-1000 (28 CEOs)

Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#516)
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#522)
Karen W. Katz, The Neiman Marcus Group Inc. (#527)
Wellington J. Denahan, Annaly Capital Management (#538)
Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#541)
Laura J. Alber, Williams-Sonoma (#560)
Elizabeth Smith, Bloomin’ Brands (#590)
Cindy B. Taylor, Oil States International Inc. (#628)
Mindy F. Grossman, HSN (#670)
Patricia Kampling, Alliant Energy (#687)
Constance H. Lau, Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. (#692)
Kimberly Harris, Puget Sound Energy (#703)
Amy Miles, Regal Entertainment (#722)
Susan N. Story, American Water Works Company, Inc. (#745)
Kathryn Bufano, The Bon-Ton Stores (#763)
Debra Cafaro, Ventas (#765)
Mary Dillon, Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance (#793)
Sandra Cochran, Cracker Barrel (#797)
Tamara L. Lundgren, Schnitzer Steel Industries (#803)
Diane M. Sullivan, Brown Shoe Company (#826)
Gayla Delly, Benchmark Electronics (#836)
Denise Ramos, ITT (#839)
Kay Krill, ANN Inc. (#840)
Patti S. Hart, International Game Technology (#874)
Sheryl Palmer, Taylor Morrison Home (#880)
Judy McReynolds, Arkansas Best Corp. (#889)
Lauralee Martin, HCP (#941)
Andrea Ayers, Convergys (#958)

 

[HCTC]

Sure.

I’ll bite off a tough one.

Take a women in the military or who is a corporate executive who travels extensively.

How can that person {maybe SOMEONE can, but we are speaking of mere mortals here…} hope to maintain the role Pope St JPII insisted upon if they ARE NOT HOME?

Many easy examples abound.

A woman serving in the military who has children and has been deployed could arrange for another female member of her family, a sister or her mother for example, to help nurture her children until she returns. Women without children who are so inclined should be able to serve in the military. Unless I am mistaken, in Israel both men and women are required to serve in the military.

 

[HCTC]

As far as women CEO’s, Marissa Mayer serves as an interesting case study that reveals some details regarding ways in which women executives deal with working and child rearing as well as how technology has changed the work options available not only to women but also to men:

"In February 2013, Mayer oversaw a major personnel policy change at Yahoo! that required all remote-working employees to convert to in-office roles.[52] Having worked from home toward the end of her pregnancy, Mayer returned to work after giving birth to a boy, and had an expensive nursery built next to her office suite—Mayer was consequently criticized for the telecommuting ban.

“In April 2013, Mayer changed Yahoo!'s maternity leave policy, lengthening its time allowance and providing a cash bonus to parents.[54] CNN noted this was in line with other Silicon Valley companies, such as Facebook and Google.”

 

[Valdemar]

A woman serving in the military who has children and has been deployed could arrange for another female member of her family, a sister or her mother for example, to help nurture her children until she returns. Women without children who are so inclined should be able to serve in the military. Unless I am mistaken, in Israel both men and women are required to serve in the military.

Well, of course arrangements can be made. Postpartum surrogate mothering has occurred in every century of human existence. Such realities do not however serve as models of “motherhood”, they often exist as models of how not to and/or as how to create tremendous obstacles to effective motherhood. Indeed, the culture of the last half century has made the definition of “motherhood” extensive, vague, inclusive of just about every style and in the end, quite murky.

IIRC women in Israel may serve but are not required to serve in combat forces.

Having said that, they serve under a system of interior lines which is dramatically different than that under which our forces serves. We have distant deployments all over the globe. I suspect that right there would offer some relief to parental responsibilities.

 

[HCTC]

Well, of course arrangements can be made. Postpartum surrogate mothering has occurred in every century of human existence. Such realities do not however serve as models of “motherhood”, they often exist as models of how not to and/or as how to create tremendous obstacles to effective motherhood. Indeed, the culture of the last half century has made the definition of “motherhood” extensive, vague, inclusive of just about every style and in the end, quite murky.

IIRC women in Israel may serve but are not required to serve in combat forces.

Having said that, they serve under a system of interior lines which is dramatically different than that under which our forces serves. We have distant deployments all over the globe. I suspect that right there would offer some relief to parental responsibilities.

From Wikipedia:

Conscription exists in Israel for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although non-Druze Arab citizens of Israel are exempt; other exceptions are made on religious, physical or psychological grounds. The normal length of compulsory service is currently three years for men and two years for women.

 

[Valdemar]

From Wikipedia:

Conscription exists in Israel for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although non-Druze Arab citizens of Israel are exempt; other exceptions are made on religious, physical or psychological grounds. The normal length of compulsory service is currently three years for men and two years for women.

Service yes, but I still believe women are not required to serve in active combat arms units. IIRC they DID but do no longer require it.

 

[Sarcelle]

Sure.

I’ll bite off a tough one.

Take a women in the military or who is a corporate executive who travels extensively.

How can that person {maybe SOMEONE can, but we are speaking of mere mortals here…} hope to maintain the role Pope St JPII insisted upon if they ARE NOT HOME?

Many easy examples abound.

In the above post you mentioned women.

You also mentioned the phrase " IF THEY ARE NOT HOME".

I can see the point of the woman in question is a Mom. No one can replace her in the life of her children. But what about women who are not mothers? Should they also stay home?

Not all women are mothers.