Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

[Serap]

As a SAHD I feel so. . . inadequate now. . .

(sarcasm)

it’s only one opinion…hardly the opinion of the majority of people. most people I know support SAHP (parents)…daddy mommy…does’t matter.

 

[knotanes]

You know what, the more I thought about the Christian view of wives submitting to husbands and husbands loving wives, the more I got all confused and resentful.

I now do what’s best for my marriage and don’t think about the rest. I support him when he needs support and I back off when I know I won’t win “this” argument.

Divorce is so prominent, so I have just decided to beat to my own drum and do what’s best for MY marriage without thinking about being “submissive” and all that stuff.

Exactly. We’re not all plopped out of the same gender jello-mold.

The important part is to be a team player… which basically translates to being selfless as often as possible (male or female).

 

[ryecroft]

Yup. I am the breadwinner, and my husband stays home. In my profession, there are plenty of women who are the breadwinners and who have stay-at-home dads for husbands. I think the larger question (for BOTH parents) is to make sure that raising the children well is the FIRST priority. Whatever a particular family does to make this happen is fine - it’s up to them to figure out what works best. In many cases this can involve a stay-at-home parent, since it makes the logistics of childcare infinitely easier, but it doesn’t have to.

What I don’t understand, is that in a Church founded by Jesus, who treated women as equals and moral agents in their own right, the onus for EVERYTHING falls on women - childcare, submission in marriage, modesty, chastity. Men are naturally good and righteous and it’s all the woman’s fault. And when men abuse their privileged status and take it out on the woman, it may not be the woman’s fault (although it probably is), but it is certainly once again the woman’s place to meekly submit to the circumstances created by the men around her.

Frankly I thank God (literally) that I live in an age where I can take control of my life (and my kids’ lives), and am treated with the professional respect I deserve in the workplace, which allows me to fulfill my God-given responsibilities at home by providing a place to live and food to eat. I shudder to think of what would happen if I went through what I went through 50 years ago. I probably would not be alive to tell my story.

Portrait seems to believe that your husband would be among the “unnatural and bizzare and are a denial of God-given male masculinity and should therefore be eshewed and denounced in the strongest terms. Being a homemaker, like baby rearing, is exclusivley a feminine preserve into which men should not trespass…” If the Church ever comes out and says what Portait says regarding a woman’s role after marriage is official Church teaching, I don’t know how the Church would survive - I would not want to bring up my kids or God kids in a Church that taught that was the way it had to be - I want my kids growing up (yes even the girls) knowing that whatever they want to do they can - if it happens one of them wants to stay home and take care of the kids (whether it’s the husband of wife) that’s wonderful and if they choose a career that’s wonderful too! One of the things that scared me so much about what Portrait said was that to me it really was coming close to saying ‘women need to stay home barefoot and pregnant - that should be their main goal in life - they’re women this should be their desire…’ I don’t want that for any child/God child of mine unless they want it for themselves!
God Belss
Rye

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Some positions, dear friend, are highly unsuitable for a women and Church teaching is not required to tell us that sort of thing.

It surprises me, and possibly others also, that you ask for irrefutable evidence to show that women fighting in combat zones is both unacceptable and distasteful. Surely that, dear friend, is more than apparent to those who profess religion.

Again, that marriage is normative for men and women needs no official verification from the Church. We learn from Sacred Scripture that it was not good for man to be alone, which is why Eve was created to be a ‘helpmate’ for him. Indeed, this was the whole basis for the institution of marriage, as well as the procreation and education of children and the mutual fulfilment of husband and wife. However, I have already stated in previous post that I accept that not all women will marry, for one reason or another. Nevertheless, it is wrong for a women to reject entering into wedlock, simply so she can selfishly pursue a career without having to get ‘tied down to family life’. The Church has never endorsed such a position and does not do so now.

It is the women, according to St. Paul, who is to be the “worker at home” (Titus 2: 5), not the man. Thus it is a resonable deduction that it is the duty of the man to be the sole breadwinner in the family. Surely the Church, dear friend, does not need to teach such a basic truth as the husband’s duty to support his family. Moreover, any devout Catholic man will wish to do that anyway, unless he is prevented from doing so by some chronic illness. Most decent Catholic men take a delight in providing for their wife and children.

God bless and goodbye for now. This will be my final post today, but I hope you and all other contributors to the current thread will enjoy the rest of their day.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

You never answered my question:

Would women even be educated in this *ideal *world that you imagine?
What would be the point in a society where they could never use such knewledge?

After all, illiterate women are even easier to relegate to the domestic sphere (and that is part of your ideal).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Portrait seems to believe that your husband would be among the “unnatural and bizzare and are a denial of God-given male masculinity and should therefore be eshewed and denounced in the strongest terms. Being a homemaker, like baby rearing, is exclusivley a feminine preserve into which men should not trespass…” If the Church ever comes out and says what Portait says regarding a woman’s role after marriage is official Church teaching, I don’t know how the Church would survive - I would not want to bring up my kids or God kids in a Church that taught that was the way it had to be - I want my kids growing up (yes even the girls) knowing that whatever they want to do they can - if it happens one of them wants to stay home and take care of the kids (whether it’s the husband of wife) that’s wonderful and if they choose a career that’s wonderful too! **One of the things that scared me so much about what Portrait said was that to me it really was coming close to saying ‘women need to stay home barefoot and pregnant - that should be their main goal in life - they’re women this should be their desire…’ I don’t want that for any child/God child of mine unless they want it for themselves!**God Belss
Rye

That IS what he was basically saying.
Remember that Portrait agreed with the Catholic Planet article that I cited.

 

[OurBeloved]

You never answered my question:

Would women even be educated in this *ideal *world that you imagine?
What would be the point in a society where they could never use such knewledge?

After all, illiterate women are even easier to relegate to the domestic sphere (and that is part of your ideal).

I don’t mean to speak on behalf of Portrait but I think there might be some confusion of what is being said.

The idea advanced by Portrait is one that hinges on the fact that men and women, though equal in dignity, are also different. This difference makes women more fitted for a certain role than a man.

We might want to say men and women have perfectly interchangeable roles but I am sure we can all agree that asking a man to breastfeed a baby is not going to work. So what Portrait is getting at is the existence of such roles between men and women that should not be interchanged.

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family. Women are more nurturing than men and weaker in strength so it made sense for them to stay at home and raise the children to be good Christians.

This in no way means that a wife should uneducated. Take the wife of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More himself educated his wife in many subjects. So wife at home doesn’t mean she has to be uneducated. If she is uneducated, how would she raise her children?

Perhaps this brings us to another misunderstood notion in today’s world on what it means to ‘raise children’. The current use of the phrase seems to imply the mere supply of nutrition, lodging, schooling and spending time with them on summer vacations. The biblical responsibility of ‘raising children’ is however much broader and parents do in-fact neglect such responsibilities. Such responsibilities would be more effectively accomplished if the mother was educated as well.

What I think that we should first all agree on and condemn is the idea that men and women are equal in all things and therefore their roles can be interchanged. Such a claim is not just theologically and morally incorrect but biologically as well.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t mean to speak on behalf of Portrait but I think there might be some confusion of what is being said.

The idea advanced by Portrait is one that hinges on the fact that men and women, though equal in dignity, are also different. This difference makes women more fitted for a certain role than a man.

We might want to say men and women have perfectly interchangeable roles but I am sure we can all agree that asking a man to breastfeed a baby is not going to work. So what Portrait is getting at is the existence of such roles between men and women that should not be interchanged.

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family. Women are more nurturing than men and weaker in strength so it made sense for them to stay at home and raise the children to be good Christians.

This in no way means that a wife should uneducated. Take the wife of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More himself educated his wife in many subjects. So wife at home doesn’t mean she has to be uneducated. If she is uneducated, how would she raise her children?

Perhaps this brings us to another misunderstood notion in today’s world on what it means to ‘raise children’. The current use of the phrase seems to imply the mere supply of nutrition, lodging, schooling and spending time with them on summer vacations. The biblical responsibility of ‘raising children’ is however much broader and parents do in-fact neglect such responsibilities. Such responsibilities would be more effectively accomplished if the mother was educated as well.

What I think that we should first all agree on and condemn is the idea that men and women are equal in all things and therefore their roles can be interchanged. Such a claim is not just theologically and morally incorrect but biologically as well.

I will let Portrait speak for himself.
Its worth noting however, that if the ideas Portrait (in this thread) has said he supports were implemented, women would essentially be reduced to chattel dependent on their fathers and husbands for everything (and subject to their male relatives every whim).

If you want to know what this would look like in practice, study how women are treated in places like Afghanistan.

 

[Litcrit]

…

We might want to say men and women have perfectly interchangeable roles but I am sure we can all agree that asking a man to breastfeed a baby is not going to work. …

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family. Women are more nurturing than men and weaker in strength so it made sense for them to stay at home and raise the children to be good Christians.

This in no way means that a wife should uneducated. Take the wife of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More himself educated his wife in many subjects. So wife at home doesn’t mean she has to be uneducated. If she is uneducated, how would she raise her children?

…

Can you think of another example? Breastfeeding is the only sex-specific parenting task I can think of. I had more than 18 months of maternity leave with both children and continued breastfeeding even after I went back to work. My husband wasn’t expected to breastfeed. He did, and does, however, change diapers, feed the children solid food, play with them and read to them.

Wherever actual physical labor was required to feed the family throughout history, both sexes actually worked (extended family farms in villages). It was only at brief moments in the history of individual privileged societies that women actually stayed at home while men worked.

It is my intellect and education that enable me to be the breadwinner more easily, not my physical strength. My husband’s superior physical strength makes cleaning and scrubbing easier for him than it is for me.

More was at home much of the time. He certainly didn’t have a 9-5 job. Very few men were away from home in More’s day. He had the lead role in raising and educating his children.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t mean to speak on behalf of Portrait but I think there might be some confusion of what is being said.

The idea advanced by Portrait is one that hinges on the fact that men and women, though equal in dignity, are also different. This difference makes women more fitted for a certain role than a man.

We might want to say men and women have perfectly interchangeable roles but I am sure we can all agree that asking a man to breastfeed a baby is not going to work. So what Portrait is getting at is the existence of such roles between men and women that should not be interchanged.

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family. Women are more nurturing than men and weaker in strength so it made sense for them to stay at home and raise the children to be good Christians.

This in no way means that a wife should uneducated. Take the wife of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More himself educated his wife in many subjects. So wife at home doesn’t mean she has to be uneducated. If she is uneducated, how would she raise her children?

Perhaps this brings us to another misunderstood notion in today’s world on what it means to ‘raise children’. The current use of the phrase seems to imply the mere supply of nutrition, lodging, schooling and spending time with them on summer vacations. The biblical responsibility of ‘raising children’ is however much broader and parents do in-fact neglect such responsibilities. Such responsibilities would be more effectively accomplished if the mother was educated as well.

What I think that we should first all agree on and condemn is the idea that men and women are equal in all things and therefore their roles can be interchanged. Such a claim is not just theologically and morally incorrect but biologically as well.

OurBeloved:

I tried to give Portrait the benefit of the doubt with respect to this, however, after having a short PM discussion with him I can assure you that he is not basing it off of differences between men and women. Rather he is basing it off of his interpretation of certain scripture passages following the interpretation that some in the church

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t mean to speak on behalf of Portrait but I think there might be some confusion of what is being said.

The idea advanced by Portrait is one that hinges on the fact that men and women, though equal in dignity, are also different. This difference makes women more fitted for a certain role than a man.

We might want to say men and women have perfectly interchangeable roles but I am sure we can all agree that asking a man to breastfeed a baby is not going to work. So what Portrait is getting at is the existence of such roles between men and women that should not be interchanged.

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family. Women are more nurturing than men and weaker in strength so it made sense for them to stay at home and raise the children to be good Christians.

This in no way means that a wife should uneducated. Take the wife of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More himself educated his wife in many subjects. So wife at home doesn’t mean she has to be uneducated. If she is uneducated, how would she raise her children?

Perhaps this brings us to another misunderstood notion in today’s world on what it means to ‘raise children’. The current use of the phrase seems to imply the mere supply of nutrition, lodging, schooling and spending time with them on summer vacations. The biblical responsibility of ‘raising children’ is however much broader and parents do in-fact neglect such responsibilities. Such responsibilities would be more effectively accomplished if the mother was educated as well.

What I think that we should first all agree on and condemn is the idea that men and women are equal in all things and therefore their roles can be interchanged. Such a claim is not just theologically and morally incorrect but biologically as well.

OurBeloved:

I tried to give Portrait the benefit of the doubt with respect to this, however, after having a short PM discussion with him I can assure you that he is not basing it off of differences between men and women. Rather he is basing it off of his interpretation of certain scripture passages following the interpretation that some in the church have held as true. I entirely agree with you that since there are real differences between men and women there are real differences in the roles they should play, however, it is important to distinguish between real differences and perceived differences. In the past it was perceived that the differences between men and women were so great that women should not be allowed to vote. However, that was clearly simply a perceived difference rather than a real difference. It is important to distinguish the real differences from the perceived differences when trrying to put down absolute rules as to what each gender should and should not do. The other distinction that must be made is that every marriage is between two individual people, not just between thegeneric ‘woman’ and generic ‘man’. Hence it must be understood that while certain differences hold in general between men and women, on occasion, depending on which individuals are involved in a marriage, you will find a couple for whom those general differences do not actually exist, and sometimes are even reversed.

In summary, there are

1. some things, such as breastfeeding which must always be relegated to one gender or the other and can always be used to determine different roles between men and women.
2. some things which are generally really differences between men and women, such as the fact that generally speaking women talk more then men, although such generic differences are not always the case for a particular couple, and so can only be held up as a general rule for determining gender roles
3. and finally there are the perceived differences which have no basis in reality such as the fact that women were perceived to belong to men, men were perceived to have a natural authority over women no matter what the situation between the two, These differences are not at all real and so should not ever be used as a basis for determining what the different roles of the different genders are.

 

[Baelor]

The idea advanced by Portrait is one that hinges on the fact that men and women, though equal in dignity, are also different. This difference makes women more fitted for a certain role than a man.

Indeed, but this argument must be applied correctly: what is the difference between men and women, and how does this inform our determination of their roles?

For example, if children raised primarily by fathers were more likely to be active in their faith, would this matter? What makes women particularly suited to raising (versus bearing) children?

The traditional set-up of men who work and women who stay at home worked extremely well at supporting this difference in roles. Men are naturally stronger than women in physical strength so it made sense for them to work to protect and win bread for the family.

This is an argument that relies on context. First, the fact that something worked well in the past is not sufficient reason to reject another system that works well. Second, “natural strength” is not very relevant in the workforce today.

 

[OurBeloved]

Indeed, but this argument must be applied correctly: what is the difference between men and women, and how does this inform our determination of their roles?

For example, if children raised primarily by fathers were more likely to be active in their faith, would this matter? What makes women particularly suited to raising (versus bearing) children?

True. But I was thinking more along the lines of who would be more nurturing? It seems, at least among mammals, the female of the species is the most nurturing. Perhaps due to carrying ones young for 9 months (in the case of humans) so intimately has an impact on the mothers psychology toward her offspring.

But in general, women, unless suffering from a psychological condition, tend to be the more nurturing toward ones children. Considering they do breastfeed the children, there is an emotional bond between mother and child.

So would it not be appropriate to suggest that the mother should be the person who spends the most time with the children?

This is not to suggest that fathers are off the hook, but more so to suggest that giving tasks to the woman that might lead her to undermine the close and natural relationship she can build with her children would seem bad.

This is an argument that relies on context. First, the fact that something worked well in the past is not sufficient reason to reject another system that works well. Second, “natural strength” is not very relevant in the workforce today.

Yes, certainly. I did not intend this to say that we should follow the same set-up because it worked then. I just wanted to point out how the past values did reflect the gender roles according to that context.

The reason why I feel the mother at home is a necessary thing, as I did mention in some other thread before as well, is due to the idea of the mother being the more nurturing and most suitable person to be easily become closer to the child. The breast feeding, the carrying of the womb, all of this tends to give good opportunities for the mother to form a special bond with the child compared to a father.

So I feel that while context of work has certainly changed, the importance of the mother close to her children is an important factor that might transcend the issues of the time. Therefore unless due to an extreme necessity, it seems like a good arrangement to follow.

 

[OurBeloved]

OurBeloved:

I tried to give Portrait the benefit of the doubt with respect to this, however, after having a short PM discussion with him I can assure you that he is not basing it off of differences between men and women. Rather he is basing it off of his interpretation of certain scripture passages following the interpretation that some in the church have held as true. I entirely agree with you that since there are real differences between men and women there are real differences in the roles they should play, however, it is important to distinguish between real differences and perceived differences. In the past it was perceived that the differences between men and women were so great that women should not be allowed to vote. However, that was clearly simply a perceived difference rather than a real difference. It is important to distinguish the real differences from the perceived differences when trrying to put down absolute rules as to what each gender should and should not do. The other distinction that must be made is that every marriage is between two individual people, not just between thegeneric ‘woman’ and generic ‘man’. Hence it must be understood that while certain differences hold in general between men and women, on occasion, depending on which individuals are involved in a marriage, you will find a couple for whom those general differences do not actually exist, and sometimes are even reversed.

In summary, there are

1. some things, such as breastfeeding which must always be relegated to one gender or the other and can always be used to determine different roles between men and women.
2. some things which are generally really differences between men and women, such as the fact that generally speaking women talk more then men, although such generic differences are not always the case for a particular couple, and so can only be held up as a general rule for determining gender roles
3. and finally there are the perceived differences which have no basis in reality such as the fact that women were perceived to belong to men, men were perceived to have a natural authority over women no matter what the situation between the two, These differences are not at all real and so should not ever be used as a basis for determining what the different roles of the different genders are.

I agree with the perceived differences vs actual. I also should point out that it was the church that started giving women a status of equal dignity and worked towards correcting these perceived differences.

I don’t think I disagree with you that for an example a woman in a relationship will be stronger than a man, as well. Perhaps this was a result of a stronger woman falling in love with a less stronger man, or was a result of a disability that struck the husband after marriage etc. It could happen. In either case, it would seem that these are exceptions.

It would also seem that the values like a mother being able to be more nurturing to ones children than a father is something that transcends these differences (unless the mother has a psychological condition or some extreme circumstance).

So would it not be safe to say that in this sense, a mother at home with her children is a more suitable arrangement, unless due to extreme circumstances?

In other words, I think the general image of our society should not be a mother who works but a mother who stays at home and gets involved in the raising of her children. There will certainly be families that will fall under the exception but that should be out of necessity rather than out of preference.

As for natural authority, this is a very complex issue. It also depends on the context. In the context of teaching authority, according to the church, men have the only authority (the teaching authority here doesn’t mean teaching in the context of teach the faith but rather in the context of liturgy and formation of doctrine and dogma). There is also a natural ordering of creation that is to be reflected in marriage. But this would again be in the context of marriage rather than in the context of everyday life between every man and woman. So I think it best to avoid this complex issue for now.

 

[AthenaC]

My experience with people with this ultra-conservative view is that it is a bit emotionally unbalanced.

It is my opinion that, so long as God and husband (or wife) and family are priorities in one’s life, then there is liberty to handle it all in any way the couple sees fit. Requiring everyone to fit in the same mold is narrow-minded and smacks of a psycholocigal imbalance. If we could have equality with women without the anti-child/anti-marriage propaganda in the culture, it would be perfect.

A single woman can and should do as she darn well pleases, so long as it is not sinful.

I have had to struggle with this very issue from the side of wanting to be just a wife and mother, but, my husband requiring me to work outside the home. I know a couple who lives an authentic Catholic lifestyle with him at home, and her with the high-profile job. They are pillars of the community.

Thank you! The voices of reason are emerging from the woodwork!

Portrait seems to believe that your husband would be among the “unnatural and bizzare and are a denial of God-given male masculinity and should therefore be eshewed and denounced in the strongest terms. Being a homemaker, like baby rearing, is exclusivley a feminine preserve into which men should not trespass…” If the Church ever comes out and says what Portait says regarding a woman’s role after marriage is official Church teaching, I don’t know how the Church would survive - I would not want to bring up my kids or God kids in a Church that taught that was the way it had to be - I want my kids growing up (yes even the girls) knowing that whatever they want to do they can - if it happens one of them wants to stay home and take care of the kids (whether it’s the husband of wife) that’s wonderful and if they choose a career that’s wonderful too! One of the things that scared me so much about what Portrait said was that to me it really was coming close to saying ‘women need to stay home barefoot and pregnant - that should be their main goal in life - they’re women this should be their desire…’ I don’t want that for any child/God child of mine unless they want it for themselves!
God Belss
Rye

Exactly. Women need to be able to secure their futures, period. Children should be prioritized (by the FAMILY not just the WOMAN), but in this arena, individual choice is a great social good.

 

[Baelor]

True. But I was thinking more along the lines of who would be more nurturing? It seems, at least among mammals, the female of the species is the most nurturing. Perhaps due to carrying ones young for 9 months (in the case of humans) so intimately has an impact on the mothers psychology toward her offspring.

If a particular woman is less nurturing than her husband, then, he would be the most suitable person to raise the children in that family?

But in general, women, unless suffering from a psychological condition, tend to be the more nurturing toward ones children. Considering they do breastfeed the children, there is an emotional bond between mother and child.

I do not think that women who are not nurturing suffer from a psychological condition even in general. I think that different individuals have different personalities.

So would it not be appropriate to suggest that the mother should be the person who spends the most time with the children?

I would suggest that the parent who is best with the children should be the person who spends the most time with them.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree with the perceived differences vs actual. I also should point out that it was the church that started giving women a status of equal dignity and worked towards correcting these perceived differences.

I don’t think I disagree with you that for an example a woman in a relationship will be stronger than a man, as well. Perhaps this was a result of a stronger woman falling in love with a less stronger man, or was a result of a disability that struck the husband after marriage etc. It could happen. In either case, it would seem that these are exceptions.

It would also seem that the values like a mother being able to be more nurturing to ones children than a father is something that transcends these differences (unless the mother has a psychological condition or some extreme circumstance).

So would it not be safe to say that in this sense, a mother at home with her children is a more suitable arrangement, unless due to extreme circumstances?

In other words, I think the general image of our society should not be a mother who works but a mother who stays at home and gets involved in the raising of her children. There will certainly be families that will fall under the exception but that should be out of necessity rather than out of preference.

As for natural authority, this is a very complex issue. It also depends on the context. In the context of teaching authority, according to the church, men have the only authority (the teaching authority here doesn’t mean teaching in the context of teach the faith but rather in the context of liturgy and formation of doctrine and dogma). There is also a natural ordering of creation that is to be reflected in marriage. But this would again be in the context of marriage rather than in the context of everyday life between every man and woman. So I think it best to avoid this complex issue for now.

I don’t think we have any major disagreements. However, when I suggested to Portrait that the difference in roles between men and women should be dependent on real differences between the men and women Portrait disagreed with this and claimed that these rules must apply always and everywhere no matter what the real differences are between them, so I don’t think he is saying what you think he is.

 

[OurBeloved]

If a particular woman is less nurturing than her husband, then, he would be the most suitable person to raise the children in that family?

I do not think that women who are not nurturing suffer from a psychological condition even in general. I think that different individuals have different personalities.

Well, I was referring to something along the lines of Postpartum Depression when I said Psychological disorders.

But what I meant to say was that in general, does it not seem that women have a better chance of bonding with ones offspring considering 9 months of carrying in the womb and years of breast feeding?

In this sense, aren’t mothers, in general, more suitable for the nurturing role?

I would suggest that the parent who is best with the children should be the person who spends the most time with them.

I agree. I am merely suggesting that a mother, considering the unique forms of connection she has with the child from the moment of birth, has a higher chance of being successful at being good with the children compared to the father. Would that not seem reasonable?

 

[OurBeloved]

I don’t think we have any major disagreements. However, when I suggested to Portrait that the difference in roles between men and women should be dependent on real differences between the men and women Portrait disagreed with this and claimed that these rules must apply always and everywhere no matter what the real differences are between them, so I don’t think he is saying what you think he is.

Well, it is quiet possible that I am not saying the same thing as Portrait.

But in a sense, I do believe that what I said applies to all times and places as well. Not in the sense that every family must, even when the husband is paralyzed, rely on him to provide but rather that society in general must be predisposed a certain way. So it might be that Portrait is emphasizing the same as I am. I don’t think Portrait is saying that a husband who is paralyzed should still provide for the family. The wife in this case will have to provide but it would be unfortunate since the children will have no one. But it is out of necessity. Governments should also try and accommodate for families in this situation to provide some income perhaps so that the mother doesn’t have to work often.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I agree with the perceived differences vs actual. I also should point out that it was the church that started giving women a status of equal dignity and worked towards correcting these perceived differences.

I don’t think I disagree with you that for an example a woman in a relationship will be stronger than a man, as well. Perhaps this was a result of a stronger woman falling in love with a less stronger man, or was a result of a disability that struck the husband after marriage etc. It could happen. In either case, it would seem that these are exceptions.

It would also seem that the values like a mother being able to be more nurturing to ones children than a father is something that transcends these differences (unless the mother has a psychological condition or some extreme circumstance).

So would it not be safe to say that in this sense, a mother at home with her children is a more suitable arrangement, unless due to extreme circumstances?

In other words, I think the general image of our society should not be a mother who works but a mother who stays at home and gets involved in the raising of her children. There will certainly be families that will fall under the exception but that should be out of necessity rather than out of preference.

As for natural authority, this is a very complex issue. It also depends on the context. In the context of teaching authority, according to the church, men have the only authority (the teaching authority here doesn’t mean teaching in the context of teach the faith but rather in the context of liturgy and formation of doctrine and dogma). There is also a natural ordering of creation that is to be reflected in marriage. But this would again be in the context of marriage rather than in the context of everyday life between every man and woman. So I think it best to avoid this complex issue for now.

Then why are you talking about it at all?

 

[OurBeloved]

Then why are you talking about it at all?

Because it was brought up by the person I was replying to