What does Catholic/Christian femininity mean to you?

[DebChris]

swolf: Perhaps you’d like to read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter " Mulieris Dignitatem" for more insight into the spousal relationship.

Specifically, "In the “unity of the two”, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist “side by side” or “together”, but they are also called to exist mutually “one for the other”.

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

In particular, see section VII (“The Church- The Bride of Christ”), 24 and 25.

From 24:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

And 25:

This is easily seen in regard to the person of the “bride”. According to the Letter to the Ephesians, the bride is the Church, just as for the Prophets the bride was Israel. She is therefore a collective subject and not an individual person. This collective subject is the People of God, a community made up of many persons, both women and men. “Christ has loved the Church” precisely as a community, as the People of God. At the same time, in this Church, which in the same passage is also called his “body” (cf. Eph 5:23), he has loved every individual person. For Christ has redeemed all without exception, every man and woman. It is precisely this love of God which is expressed in the Redemption; the spousal character of this love reaches completion in the history of humanity and of the world.

** Christ has entered this history and remains in it as the Bridegroom who “has given himself”. “To give” means “to become a sincere gift” in the most complete and radical way: “Greater love has no man than this” (Jn 15:13). According to this conception, all human beings - both women and men - are called through the Church, to be the “Bride” of Christ, the Redeemer of the world. In this way “being the bride”, and thus the “feminine” element, becomes a symbol of all that is “human”, according to the words of Paul: “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).**

My mother-in-law had a plaque in house:
Woman was not created from man’s head to be above him
Nor from his foot to trodden upon by him.
She was formed from his rib to walk beside him,
And under his arm to be protected by him.

 

[SWolf]

Casti Connubii says much differently.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

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

1. 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; 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. 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.

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 .**

Note: Casti Connubii is an encyclical, and carries more weight in the Church than JPII’s Apostolic Letter

As a side note, I read JPII’s Love and Responsibility, and his pastoral letter on the dignity of women. He states some things very well, while some are in clear contradiction to Apostolic teaching, and simply does not make sense in practical use.

The classic scenario I can think of is if there’s only one seat on the lifeboat. How does mutual submission work in this? It really can’t work at all. With classic male headship, it’s simple. The man gives the seat to his wife, saving her, regardless of her protestations on the subject.

 

[Xantippe]

Interesting. How do you interpret the following verses?

1 Peter 3
3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4* but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious*. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, …

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:8
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Dunno, what do you make of Proverbs 31:17? The virtuous woman “sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.” That’s essentially what alphawoman is talking about–vigor, energy, focus, and the application of all one’s native intelligence to daily tasks and responsibilities.

I think you are underestimating how important those qualities are for a family’s welfare and success. Husbands, even very good and loving husbands, don’t know even a fraction of what’s going on at home. If a wife and mother were to wait for instructions and only do what her husband explicitly asked her to do, 99 times out of 100, she’d be a really lousy wife and mother. A good wife and a good mother needs to be much more of a self-starter.

I’ll give you an example from my own experience. When I was on my own, I ran my simple budget pretty well. However, when I got married to my husband I handed off all financiall worries to him and just forgot about it for basically the next 8 years. I let my husband be “daddy” and I tuned out a lot of noises that he was making about our bills. There were never any huge irresponsible purchases (just lots of unplanned $10-30 ones), but I didn’t have any idea of what the big picture was or where we were. Toward the end of that period, I suddenly realized that housing prices had doubled, our debt was the same or worse, we hadn’t managed to save anything, and we were no closer to buying a house than we’d been 5 years earlier. Around that time, I discovered Dave Ramsey. My husband started contributing to his retirement. We started doing a monthly budget every month and lived within our means for the first time in…ever. We started tithing. We paid off all of our debt over 2-3 years (our first car, credit card debt, my student loan). We built an emergency fund. We saved for our first house. We bought our first house. We paid for small household projects and repairs in cash. We paid for our first minivan completely in cash. We continue to live within our means and to plan for the future. It has been nearly 8 years since we did our first monthly budget together.

Our experience was that it didn’t work for me to just sit back and be a backseat passenger to our family’s financial life. It didn’t work for us, and I now see that it was laziness, childishness and shirking on my part. Although my husband still pays the actual bills, we do a budget together, I live by the budget, and I’m the planner and the big picture person at our house. Before I got on board, our family didn’t have a planner or a big picture person.

 

[SWolf]

Dunno, what do you make of Proverbs 31:17? The virtuous woman “sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.” That’s essentially what alphawoman is talking about–vigor, energy, focus, and the application of all one’s native intelligence to daily tasks and responsibilities.

I think you are underestimating how important those qualities are for a family’s welfare and success. Husbands, even very good and loving husbands, don’t know even a fraction of what’s going on at home. If a wife and mother were to wait for instructions and only do what her husband explicitly asked her to do, 99 times out of 100, she’d be a really lousy wife and mother. A good wife and a good mother needs to be much more of a self-starter.

I’ll give you an example from my own experience. When I was on my own, I ran my simple budget pretty well. However, when I got married to my husband I handed off all financiall worries to him and just forgot about it for basically the next 8 years. I let my husband be “daddy” and I tuned out a lot of noises that he was making about our bills. There were never any huge irresponsible purchases (just lots of unplanned $10-30 ones), but I didn’t have any idea of what the big picture was or where we were. Toward the end of that period, I suddenly realized that housing prices had doubled, our debt was the same or worse, we hadn’t managed to save anything, and we were no closer to buying a house than we’d been 5 years earlier. Around that time, I discovered Dave Ramsey. My husband started contributing to his retirement. We started doing a monthly budget every month and lived within our means for the first time in…ever. We started tithing. We paid off all of our debt over 2-3 years (our first car, credit card debt, my student loan). We built an emergency fund. We saved for our first house. We bought our first house. We paid for small household projects and repairs in cash. We paid for our first minivan completely in cash. We continue to live within our means and to plan for the future. It has been nearly 8 years since we did our first monthly budget together.

Our experience was that it didn’t work for me to just sit back and be a backseat passenger to our family’s financial life. It didn’t work for us, and I now see that it was laziness, childishness and shirking on my part. Although my husband still pays the actual bills, we do a budget together, I live by the budget, and I’m the planner and the big picture person at our house. Before I got on board, our family didn’t have a planner or a big picture person.

I’m sorry if I seem daft, but I don’t see anything in this post that contradicts what I said.

My wife and I do monthly budgets together. I strongly recommend any other family does the same.

 

[Walking_Home]

swolf: Perhaps you’d like to read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter " Mulieris Dignitatem" for more insight into the spousal relationship.

Specifically, "In the “unity of the two”, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist “side by side” or “together”, but they are also called to exist mutually “one for the other”.

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

In particular, see section VII (“The Church- The Bride of Christ”), 24 and 25.

From 24:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

And 25:

This is easily seen in regard to the person of the “bride”. According to the Letter to the Ephesians, the bride is the Church, just as for the Prophets the bride was Israel. She is therefore a collective subject and not an individual person. This collective subject is the People of God, a community made up of many persons, both women and men. “Christ has loved the Church” precisely as a community, as the People of God. At the same time, in this Church, which in the same passage is also called his “body” (cf. Eph 5:23), he has loved every individual person. For Christ has redeemed all without exception, every man and woman. It is precisely this love of God which is expressed in the Redemption; the spousal character of this love reaches completion in the history of humanity and of the world.

** Christ has entered this history and remains in it as the Bridegroom who “has given himself”. “To give” means “to become a sincere gift” in the most complete and radical way: “Greater love has no man than this” (Jn 15:13). According to this conception, all human beings - both women and men - are called through the Church, to be the “Bride” of Christ, the Redeemer of the world. In this way “being the bride”, and thus the “feminine” element, becomes a symbol of all that is “human”, according to the words of Paul: “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).**

---

 

[Walking_Home]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on marriage: The mutual subjection (submission) of husband and wife.

IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."147 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."148

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."149 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens**, to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,”**150 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

 

[Xantippe]

But that’s not actually what it says.

Christ *sacrificed *himself for His Church.
The Church *submits *itself to Christ.

Christ does not submit Himself to His Church, as it is Christ who dictates the Divine Law, and the Church submits to Christ.

So the dynamic is actually:
The Husband sacrifices himself to his family.
The Wife submits herself to her husband.

Outside of marriage, there are plenty of strong, independent women whom the Bible praises. Judith comes to mind. However, that is not the dynamic between Husband and Wife.

So, wives and mothers never ever sacrifice for their families.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

Odd.

I think you’re making too strong of an opposition between the two roles. Sacrifice is submission and submission is sacrifice. See Philipians 2:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very naturea God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very natureb of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!"

 

[SWolf]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on marriage: The mutual subjection (submission) of husband and wife.

By the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband in turn giving up his life for the wife, then they are both mutually submitting in their own way. That’s the only way it can be reconciled with scripture. I personally think it’s clumsy use of language, and misleading, but technically correct.

Like I stated earlier, if there’s one seat on a lifeboat on a sinking ship. It’s the man that dies. “Mutual submission” with no head would make both die.

 

[SWolf]

So, wives and mothers never ever sacrifice for their families.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

Odd.

I think you’re making too strong of an opposition between the two roles. Sacrifice is submission and submission is sacrifice. See Philipians 2:

Completely false.

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!"

Christ made the ultimate sacrifice, death on a cross so his Church may live. He dies for His Church like the Husband is willing to die for his wife.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m sorry if I seem daft, but I don’t see anything in this post that contradicts what I said.

My wife and I do monthly budgets together. I strongly recommend any other family does the same.

Your practice may be quite good, but I’m not so sure on your theory. In your previous posts, you were leaning very hard on wifely submission and pooh poohing alphawoman’s thoughts on a wife’s need to be energetic and proactive.

What I think you’re not getting is that for a woman, obedience is not good enough. A woman could obey and obey and be a lousy wife and mother even if her husband were very good, loving and intelligent. It just happens to be the case that a home and a family requires the full, intelligent engagement of both spouses, and if the wife just obeys, it is almost certainly the case that she is dropping the ball in ways small and large. For example, when did you last tell your wife to make doctor or dental appointments for your children? If your wife is at all competent, all of that is happening without your having to bother your pretty little head about it. There’s a lot of stuff going on like that that you may not even be aware of.

 

[Walking_Home]

By the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband in turn giving up his life for the wife, then they are both mutually submitting in their own way. That’s the only way it can be reconciled with scripture. I personally think it’s clumsy, but not technically incorrect.

Like I stated earlier, if there’s one seat on a lifeboat on a sinking ship. It’s the man that dies. “Mutual submission” with no head would make both die.

---

That is your “twist” – but mutual submission does not only mean the husband gives his life for the wife. I goes across all aspects of the marriage. There is only one head in a marriage – God.

 

[Xantippe]

---

That is your “twist” – but mutual submission does not only mean the husband gives his life for the wife. I goes across all aspects of the marriage. There is only one head in a marriage – God.

Right.

And nobody here is concerned about husbands being too self-sacrificing in the context of wifely submission. What we are more concerned about is selfishness and tyranny dressed up in “Christian” dress. All too often when one listens in online on Protestant (or even Catholic) men with strong views on wifely submission (for instance the guys at Dalrock), it’s clear that there is only the most token lip service being paid to self-sacrifice. There’s a dime’s worth of self-sacrifice paid out by husbands, and a dollar’s worth of wifely submission collected. Nobody in those parts is clamoring over their manly right to give up their seat on the life boat. It’s all “make me a sammich”.

Also, bear in mind that being an average Catholic woman is way, way more physically dangerous than being an average Catholic man and requires far more courage, for obvious reasons.

 

[DebChris]

By the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband in turn giving up his life for the wife, then they are both mutually submitting in their own way. That’s the only way it can be reconciled with scripture. I personally think it’s clumsy, but not technically incorrect.

Like I stated earlier, if there’s one seat on a lifeboat on a sinking ship. It’s the man that dies. “Mutual submission” with no head would make both die.

I actually walked into marriage with a pretty simplistic business model view.
In this view, yes the husband is the head of the household. The wife is the household manager. Within this partnership, the husband trusts the wife to make the daily decisions. Like a good manager, she keeps the head of the household informed of the working of the household, in the same way that a good manager would keep his boss informed of the workings of his business.
When there is a major decision to be made, the manager’s viewpoints are honored and respected. Who better knows what is happening on a day to day basis? The head is responsible for the ultimate decision.
Where the conflict comes into place is when the wife is asked to compromise conscience. Gender does not excuse one from sin. I like the Benedictine definition of obedience, which comes from the Latin. Yes, the wife is being obedient to her husband so long as she listens to what he has to say. Her ultimate obedience, however belongs to God. To violate conscience is to sin against God.
The vows I did make to my husband were vows to love, honor, and cherish, the same as his vows to me. My submission was made out of choice, but did not preclude correction if I saw his actions harmful to him or to our relationship. The same was true in reverse.
Such admonitions had to made in love, which unfortunately was not seen always the
case. It was no more my job to change him than it was his job to change me. I followed his job, not vice versa.
It is better to look at a relationship more successful than my own, and that is the relationship between my parents. He could trust the care of the household while he was away at war to a very capable woman. She remained faithful caring for 6 sibling, and the 7th while he was away (I was born.) She traveled with the seven of us to a foreign land (Japan) where we united, me meeting my father for the first time. When outsiders would question my mother’s decisions, he stood by her. It was she who spoke to the priest about why I was not registered in the upcoming First Communion Class. [Prep time = 1 week] and by our home life ensured that I was prepared. A man of few words, his consistent “what ever she says” served as protection…

 

[Bruised_Reed]

SWolf, regarding the the topic, what does femininity look like on a single woman? You’ve been discussing it only as a wife’s submission to her husband. If one takes marriage and submission out of the equation then what the other posters are saying applies to both singles and marrieds.

 

[SWolf]

SWolf, regarding the the topic, what does femininity look like on a single woman? You’ve been discussing it only as a wife’s submission to her husband. If one takes marriage and submission out of the equation then what the other posters are saying applies to both singles and marrieds.

The women I know who were successful in their pursuits, whether presidents of large corporations or a SAHM, tended to:

• Be subtle rather than direct
• Be masters of nuanced conversation
• Speak warmly and keep composure, even in the company of fools
• Make people feel at ease as opposed to intimidated by their presence.

So I guess that is what I would consider to be successful feminine traits.

Fair or not, women can’t do some things that men do without people disliking them, and vice versa. Men, in adverse situations, tend to be expected to lay down the hammer as opposed to seeming ‘soft’, something people are usually repulsed by women doing.

I’ve met female engineers, outdoorsmen, stay at home moms, musicians, etc. In my book, one can be just as feminine as the other. The Bible has only clear roles of femininity in regards to Marriage, which is what I originally responded to.

 

[Xantippe]

The women I know who were successful in their pursuits, whether presidents of large corporations or a SAHM, tended to:

• Be subtle rather than direct
• Be masters of nuanced conversation
• Speak warmly and keep composure, even in the company of fools
• Make people feel at ease as opposed to intimidated by their presence.

So I guess that is what I would consider to be successful feminine traits.

**Unfortunately, being subtle often means that one’s husband (or other people) will not get the message.

Standard marriage advice to women is to be CLEAR. A lot of times, the menfolk just can’t understand what we are saying, even when we think we are being really brutally frank. **

 

[Xantippe]

Fair or not, women can’t do some things that men do without people disliking them, and vice versa. Men, in adverse situations, tend to be expected to lay down the hammer as opposed to seeming ‘soft’, something people are usually repulsed by women doing.

I’m a Northern woman living in a Southern US state and I’ve found that I often meet local men that are much more “soft” and tactful than I am. There’s a sort of upper class Southern male that would literally rather die than give offense.

Culture does enter into all of this.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Or femininity in general and both females and males can answer their perspective.
From my view,it seems that cultures like US,Australia etc don’t value femininity enough and the focus is always on achieving more,working more,having more etc and things like being full time mothers are seen as unproductive,lazy or “backwards and old fashioned” or that the women just want to bludge and be provided for financially etc.
I’m not a mother but that’s just what I perceive as a general view.
Also things like dance,foreign language learning or other more “feminine” things are not held at the same worth/esteem in schools such as other subjects like maths or science.
Sometimes it’s hard to be feminine and it’s probably more easier/welcomed in other places like China,Russia etc.

I think femininity can be expressed in many, many ways. I believe you can be an amazing athlete, beating all the boys, and still be feminine. I believe that hardworking, career focused women can be feminine. I believe that the mother of 5 who is the stay-at-home mom can be feminine. I also think that women can change over time. I was the tomboy, I was the wife (didn’t have kids, but we held traditional roles) and I am now career focused.
I think proper femininity is to be a lady. Class, not trash.
I wouldn’t want to be a female in Russia or China. Heck, I may have not been born if I were Chinese.
I think that cultures who force women to be “held down” is chauvinistic, and you shouldn’t force women to be a certain way. You can teach them to be a proper lady, though.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Have you heard of the daughters at home movement? Daughters are not supposed to be financially independent but to depend on their fathers and then their husbands for support. I think this is part of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. College education for women, especially in fields that impart skill, such as law, medicine or engineering are considered sinful since it equips women to be competitive with men in the job market which is a big no no. The above view is not officially taught by the Catholic church but a lot of Catholic men also subscribe to this view.

Wait, what? Ew. That’s so sad. I didn’t realize this view was an actual movement. If I ever end up with a child, I would want them to be independent. I wouldn’t want my daughter or son to depend on their spouse for total support. What if hubby dies? You daughter is middle-aged and has no education, no skills? Awful.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I don’t have a vehicle which means carrying my groceries home. It is a task that I am capable of performing. As I was walking from the bus stop to my apartment, I was thinking about the difference between how I am treated as a woman in the states versus how I was treated as a woman living in the Middle East for 5 years.
Same scenario–as I would be walking home carrying groceries, it was not unusual for a man to offer his assistance and carry the groceries the rest of the way to where I lived. Femininity includes the humility and courtesy to accept this gesture.
Today as I walked home, two men crossed my path. The first was younger and just kept walking. The second greeted me, asking how I was doing doing and then continued his conversation on his cell phone as we passed each other.
Femininity, in other words does not mean that one is unable to do what is necessary. It does however involve courtesy and humility, as well as a sense of who I am as a woman.

I guess it is just where you live in the states. I’m from a small town in Alabama. At the local Piggly Wiggly men bag the groceries and take them to your car, even if you only have one bag. I’m at my parent’s house and their closest neighbors are 1/4 mile away, but when I “lived in town” guys would help me with my groceries. I lived on the second floor and multiple trips were a pain. lol. Boys from the South are the best, I guess.