You missed his point. Generally, the tendency for youngins to seek comfort from the mother shows God’s plan at work, for the mother carried the baby and nursed the baby. Men and women are indeed different in this regard. The child’s instinct to seek and be comforted by his barer especially at the early stage of child development is natural. It is in this regard that the poster feels women are fortunate.
I understand where you’re coming from with the attachment buisness. As you’ve said, infants are initially drawn to their mothers in their early infancy. There are biological reasons for this revolving around food aquisition, body scent, rhythms, sound of the voice, and so on. Studies support that
within the same year, infants show just as much attachment to their fathers as to their mothers (due to the fact that they tend to hold, touch, talk to, and kiss their infants just as often). It may be specious, therefore, to reason that God has made such a clear distinction in roles, as neither men nor women have any special advantage in child reering, attatchment, and so forth–only that, due to circumstances, attachment is more prominant between mother and infant initially.
Men and women are equal in dignity but serve different functions. Such is the way of God. Women should continue to seek equality but not seek the same function as men, and vice versa. It is the effort of the person trying to change this fact of God’s plan where society erodes.
I understand this to be both a religious concept and a cultural one. I say only that role differentiation tends to be minimized greatly in the empirical realm, even if roles are very distinct culturally. That is, gender differences tend to be culturally created, rather than biologically mandated. It may be the case, as per your religion, that although not much can be said for there being a biologically based difference in abilities, propensities, and competencies between men and women, that God still requires men and women to assume different tasks. I think, therefore, that nothing in what you and I are saying necessarily precludes each other’s position.
Benevolence (act of charity or kindness) is one of the marks of love. I wonder how many heterosexual women would see the benevolence shown to them by the special man in their life as sexism;
We’re working with different definitions of benevolence here. Taking the one I quoted above (and it’s not really important what the definition is, so much as how it’s operationalized), it may be reasonable to assume that many heterosexual women receive comments that attribute to them a hallowed position–“you’re warm and compassionate; you’re a great mother”–only to discourage them from male-dominated roles. Sexism, in this case, is not just what is said, but what is intended. It is therefore speculative what can sometimes be considered sexist.
or would be weary of the celebration of the reproductive aspect of their femininity.
I like the wording you chose here. I don’t know how many women would be weary of reproduction as an
aspect of their femininity, but as a defining feature–that is another story.
I think most women and even some men can reason that weak does not equal competent, compassion does not impede decision-making authority, and warmth is not the opposite of competence.
I agree. I think that this is easily reasoned, too, but from whence comes the need to submit in any way? We submit to authorities, for example, because they have some knowledge that we do not, or failing that, power. But I can think of no need for such a power differential in a marriage or in a faith. The edict to ever be silent or submissive can, as the OP has suggested, be very demoralizing. It is at least understandable how it comes accross this way.
