Are men and women different? The Pope says so.

Foxfire says: I think we have to go back to a previous question. Are men genetically engineered to be predisposed to go out and hunt giraffes? (i.e. to be the hunters and gatherers?) and are women genetically engineered to be nest builders?


I have looked at many, many cave paintings and have never seen women depicted as the hunters.
(huntresses?) Perhaps, historically we have been
home-bounded.....nature or nurture?

In that case shepaints, I would instinctively go with the nurture theory. I agree with my more emphatic feminist sisters here that the expectations for women have been less than exemplary for a long time. I do think modern society has pretty well fixed that situation so that women now have a great deal of choice in their own destinies.

But with choice comes additional problems. I actually agree with the Pope/Cardinal's opinion that it wrong to discourage women from becoming full time mothers and homemakers if that is where their heart leads them. I lived through an era in which such women were often viewed as inferior or failing to live up to their potential. At the same time, I have been a career woman most of my adult life with varying degrees of success and have some regrets about some of the choices I made.

The question remains, with full choice available, would most women be happiest in more traditional roles? I really do wonder.

I cant imagine going hunting with a couple of
children hanging onto my ankles....or as a young
woman, with the potential problems of wrecking my hair and make-up....How about you?!!!!

I'd love to stay at home with the kids while my wife did the hunting. I detest hunting, especially giraffe hunting. Their long legs make it almost impossible to keep up with them, and they are too cute to kill. Have you ever noticed their eye lashes?

lol jlnobody ... so perhaps we all would just rather stay home with the kids, men and women?

"no, you go hunt today - i went yesterday!"

LOL

O.K., fair's fair. But absolutely no giraffes!

.....agreed, they are absolutely too cute to kill and forget about giraffe hunting while wearing stilettoes!

Let me expand on my earlier point. It has been indicated by many here that while sex is real, gender (in the sense of sex roles and identities) is artificial. I agree. Only women can bear breast feed infants, but beyond that human kind is very plastic. Roles are cultural inventions, and as anthropologists have observed, so-called male roles can be effectively performed by females and vice versa. It just happens that many societies wish to absolutize roles, defining them as scriptural mandates and/or natural imperatives. Most of that is cultural bullshit. The human animal cannot do without cultures, and throughout mankind's past "traditionalism" has provided societies with a much valued and necessary stability. But today most of us in the western post-industrial world should know better. We have reached a point where most of us can take more control of our lives and reexamine our "traditions", keeping some and replacing others in keeping with new values, new notions of justice and freedom. In this case gender justice and freedom.

OK, fine then. You stay here and tend the hearth, I'll go bring down a giraffe. Is there anything else you'd like while I'm out ... some berries maybe, or a few buffalo chips for the fire?

Dammit ... wherethuhell is my spear ... I coulda swore I had it propped up right outside the cave entrance


grumble grumble

women

grumble grumble

Oh, and don't forget beer.

(Without beer and wine, I refuse to devolve, even in jest).

Interesting you should mention beer and wine. The earliest known produce storage pits appear to be associated with facillities most likely suited to the processing and storage of fluids. It well may be that brewing and winemaking were key factors in the development of agriculture.

TImber, you sound like an archaeologist. Sounds right to me. I do believe that most of the most primitive peoples (at the tribal level, not the band level) have generally made some kind of fermented drink. What we would call very bad beer.

I'm just fascinated by archaeology, among all the rest of the natural sciences. Apart from a couple college-time (itself now nearly of archaeologic vintage ) summers as a volunteer at a dig, I really have no experience, and academically just minor undergrad study ... nothin' special in that regard, but I did and still do read a lot. About a lotta stuff.

I that that's what it should be: something done for the pleasure of it.

I have only read the initial post so far; apologies if I'm saying things that have been said before.

I think the Catholic Church and the quoted feminists are both barking up the wrong tree on this issue, from opposite sides. The right tree to bark up would have been about how to give better support to people who raise children. Child-raising is enormously important, but for reasons I don't understand, people who raise children aren't getting the respect and the support they deserve.

If society gave child-raisers better support, more women would swing the conservative way and raise children as a carreer. And more men would swing the feminist way and raise children as a carreer too. I would guess that stay-at-home moms would outnumber stay-at-home dads in this scenario, for the reasons given by the evolutionary psychiologist in the article. But if I'm wrong about this, so what? Every child should be raised by the individual who does it best. I simply don't care if that individual be a man or a woman. And I don't care about the percentege of women among child-raisers, just like I don't care about the percentage of women among accountants, biologists, or any other profession.

But this isn't the way feminists and catholic theologists tend to see it. Instead, they take it for granted that child-raising is unpopular which I think they shouldn't. Having taken it for granted, they argue what each gender's fair share in the chore of childraising is, which I think is a red herring. I strongly disagree with this whole approach to the problem, and have chosen not to pay much attention to the catholic church or the feminists.

That's where I am Thomas. The whole concept of marriage and family presumes the possibility of children. And, for me, the number one consideration in all of these issues related to marriage and family and gender roles is what is best for the kids. I think if society would return to a focus on what is best for the children, society itself would be a lot less screwed up. And,. not coincidentally, I think society as a whole might be a lot more happy.

"Focus on children", fine. The Pope is saying a great deal more than that, though. And as I said before, the fact that it is the Pope automatically carries a lot of weight; it's not an idle philosophical question. If the Pope doesn't expect any actions or policies to be taken, why say anything?

I mean, look at the title of the article that you posted:



That is not idle philosophical musing. There are a lot of Bishops out there, with a lot of influence. And they are being "told to take a hard line on issue of gender."

NOT "being told to take a hard line on focusing on children."

NOT "being told to take a hard line on offering support to any person, male or female, who wants to parent."

No. "Being told to take a hard line on issue of gender."

So, that is what being disagreed with.

If everyone thinks that things should be made as smooth as possible for WHOMEVER wants to raise the child, that WHOMEVER wants to raise the child should be given respect and prestige, well, excellent! That's certainly something I've talked about a lot here. But this is explicitly in terms of gender. Why?

Gotta ask, Soz ... I can see you've read the article, but have you read The Letter? It is, unsurpringly given its origin, bigtime down on homosexuality, promiscuity and general social irresponsibility, but at the same time it affirms gender equality, calls for society to remove barriers requiring women to choose between carreer or family, and promotes responsibility in the matter of child rearing, the way I read it.

You didn't ask me, timber but ...

I haven't read the letter due to time constraints. I'm curious though: what does it say about removing barriers requiring men to choose between career and family?

Why did they open a bowling alley across from the Vatican?



So the Pope would have some place to cash his check on Fridays.

(Chicago joke, from the largest Polish city in the world.)



As fascinating as the article and the letter are, it should be noted that those who have pointed out the influence of the Pope and of Bishops have gone right to the core of the issue. For whatever objections anyone here might raise as to the nature of the document, the power of the church leaders to influence attitudes ought not to be underestimated. The people influenced likely won't read the letter, and likely won't become involved in a debate of nuances. Ultimately, the effect will be determined by how this is presented to congregations by the responsible Bishops.