OK - I have been struggling for some time with the following issue. Submission.<P>I grew up with a Father that was very domineering and controlling and a very submissive Mother. They have been married for 40 years and do seem happy. Although, my mother has shared with me recently the resentment she has felt from time to time of not really having a say in the ultimate decision making in their marriage. <P>I have 4 sisters and we are all very independent woman. We are all described as very strong, agressive women. Even called bulldogs by fellow co-workers. We are all successful in our careers and feel we are more like men than women in how we interact with others. We are like little generals. My Father was in the military. We do not like to be controlled or told what to do. We speak our mind, etc. But, we have all had problems in our marriages and one sister has never been married and it doesn't look like she ever will.<P>None of us want to be like our Mother. We are all like our Father. However, lately, I wonder if that is our problem. If I would just let go of having to be in control and just be submissive maybe that would turn things around. However, my therapist states that is last thing I need to do. That is taking the opposite extreme. I need to get to the middle of the spectrum. I need to believe in equality and find a man that also believes this way. I need to learn how to compromise. I need to stay away from men who believe that they should have the final say in all decision making in a marriage. My problem is that I was brought up to believe that this is how it should be but I have always rebelled against it. And, look where it has gotten me. Divorced! So, now I am trying to figure all of this out. I am now questioning my entire belief system. <P>So, my question is this? How many people out there have also found this to be an issue in their marriage or past marriage? How many feel that if the husband and wife cannot come up with a joint agreement on something that the husband should make the final decision. And, if you don't believe that it should be the husband, how do you come up with a solution when neither can agree? And how do you argue equality with someone who believes in submission and is quoting bible verses that state that the husband should have the final say and the wife should defer to the husband gladly! <P><p>[This message has been edited by 711 (edited February 24, 2001).]

711,<P>Here's another one of my favorite topics...<P>I think marriages are "sick" in this country because of this notion of women's submission. If it were healthy and intuitive, then it wouldn't need to be discussed and explained ad-nauseum by so many people.<P>In a healthy relationship, both people "submit". However, the fact that this term is used only for women means two things to me:<P>1) Men are insecure and need to feel superior and dominant in order to exist in a relationship. Even more important is that the rest of the world acknowledge that he is "in charge", or else his manhood is in jeapardy or something stupid like that.<P>2) Women are too lazy to take responsibility for their lives, opinions, and decisions, and therefore, seek out men who will tell them what to do. Even worse, they propagate the idea that women are weak and stupid and can't think for themselves. <P>Any time it is accepted --a priori-- that another person will make the final decision about everything in a relationship, it is my conclusion that the other spouse's opinion, thoughts, needs, feelings, etc, don't mean much. I'm sick of people saying that because women are supposed to submit, then that doesn't mean they are inferior. Bullsh*t. If they believe that the man should make the final decision on everything, then they have --BY DEFINITION--concluded that they ARE inferior. <P>In my honest and usually very unpopular opinion, this idea was put forward during the original writing of the Bible because of social conditions of the time. During that time, women were nothing but property. Christianity would never have been accepted if women were supposed to be equals. This little bow to tradition still kept the male ego intact and didn't force the men of that era to struggle with their assumptions about their place in the world. It also didn't force women to struggle with their roles either. Personal responsibility is a scary thing, and as witnessed by generation after generation of welfare recipients, it is very easy to become complacent and let someone else "do" for you.<P>It doesn't surprise me that men are so resistent to this idea (who, after all, are the pre-ordained leaders in churches). It is easier to be in control when you have a wife who has little or no options, whose life revolves completely around them, and who doesn't have the courage to have a single thought of her own. It also doesn't surprise me that some women whole heartedly support the idea of submission. It takes effort and courage to be an equal partner alot of the time.<P>This reminds me of a little incident that happened to me about 15 yrs ago. I was married to my first husband, who was in the Navy. I didn't know it at the time, but he was sleeping with everything that walked. Apparently the other officers on board knew it, because one of them struck up a conversation with me and suggested I attend a Navy Wives Support Group. I thought it was proposterous. Mostly because alot of the problems these women were facing were directly related to the choices their husbands were making. By going to this support group, they were sending the message that it was THEIR responsibility to "cope" with their husband's career and choices. The husbands were completely out of the loop, as it is with any of this submission crap. Their husbands needed to get off their a*sses, IMO. So, what I told the officer was this "I will attend a Navy Wives Support Group when they create a Navy Husband's Support Group". <P>And that is my opinion about submission. I will be happy to agree with this submission stuff when I see men being encouraged to submit as well. If that means I get to be "alone", then fine. I won't sell my soul to gratify some weak man's ego or offer the illusion of his control over me so that he can feel safe.<P>

Hello TS:<P>Glad to hear from you. You made some very good points as usual. I think my therapist and you would be the best of friends!!<P>I agree with pretty much everything you said. I have never been able to accept this whole submission thing. Neither have any of my women friends. But, we have all been discussing whether we should rethink our views on all of this. There is a very controversial book out right now called "The Surrendered Wife". Have you heard of it? I actually bought it. I have always totally opposed this way of thinking but just wanted to read the opposite side's view. It should be an interesting read.<P>

711,<P>Hey, me again...<P>Obviously, I have some issues here. I think I did (indirectly) answer at least one of your questions...how to respond to a man who quotes bible verses. <P>You said:<BR>"We are all successful in our careers and feel we are more like men than women in how we interact with others."<P>That is the first problem. The idea that women are supposed to be weak, speak softly, be nice, etc. You can include emotional, irrational, not logical or intelligent. In fact, Both men and women are slaves of these notions of certain gender defined behavior. <P>It will be very difficult to find a man who truly believes in equality. Mostly because in times of crisis, men don't want to negotiate, and will pull out the stops (including this submission crap) in order to make things easier for themselves. It is tempting for women to just give in too. A true POJA isn't easy.<P>The way I see it, both people have strengths and weaknesses which have nothing to do with gender. I tend to hand over responsibility in areas where the other person is stronger, and expect they will do the same for me. However, once I acknowledge that they are stronger than me in a certain area, it is also very likely that I will expect them to teach me how to become stronger so that I don't have to be so dependent. I will gladly teach them in areas I'm strong in. In that way we foster continual growth and learning, neither person is parasitizing the other or become so dependent that we cannot function without the other person (should a catastrophy occur) and we each have a stake in the relationship.<P>oh, I just read your post.<P>I have read the first chapter of the "Surrendered Wife" from the website. In my opinion, it is only controversial because this woman claimed to have equality before she became "surrendered". <P>She presents an image of herself as previously being controlling, dominating, critical, etc. Noone responds well in this environment, man or woman. The fact that she has ended these behaviors has NOTHING to do with surrender or being submissive. It has NOTHING to do with being a woman. If her husband were acting this way (and this is exactly how my ex husband treated me), what would people tell him? You need to submit and surrender? Hardly. <P>All she has done is recognize her husband's value as a person and as a partner. Now isn't that what we all want? The fact that she has found a way to gain more respect for her husband is great, but please, call it something else. Or simply state that her husband has ALSO decided to submit to the relationship now too, since they are not locked in a power struggle because she had it have it "her way or the highway" before.<P>It is clear that her husband has "surrendered" and "submitted" too, but noone says that because it ain't MANLY. What hogwash.<p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited February 24, 2001).]

TS, 711,<P>Never trust a man who tells you he is the boss in his own home. He will probably lie to you about other things too.<P>Bumper<p>[This message has been edited by Bumperii (edited February 25, 2001).]

Very Good, Very Good. People who think like I do!! Maybe I'm not so crazy after all.<P> <P><BR>

Nope. You're not crazy. <P>It's funny. When women admit to being strong, it is almost like an apology. Why is that? Why is it that it is only ok for a woman to be strong as long as she will allow herself to be dominated by a man? <P>Why is a man considered weak if he doesn't dominate his wife? I'll bet there are plenty of guys out there who want permission to be vulnerable and not have to be "in charge" all of the time either. <P>This whole notion of man as leader and woman as follower is just pathological and quite unrealistic given individual characteristics and needs.<P>

jen,<P>is it submission? or the inability to negotiate? there is a difference.<P>Submission means that you go along with the idea, and can't get anything back in return.<P>Negotiation means that you agree to do something, but get something back in return.<P>So, it could be that your F found someone that didn't know how to negotiate, and therefore appears to submit.<P>It is a good question, but the question in my mind is, "What is the goal of your marriage?" If you can define them, and some of the goals are abstract, then you can ask your next potential mate what his goals of marriage are, and see if they agree! If your goals don't agree, then even negotiation will not work!<P>When I asked my X about her goals, the only one she could verbalize was, "to bring up nice kids." that's it. not prepare them for the world, not provide them with opportunities, not explore the world, not push oneself to learn about themselves, not live in one's own house, not live what's best for the kids, etc.<P>Seriously, submission is lack of negotiation position, and therefore, what constitutes a good negotiation position? (other than withholding of sex!) Normally, money is a key, but if the W doesn't work, then it becomes quid pro quo, more or less.<P>However, good point about wearing the pants in the family! My X always tried to wear the pants in the family, as my MIL did, but my FIL was a very co-dependent, insecure, conflict avoider. So X tried the same intimidation, banging pots, withholding sex, etc to gain the upper hand for a negotiation position, and it didn't work.<P>Why? I was being manipulated, and once i stopped being manipulated, meaning i tuned out her emotional arguments and intimidating actions, she lost her negotiation power or position. And when i talked equality, different points of view, this for that, she didn't know what to do.<P>My X's interpretation of a strong woman is that the man submits, and that she can't be told what to do, she has to be asked about everything, and if he doesn't ask her, he is on the [censored] list. There is no negotiations, my way or the highway is my interpretation of my X's interpretation of a strong woman.<P>and yet, in my opinion, she is not very strong, because she takes alot of other people's actions personally, when the actions are not about her. She reacts to every stimuli, and that is not good, and she can't look at very many issues from more than one viewpoint, which is very rigid, but not strong. and X still has very little understanding for much beyond her daily responsibilities, and she used to criticize her parents for being that same way.<P>so the definitions or understandings of what these abstract concepts mean is key to the discussion.<P>tom<BR><p>[This message has been edited by WhenIfindthetime (edited February 24, 2001).]

Thanks Tom.<P>Very good points! <P>I was talking to my sister about all this earlier and about my parent's relationship. And, she said that the reason my parents are still together and happy is that they have always truly loved and respected each other. When you have that, there really is no problem compromising on things. My mother just chose to pick her battles. Many things just did not bother her that much or just were not worth the fight. She always felt loved and taken care of by my father and that is all she really needs.<P>Looking back at my marriage, we both never truly loved and respected each other and therefore could never compromise. We stayed together for so long because we believed in commitment. Unfortunately, my x couldn't stand it any longer and bailed out.<P>Now, I am hoping to find someone that I can truly love and respect and receive the same in return. <P>Jen

711,<P>I can't imagine actually marrying someone who believed in submission of wives, at least consciously. I think in a lot of cases, even in patriarchal cultures, there is a lot more equality than one would expect. A lot of decisions among the Amish folks we knew seemed to be made jointly with the wife and even the older teenagers - one of our acquaintances often said things like he wanted to not take their dog when they moved, but the family wouldn't hear of it, and he was constantly making choices based on what his "boys" thought he should do. <P>WIFTT,<P>Interesting, I asked my H a similar question a couple of years ago - and was horrified when he said he wanted the kids to realize they could do anything the wanted to with their lives. Not a word about raising them to be good people, or responsible, or thoughtful and kind to others - I have to say that if I had to pick my single most important goal, raising good kids would be it.

Nellie,<P>what bothered me was not the goal, which is a good one, but the smallness of it. and by no means is there only one goal.<P>She didn't have any H&W goals, she didn't have any opportunities goals. It was just something very easy and small, centered around kids, which is all she wants to deal with throughout her life.<P>that is fine for her, but it is not fine for me, if we can't agree on where to live, how to live, priorities, etc.<P>Our kids are a prioritiy, but for her, the priority is not for helping them learn independence and self reliance, its about them just being there with her, and not doing anything to push them, to encourage them, etc. She hated my encouraging them to push a little beyond the current abilities, or think a little creative!<P>just in the moment, nothing beyond the moment. She told the counselor that she is only in the present, the future is not a concern, which includes how long the 12 year old boy sleeps in her bed. She had no plans of helping him learn to sleep in his own room. She said she was "hoping" it would just happen, as she hoped "manners" would just happen.<P>and that from a professional teacher, i guess who teachs from a book, but it there is no book, there is nothing to teach!<P>

I come to this issue...<BR>...from the Catholic perspective...<P>The following is <B><I>part</I></B> of an article I recently read... (full article: <A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUTHWOM.HTM" TARGET=_blank>THE AUTHORITY OF WOMEN</A>)...<P><B>Submission of wives to husbands:</B><P>Certain passages of Paul speak about authority and submission. In today's Church, influenced by feminist thinking, these passages are not at all popular. In fact, they are often edited by rectors during Mass so as not to "offend" females in the congregation. The passages are Colossians 3:18-20 and Ephesians 5:22-32.<P>Both passages start out with the thorny teaching that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The Letter to the Ephesians says:<P>"Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of his body the church, as well as its savior. As the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church. He gave himself up for her to make her holy, purifying her in the bath of water by the power of the word to present to himself a glorious church, holy and immaculate, without stain or wrinkle or anything of that sort.<P>"Husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Observe that no one ever hates his own flesh; no, he nourishes it and takes care of it as Christ cares for the church—for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall be made into one.' This is a great foreshadowing; I mean that it refers to Christ and the church" (Eph. 5:22-32).<P>No one likes the idea of submission. Pride rebels against it, and it is possible that being submissive could lead to exploitation. In our day it is believed that one who is submissive lacks dignity. Such a person is giving up his rights and permitting himself to be oppressed. Submission is for caves, not free people. It is to be avoided at all costs.<P>Yet women are told that they are the ones who are supposed to be submissive—and to their husbands, no less! Many modern exegetes simply dismiss these Pauline verses as historically conditioned. They argue that, at the time Paul was writing, submissiveness was a woman's lot, and the apostle was merely articulating this outdated ethic. Since women had no authority, the only thing they could do was be submissive. Authority was solely in the hands of men. Thus male authority is equated with power—the evil power of patriarchy.<P>It is a mistake to believe that these Pauline passages are theologically outdated, fit only for cutting with the feminist razor. Rather they should be understood in light of the <real> meaning of authority. Not only are we in desperate need of a good theology of submission, but we are in need of a good theology of male authority based on the teaching of Ephesians 5. Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.<P>What does love mean but to give oneself over to another? The husband is to <give himself up> for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the Church. This is a form of submission—a form as deep and as serious as the submission of wives. The husband's reciprocal submission to his wife is the only way her submission could make any sense. In the Christian religion, obedience and submission to another's authority is never due to tyranny or despotism, but to love and a covenant between persons that respects the freedom of each.<P>If these Pauline passages are historically conditioned, they are so only in that their author bluntly states the duty of the wife. According to that culture, female submission was nothing new. What is new (and entirely changes the meaning of feminine submission) is Paul's instruction to husbands.<P>John Paul II calls the teaching of Ephesians the "Gospel Innovation" because for the first time the truth about men and women is revealed. A <mutual submission> exists between spouses.[<Mulieris Dignitatem [On the Role and Dignity of Women>]] The wife is not to submit to a spouse who lords his authority over her. Not at all! He is instructed to give himself up for her. In the Christian dispensation, husbands are expected to do something entirely new based on the example of Christ and the sacramental role of the husband in making Christ real in the world: fully to serve their wives—instead of wives simply serving and obeying them.<P>The most profound form of submission is to die for another. When a person dies for another, he has truly submitted himself to that other person. He has spent himself for the good of the other.<P>It is important to notice that the instruction to wives on being submissive to their husbands is not unqualified. They should be submissive to them "as if to the Lord." Submission is based on the one-flesh nature of Christian marriage, in which it is presupposed that husbands will love their wives as Christ loves his Church. The wife also has authority. She is the body of her husband, as verses 28-29 state. As the body is in a one-flesh unity with the head, she can and must call her husband to do what the head is supposed to do in the fulfillment of this living sacrament of Christ and the Church.<P>Husbands and wives do not have authority for the sake of exercising power over each another. If this were the case their relation would be one of constant tension and disharmony. Authority and submission exist to create a one-flesh unity. Authority exists to serve the bond. It is exercised for the good of the bond, so that the marriage will be a good marriage, so that the spouses can do what is good for their marriage together. The person who exercises authority does not do so for the sake of being served. It is exercised so that his <marriage> may be served.<P>What does all this authority and submission mean in practical terms? Let me give some examples. If the wife is in the habit of spending money in a manner detrimental to the family budget, her husband can require that she cease doing so—and she should obey. If a husband does not want to work and so is neglecting his duty towards his wife and children, his wife can require that he go out and get a job, and he should obey.<P>If the husband or the wife is becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict, the spouse should require that he or she get proper treatment, and the impaired spouse should obey. If a spouse is doing something immoral, such as using contraception or cheating on the income tax, the other spouse can and should exercise authority and require that this immoral behavior be stopped.<P><BR>-----------------------------<BR>It obviously will not fit into everyone's ideas of submission...<BR>...but I post it for "food for thought"...<P> <P>Jim

Thanks Jim for posting that article. It is definitely food for thought!<BR>

711, Student,<P>The article Jim posted is excellent, the view of Christian Marriage in the Catholic Church today is obviously quite different than the views held 2000 years ago. But a lot seems to play on the choice of words, attitudes have changed, church teaching has evolved.<P>Where my ex and I first got into trouble had to do with something we both started out in agreement on. A house she liked came on the market and she wanted us to buy it. I agreed and we arranged the customary mortgage with two hundred forty easy monthly payments. I understood that to mean that for the next twenty years, on or before the first of the month, we would make the mortgage payment we agreed to.<P>Her understanding was quite different, the mortgage payment would be paid, unless of course there was something else she decided she wanted to do with the money. She felt that the mortgage payment could wait while we took a week vacation at the sea shore. We made a deal with the mortgage company, I thought we should stick to it. In her mind, paying the mortgage was a joint decision that had to be made every month. That was the first of the decisions she accused me of shutting her out of.<P>The battle never stopped. I will never forget the month I thought we had money for the mortgage payment only to learn that one of her girlfriends held a candle demonstration. We just couldn't survive without $340.00 worth of wax.<P>I think this is an example of why the POJA is so important, and it shows how coulples get into trouble when one party tries to change the rules.<P>Of course men are sooooo domineering. We all know that it is a woman's perrogative to change her mind. I suppose a woman should never be expected to keep her word on anything unless it is her own self interest to do so. <P>Bumper<P><BR> <p>[This message has been edited by Bumperii (edited February 25, 2001).]

Hey everyone,<P>Even as a die-hard feminist, I could agree in large part with what NSR has posted. Good leadership is mostly transparent, so the point of who submits and who has authority tends to lose their meaning. <P>However, like I said earlier, the idea that the man is the head of his wife assumes--a priori--that she is subservient and inferior to him. And why? Not because of his actions, but because he just so happened to be lucky enough to be born with a penis instead of a vagina. No person is the HEAD of any other person just because they exist. It makes women into children. Something weak and lame who needs to be protected.<P>Both people need to submit in a relationship. The fact that these terms are not used for men ARE historically and culturally based. The proof is all around us. The worst thing you can call a man is---a woman. <P>Bumperii,<BR>You'll notice that I also wag my finger at women who choose "submission" out of laziness. Just as both man and woman should submit to the relationship, both need to be responsible for their actions and words.<P>WIFFT,<BR>I agree that this is all about POJA. The only time this head of the household stuff becomes an issue is when two people can't or don't want to negotiate.

TS,<P>We agree! Yes, it is really about POJA, and not about who makes more money, etc. But successful marriages start with good goals, and understandings. <P>It could be equality in decision making, or division of labor to who has the best abilities in each area. But if there is understanding, and agreement in goals, it makes marriage a whole lot easier to negotiate.<P>What makes negotiation easier is honesty and frankness. And in my next relationship, my first request of the woman is that she be honest first! After that, life becomes easier to understand and negotiate!<P>tom<BR>

You said something there that really hit me..it's something my sister says that really works in her marriage...<P>"she picks her battles" she will stand firm in something she is adamently for or against..and is usually successful in her husband changing his stand on those issues..<BR>just as he is adament about somethings..they have a very good marriage..(from the outside looking in)she is submissive but not a doormat..(hard to believe we both grew up<BR>in the same house, let alone sisters we are total opposites in self assurance) I guess that goes from her being close to our mother when we were growing up..and seeing things that she didn't want in a marriage..and I had other issues I was looking at growing up..<BR>(like living w/ being sexually abused) <P>But the real key is both parties being responsible for themselves and their own actions/words..and respecting themselves and the other person enough to treat them the way they want to be treated..and as far as Submissive husbands..they are to be submissive to God not to the wife..and love the wife as Christ loves the Church...if they love their wife the way God loves the church then the wife will want to be submissive because He is not going to hurt her in any way shape or form...intentially..<P>but alot of men are afraid to submit to God..<BR>they are afraid that He doesn't know whats best..and they think they have to provide for the family blah blah blah instead of trusting God to provide...(okay okay...speaking of a personal issue there) and they feel they have to be in total control. and until we all realize the only thing we really have control over is ourselves..and learn to take responsiblity for ourselves things won't get better..

The concept of Christian marriage that includes a "submissive and dominant spouse" is based on an ideal that is unattainable. These terms are off, I think. Dominance is not always the polar opposite of submissive. You can have two submissive spouses. It requires a man who so unselfishly sumbits to his wife's needs that he will go to great lengths to provide for her. He in fact is submissive to her. It also takes a great deal of trust from the woman to believe that the man has only her and her family's best interests at heart. The woman submits to her husband's decision because of that unconditional trust. I think both are beyond our human capabilities. I think the real issue becomes what society has done to shape these roles and how we fit into them. <P>I firmly believe that mens's egos drive their actions and reactions. Men are conditioned to be strong and honorable, although not all are, of course. They are physically stronger and larger. This implies from a physiological standpoint, dominance. Darwin wasn't that wild. Men recognize this, either consciously or not, and they expect their roles to correspond. Traditionally, men run the show in the outside world, so why not at home? <P>Have you ever seen a couple like this: a small, frail looking man, pale and a little quiet walking with a large stern looking loud and bossy woman. I have seen plenty. My initial reaction is that there is something wrong. It doesn't fit. For some reason, however, a large powerful man opening doors and saving the day or even making decisions for a tiny frail woman doesn't seem odd. It seems expected. <BR>

From all I have read here, it sounds like mutual submission, love, trust and respect are the key factors needed for a successful marriage.

If you find Promise Keepers or Covenant Keepers offensive...<BR>...stop right here... this is not for you...<P>If biblical context is irrelevant...<BR>...stop right here... this is not for you...<P>If the philosophy of "personalism" is objectional to you...<BR>...stop right here... this is not for you...<P>I would hope that these disclaimers cause all to be excluded...<P>Exerpts from: <A HREF="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mshivana/communit.html" TARGET=_blank>Forming a community of Persons: the rights, dignity and role of men and women</A>...<BR>(again... more exerpts from a Catholic article)<P>It's long... but is food to digest over time...<P>----------------------------------------------------<BR> <BR>"The dignity of woman is measured by the order of love, which is essentially the order of justice and charity."<P>John Paul II says...<BR>"Only a person can love and only a person can be loved...Love is an ontological and ethical requirement of the person. The person must be loved, since love alone corresponds to what the person is."... and...<BR>"A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives by the very reason of her femininity; it is likewise connected with the love she gives in return."<P>Three fundamental themes...<BR>1) the dignity of the person<BR>2) the communion of the persons (<B>Communio Personarum</B>) in love<BR>3) the specific characteristics of masculinity and femininity.<P><B>The Dignity of the Person</B>...<BR>JPII emphasized the immense theoretical significance of the concept of man/woman as person. The thinking on the person and on <B><I>communio personarum</I></B> (the communion of persons).<P>...He (the Lord Jesus) implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Person and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.<P>PJII says... "He (Jesus Christ) reveals the original truth of marriage, the truth of the 'beginning.'"...and ... "Accordingly the family must go back to the 'beginning' of God's creative act if it is to attain self-knowledge and self-realization in accordance with the inner truth not only of what it is, but also of what it does in history."<P><B>Original Solitude</B><BR>JPII derives this concept from the second account of creation... "it is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:18)"<P>A particular point of noting that man is spoken of as "male"(ish) only after the creation of Eve, so that this solitude refers to man as such. There are two meanings implied in this <B>solitude</B>: (1) from man's very nature and (2) derived from the male-female relationship. The first form of <B>solitude</B> appears to be a "fundamental anthropological problem".<P>...man is constituted as a "partner of the Absolute" since he must choose between good and evil. ...he is constituted at the same time in a unique, exclusive and unrepeatable relationship with God Himself.<P><B>Communio Personarum</B>...<BR>When Eve is created out of Adam's side, the "original solitude becomes part of the meaning of original unity." The original unity through masculinity and femininity, while it overcomes the frontier of solitude, affirms "with regard to both human beings - everything that constitues 'man' in solitude. Solitude is the way that leads to unity ---> we can define as "communio personarum."<P>Only through a "double solitude" in which both the man and the woman have subjectivity and consciousness of the meaning of their own body can there be a true reciprocity, as is expressed in the word 'help'. Man reflects the image of God both in his solitude but even more in the communio personarum. Male and female are two ways of being a body. (They are not just body parts added.)<P><B>Motherhood</B>...<BR>First and foremost man and woman are persons; "(b)oth man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God's image". Both are rational and free creatures capable of knowing and loving God.<P>As persons they "can only exist in relation to another person". They are called to be for one another as personas and in their masculinity and femininity (which includes motherhood and fatherhood). "This truth about the human being constitutes the indispensable point of departure, for any reflection on the vocation and dignity of women".<P>Motherhood is bound up with the structure of the woman as person. From the beginning motherhood implies a special openness on the part of the woman to a new human person (whether there are children or not... woman is "mother"/"maternal"). And "this is precisely the woman's part". By accepting motherhood through "a sincere gift of self", a woman discovers herself.<P>The father in their joint parenthood "owes a special debt to the woman". No program of 'equal rights' between men and women can ignore this fact. Efforts to "restore socially the conviction that the place and task of the father in and for the family is of unique and irreplaceable importance."<P>(Motherhood and fatherhood has suffered greatly in today's societal teachings... "The Simpsons"... "Married with Children"... etc.)<BR>Whether we have children or not... we are all children... of mothers and fathers...<BR>...some good ...many not so good.<P>JPII says <B>"There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women's access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of the maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human"!!!!!!!!!!!!!</B><P>As feminists have pointed out, this division of roles exposes women to the danger of exploitation. Woman suffers more consequences than man in the disturbance of the communio personarum because the headship which accrues to man from the order of creation becomes <B>domination and submission</B> instead of <B>masculine and feminine complementarity</B> (as it should be). The Redemption of Christ has made possible once again the original order of creation but it is continually threatened by the world.<P><B>The Order of Love</B><BR>In Ephesians 5 in the order of love... the admonition for wives to be submissive to their husbands ..."Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ"...<BR>PJII says "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 <B>mutual</B>" (called the Gospel "innovation")<BR>... all must be understood in the sense of a 'mutual subjection' of both 'out of reverence for Christ'.<P>...while both men and women stand in the feminine role of the Church towards Christ, Christ's love as a Bridegroom is also the "model and pattern for all human love, <B>men's love in particular</B>". <P>The first step in the husband's giving the love of the bridegroom is in receiving the woman's bodily femininity. When St. Paul admonishes the husband to love his wife as his own body, he is called upon to submit himself to her sexuality.<P>By destroying her unique power of motherhood she masculinizes herself and since the body expresses the person, this masculinization carries over into other spheres, both psychological and social (and even spiritually). She becomes man's competitor rather than his partner. They are no longer a gift to each other but a threat.<P>In the struggle to integrate his sexuality with hers, the man comes to know himself. One husband, who at first wished his wife was more like him and did not have a cycle, found that <B>the problems was his</B>. His true masculinity lay in mastering himself, <B>not dominating her</B>. By submitting to her femininity, he discovered his masculinity.<P><B>Conclusion</B>...<BR>Justice for women begins in the order of love, the only order fit for persons. In this area the man must take the role of the Bridegroom. If he does not, he himself, (and) society... are gravely diminished.<P>(Are the husbands/fathers we love... disposable? Are we as husbands/fathers... disposable?)<BR>(Can husbands/fathers learn the MB skills of meeting those ENs that are grounded in "mutual subjection"???)<P>