Why Catholicism - 3

II. Looking for the feminine

A. How is femininity viewed within Protestantism?

1. Egalitarian option

   The Egalitarian position within Protestantism offers women the idea that men and women are equal. In general, no gender specific roles are acknowledged. All activity should be based on an individual's abilities and really nothing more.

   That is all fine and dandy to a certain point, but for me, it did not answer my most basic questions about why I am female and not male. The most glaring example of egalitarian inability to give satisfying answers to the most basic questions about sexuality has to do with breast feeding.

  In conversation with egalitarians at one point I tried to get them to at least admit that women because they were women were more suited to breast feeding. Men could not breast feed a baby. Some were not so sure that breast feeding could be limited to women only.

  As far as I'm concerned, the egalitarian position fails at the most basic level of explaining why men are men and women are women. Their tendency to reduce all sexual differences to a matter of plumbing was not at all satisfying.


   Even Christian egalitarians tend to fall into the same kinds of errors as their secular counterparts. The most obvious error being a denial of human nature.  Men and women are not interchangeable, and the breast feeding example is one of the most obvious reasons as to why men cannot be substituted for women nor women for men.

  There are many other natural examples of this dilemma for egalitarian feminists. Yes, in many ways men and women can both do the same kinds of things. For example, a woman can pound nails and a man can wash dishes. There may be slight differences, but both can get the job done.

  However, when it comes to really important activities like bearing children and breast feeding, there really is no comparison. A man cannot naturally do either of those. It takes a woman.


  Besides, in egalitarianism itself, there is no good explanation of why men are attracted to certain activities and women to other kinds. The whole cultural relativism line of argumentation breaks down under closer examination. Men like to do guy things and women like to do girl things. It's our nature and it is getting harder and harder to deny that. In spite of truly bizarre, egalitarian social experimentation, men are still men and women are still women. Just ask any mom who has raised children of both genders. There are huge differences, and those differences start to manifest themselves at birth.

   Egalitarians still cannot explain why the Disney Princesses are so popular, nor why little boys love Thomas the Tank Engine.

  Also, just because a woman can do many things that men can do, and vice versa, doesn't mean that the best use of a woman's time and energy is the same as a man's. So, for me, egalitarianism did not answer any of my important concerns about sexuality and gender identity.

2. Complementarian option

  So, for me as a Protestant, the main other options was complementarianism. That is, men and women complement one another. Both men and women have God-ordained, gender-specific roles within the church and the home. In those areas, men lead and women follow. I like that arrangement, and no, I am definitely not a doormat.

  However, I did not find a coherent philosophy and theology of motherhood as I examined the complementation position. There were very few articles written about motherhood, and many of them made motherhood itself out to be kind of a curse, a punishment that women must learn to deal with.

   I wrote about that here when I did a kind of analysis of John Piper's sermons on motherhood. You can read that here if you like. He especially messes up the concept of "saved through child bearing" as do most males who try to preach on the subject. They have no clue about how a mother feels about being a mother. No clue at all. Don't they know any mothers that they could ask about what motherhood means to them?

I tell ya'...


3. Christian Patriarchy

   I then spent quite a bit of time studying the Christian Patriarchy Movement. I have to say that I like a lot of what is written from that point of view. The women representing that movement are some of the strongest, most noble, and best Christian women I know. They are amazing women.

  Even so, it was not for me. I couldn't really find theological flaws in it at the time. Egalitarians hate the "partrios" and spend a lot of time bashing them, but that was not the same as really refuting the theological or practical positions of the Patriarchalists.

  However, there was something not quite right about it. Again, it was the lack of any coherent philosophy and theology of womanhood, motherhood, and matriarchy that finally helped me see the problems. It was all about males.


4. So, in Protestantism, my options boiled down to 1.) egalitarian feminism, which is all about women struggling to free themselves from male oppression. 2.) complementarianism, which is all about resisting the feminists' onslaught 3.) Christian patriarchy, which is all about establishing male rule in society, the home, and the church.

  I never felt entirely comfortable with any of the 3. I  most closely identified with #2, Complementarianism, and called myself a complementarian for a long time.

The idea of being Catholic didn't even cross my mind until much, much later. Sure, it was okay for Catholics to be Catholic, I guess.  We are free. However, it was not something I was interested in.