Wikipedia, my one-stop knowledge store.
I love it; in its absence, I’d need to rely on Google.
Which represents actual “work.”
It used to be work involved hoisting a big heavy encyclopedic edition from a shelf.
Couple of entries:
“…is a vision, of an often futuristic society, which has developed into a negative Version of Utopia. A Dystopia is often characterized by a authoritarian or totalitarian form of government. It often features different kinds of repressive social control systems, a lack or total absence of individual freedoms and expressions and a state of constant warfare or violence.”
“…is a theological view held by many in Christianity and other world religions that men and women have different (complementary) roles and responsibilities, as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere.”
Wondering how I will tie this shit together?
It’s quite amusing that I find myself sharing this commonality with the religious crowd when it comes to the subject of Man and Woman.
A grand idea. A grand concept.
A potentially inflammatory concept.
The solidity of its practice essentially rests on trust.
Do you believe men and women can perform any physical, cognitive or emotional task the other gender is able to (short of giving birth or walking in high heels) with identical aptitude?
If so, you must then believe that men and women are identical.
I do not believe this.
Whereas the God-fearing man believes “God” created Adam and Eve, similar, but also vastly different and possessing of contrasting but complementary natures and bodies, I believe evolution has done this job quite aptly. But as happens frequently in nature, many interdependent dynamics are zero-sum games. One party gives, the other takes. When all is said and done and the final computations are spit out the adding machine, when all factors are accounted for and the final equation states a-b=0, nature is at equilibrium.
Complementary equality. As stated above in the “Complementarianism” entry, it is a balancing act of interdependence. Men and women bring their respective gifts to the table, their special offerings. Qualities the other does not possess. But working carefully together in a state of mutual dependability, harmony is achieved.
Complementary equality dictates that we entrust in the other gender the ability and willingness to supply us with that which we cannot produce or nurture on our own. Complementary equality presupposes that we are at peace with our shortcomings. It asks us to admit we are incomplete beings and that our path towards completion can only be hastened by the presence of another person who possesses that which we miss. And vice versa. Our own presence in another’s life may bring a sense of completion in those traits we ourselves possess that the other does not.
The belief that we are fully capable of “self-supplying” our own elemental cohesiveness is contrary to the principle of complementary equality.
The belief that we are fully capable of achieving independent completion due to the fact that our nature is “fully-equipped” from birth is also at odds with complementary equality.
Above all, the peaceful existence of complementary equality resides in our willingness to discover contentment in our abilities and calm acceptance of our inabilities. To fight and argue with one’s nature is to upset the delicate house of cards that represents complementarianism.
When genders lose this peace of mind and resolve to assume all the roles and natural talents of the other gender, we have entered the “sexual dystopia.”
There is civil equality…equality granted both genders in the legal and cultural realms. I believe this equality is deserved and fully support it.
What I believe has happened, however, is that in the aspiration and fight for such sweeping civil equality, equality, as a concept, has leisurely bloated into a sense of entitlement of equality where the personal realm is concerned. At the expense of complementarianism.
Anything you can do at work or in school or at the voting booth became anything a man can do, a woman can do…left open-ended and unqualified.
Thus granted such free-wheeling and uncharacteristic freedoms, men and women have driven us into the modern sexual dystopia.