Ontological Inequality of Sexes

Adam Omelianchuck has a paper in Vol. 13, No. 1 of Philosophia Christi that discusses the ontological subordination of men and women. He argues that men and women are not ontologically equal. The basis for this, he argues, is on the function of men and women. Being familiar with natural law, this is comfortable ground for me. The function of women is to be a helper, and the function for man is to be a leader. There is a difference in role, and there is a hierarchy of subordination, but what he seems to draw out is that this entails there is an ontological inequality between men and women. 

He presents a Hierarchy's Less Valuable Function Principle, which states, 
Necessarily, given the two functions, F1 serving as a means to and end and F2 having authority to direct the end, if any person having F1 is, in virtue of having F1, essentially subordinate to a person having F2, then F1 is a less valuable function than F2. 
 Now, men and women have these functions, but since what helps determine what a thing is, or what its essence is, is function (pretty standard Natural Law), then really, these are essential ontological differences. These functions help us determine what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, and since women have an essential function that is subordinate to man, women are ontologically unequal and inferior to men. 

He doesn't mean to say that women are of less value, if by value we mean like moral worth or having dignity, but I don't think I'm convinced of that. It seems to be that one's dignity and moral worth is intrinsically tied to the type of metaphysical being one is. Our worth comes from being a rational animal. Though, I suppose, Omelianchuck will say that since men and women are both rational animals, they both have moral worth. But in this other metaphysical aspect, they are not equal. He says that such confusion might be expected since for Westerners since what we believe makes one an equal is equal opportunity and equal rights. 

It's an interesting argument. It's my first time hearing an argument for the inequality of sexes. I usually do hear, and subscribe to the view, that men and women are equal in nature, but not equal in role, just like Jesus Christ is equal to God the Father in Nature, but not in role, since he is subordinate to the Father. I just want to bring attention to this since if one wants to say that men and women are equal in nature, they're going to have to deal with this argument. Comments welcome. 

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 14, 2016 at 8:17 AM

    According to dictionary.com,

    the subordinate is the one "controlled by or under the authority of another in an organization." Noun version

    And, to subordinate is "to treat or regard of lesser importance than something else."

    Yet, Jesus is not controlled by the Father. He freely chooses to offer Himself to us out of love for the Father.

    He is not treated as having lesser importance than the Father. Indeed, He is regarded as an equal member of the Trinity.

    I think that the word "subordinate" needs to be changed or redefined in a very specific way to embody the relationship of the Son to the Father. I like your analogy very much and this philosopher missed the wisdom of it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more