(quote) David-174079 said: Hi Kristen,
Sorry, I'm having another unfortunate brainiac arrest here, but is androgyny being only induced by Marxist ideology?
There seems like streams of hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity, as well as, androgyny are mass marketed in the USA. It is a complicated issue. Complementarity, it seems to me, if not originating in the Trinity, is at the very least grounded in nature. Some might suggest that social engineering, contraception, erosion of family values, a hyper materialism that coerces more work less children, etc., anything that wars against Holy Matrimony and 'Telos' (the natural ends -- unitive and procreative) of marriage might be causal factors. This is opening a can of worms, but someone in a Muslim country might even suggest complementarity will be compromised until Burkas come in fashion.
It is not readily apparent to me that Marxism has a monopoly on any of these maladies.
Just wanted to let you know you are not talking to yourself!
Great point, David. I would certainly concur that Marxism does not hold the monopoly on dehumanization. My only point in making the distinction about "Marxist equality" was so as it would not be confused with "Biblical equality" as articulated in Genesis 1 and 2. Marxist equality is a convenient term because Marx very clearly defined his view of the human person as primarily a member of the state, even before belonging to a family. So persons were viewed as "comrades" rather than as a mother or father or woman or man. Marx's definition of equality is entirely political, social and economic. Biblical equality refers to the person before God and refers to their value
, their dignity
- that all persons are created in His image, and even man and woman are not the same, they are both equally created in the image of God, and have the same dignity before God:
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27
So, yes I would agree that capitalism can be just as flawed in its regard for the human person. But as far as I know, I am not aware of a "Capitalist" philosopher who has provided such a clear definition of what/who the human is like Marx did. (unless you want to count Ayn Rand) And I would also add that I don't believe the American government is solely guided by the principles of capitalism, but is a complex mixture of free-market/Marxist equality/government regulation all rolled into one. Especially as our Supreme Court continues to reinterpret the Constitution according to "modern values" as opposed to the values of the Founders, I believe the complexity will continue to grow.