New Patterns of Relationship: Beginnings of a Moral Revolution

Abstract

P ATTERNS OF RELATIONSHIP between women and men are changing. Why they are changing, and how rapidly, are matters of debate. It may be that the chief forces for change are, e.g., economic. 1 Industrialization and the accompanying trend toward smaller, independent families accounts in part for husbands having to share in domestic tasks which stand-in female members of larger, extended families would have assumed. Technological development, which eliminates the requirement of physical strength for many occupations, accounts for the decrease in sex differentiation in portions of the work force. Mass media make feminist ideas accessible to otherwise isolated women, facilitating an unprecedented broadening of the base of challenge from women no longer willing to live within past role definitions. Rising affluence eliminates the need for parents to choose to educate sons in preference to daughters.It may also be, however, that much of the change in patterns of relationship between men and women is more apparent than real. Some researchers claim, e.g., that despite the seeming loss of authority on the part of fathers, husbands still retain the preponderance of power in the family. 2 Feminist interpreters of life in society and the churches call attention to the fact that since the 1920's women have lost more ground than they have gained in their struggle to share in the public world. 3 Statistics show that in the United States women's growth numerically in the work force has not significantly changed their economic status vis-à-vis men. 4 Whatever the actual changes already realized in women's and men's social roles, there can be no doubt that there is an important change in *See studies such as Harriet Holter, "Sex Roles and Social Change," in Hans Peter Dreitzel, ed., Family, Marriage, and the Struggle of the Sexes (New York, 1972) pp. 153-72. It must also be noted that there are economic causes which reinforce old patterns of relationship. See, e.g., the analysis of the effect of the Industrial Revolution on familial structures in Viola Klein, The Feminine Character: History of An Ideology (London, 1971) p. 10.

Reflecting and Advancing the Transformation: Catholic Theological Ethics and the Journal of Religious Ethics, 1973–2023

“…While often focused on traditional categories of Catholic moral theology, these analyses were pursued in an explicitly ecumenical and humanistic mode. Farley's 1975 “New Patterns of Relationship: Beginnings of a Moral Revolution” made one of the first explicitly feminist contributions to this discussion. Aligned with the personalists, she argued that relationships rather than acts ought to be the starting point for the moral understanding of sexuality, but she pushed the boundaries by insisting that the patriarchal and misogynistic patterns of relationship that are embedded in the remnants of neo‐Scholastic theology must change.…”

Perempuan dan Kepemimpinan Gereja: Suatu Dialog Perspektif Hermeneutika Feminis

“…Menerapkan prinsip ini pada hubungan antara perempuan dan laki-laki, ia menyimpulkan: 'Perlu diperdebatkan bahwa sebenarnya kebaikan keluarga, gereja, dan lainnya, lebih baik dilayani oleh model kepemimpinan yang mencakup kolaborasi antara orang-orang yang setara'. 46 Prinsip-prinsip kebaikan bersama dan subsidiaritas menuntut persamaan dan mutualitas tidak hanya dalam hubungan pribadi tetapi juga dalam struktur sosial.…”

Making Sense of Eighty Years of Theological Ethics

“…111 In 1975, an entire issue is dedicated to feminism, and Margaret Farley makes a major contribution suggesting relationships as opposed to acts as the point of departure for the moral understanding of sexuality; moreover, she proposes that these relationships need to be understood not in the neo-Scholastic framework of women's subservience, but rather in a newly constructed way that highlights equity, equal regard, self-sacrifice, active receptivity, and mutuality. 112 As she concludes the article, she turns to matters of justice and the common good and bridges significantly the fields of sexual ethics and social ethics for the first time in the pages of this journal.…”