Patriarchy, when it’s done right
There was a large and interesting conflict between Doug Phillips of Vision Forum and Boerne Christian Assembly (a small San Antonio church where he was pastor) and a parishioner named Jennifer Epstein, a conflict that was all about submission and asymmetrical rules. The condensed version is that Jennifer Epstein’s husband Mark had problems with anger and Phillips simply kept telling her to be more and more and more submissive; she tried to argue her case, and Phillips ended up throwing both of them and their children out of the church.
Epstein met her husband when both were in the military.
She’d thrived under military discipline, memorizing long lists of rules and regulations, willing to submit to such authority, she says, as long as she understood the reasons for the rules. That this need to understand the rationale behind regulation indicates a desire for discussion and debate more than a readiness to submit seems evident in the wake of Jennifer’s experiences at BCA, where she attempted to grapple intellectually with the logic behind the rules as she had in the Army. [Quiverfull p 110]
That’s a key point, you see, because there isn’t any. That keeps cropping up throughout the book – it’s not about logic or reasons or fairness. People frame it that way at times but only as long as it works; the bottom line is always just “God said so”; Titus 2; Proverbs 31; it’s for Jesus. You can use reasons around the edges, while the sun is shining, but god-said-so always trumps them. Always. Joyce quotes Phillips saying exactly that early on, in that Vision Forum talk.
You are a helpmeet. The Bible says that man is not made for the woman but the woman is made for the man. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Creator, not Phillips. I’m just quoting. [p 8]
Nothing he can do, you see? It’s out of his hands. So logic is ultimately beside the point, as is thinking, as is discussion.
And that’s why it’s so foul. Humans are a discussing, reasoning, thinking species. It’s a terrible contortion and stifling of our nature to block that by claiming it’s all been decided by an absent god and the boys are “just quoting.”
Epstein never does seem to grasp that, even though she got her face rubbed in it.
She argues that patriarchy, when it’s done right, in a heart-driven, grace-inspired way, makes women want to submit to their husbands because their husbands lead the way, by loving them as Christ does, not because it’s a system imposing a set of rules from without.
But then that’s not submission! If you’re doing it because you want to, it’s not submission. It’s sprinkling flower petals on a bucket of rotting garbage, to pretend that the really nice kind of patriarchy can make women want to submit.
It it’s not a system imposing a set of rules from without, then what the hell are we talking about?
Cognitive dissonance?
Occam’s razor seems to apply. Either God created women with ability and talent and will just so he could test the faith of each individual woman to see if she will go against everything *that he instilled in her* just because he asks, or else dividing all of humanity into two groups such that your group (that would be the guys) is dominant is a great strategy for keeping all the goodies for yourself and making sure you are the ones with the power.
Which seems more likely?
Quite. She’s very confused.
I think there’s circular reasoning as well. Patriarchy has an assumption of female submission built in to it, so to say that patriarchy done well makes women want to submit is dubious – they don’t have a full set of options under those circumstances.
Or in other words, if women are willingly submitting to their husbands, then the reverse could equally well come about, and you don’t have much of a patriarchy.
I once knew a family that followed a branch of Christianity that emphasized male headship. The father was rather absent- and feeble-minded; I imagine he was humoured a lot.
Of course all that crap is moot…there is no god, therefore the women are free to tell the man to shove it.
It’s hard to believe that so many women still fall for this evil world-view.
Reminds me of the black slaves in America many years ago…they were huge believers in the Christian God who’s (purported) words in the Bible made sure they stayed slaves.
Interesting in this context that the term for this “don’t look at me, them’s the rules” move is “bad faith.”
It comes never up by these people that men used an non-existing God for their desire they have from theirselves to rule over women.. It’s the eternal trenches war between men and women that the abrahamic religions have tried to sold definite. Like they have tried to solve the question of slaves and wealth with the lie that the same “invisible man in the sky” has given Abraham the order to get rich and have many slaves to give better service to him. It’s the most obvious lie in the bible and with far-reaching consequences = capitalism.
I can’t get over this bit:
It reminds me of one of Ray Comfort’s objections to evolution–that is, on the grounds that evolution requires a male and a female to evolve and meet at the same time. Certain christians seem to literally see women as a different, and inferior, species from men. Not homo sapiens but femina helpmeetus (I’m sure that’s terrible pseudo-latin, but you get the point).
Ray Comfort is moot. I mean that he is a moot person. There is no there there. I have seen far too much of him to still delude myself that he is an actual thing.
Doesn’t anyone here realize what a terrible burden it is for the men who are forced to be the leaders in the relationship? The hardship of always having to be responsible for all the decisions? The mandate that they must go out to work and earn money to support the family, while the women have the privilege of living the life of ease, staying at home with nothing to do but look after a bunch of kids and make sure supper is ready on time? </sarcasm>
Ugh
Whoever came up with ‘those in command suffer most’ must have been humanity’s biggest tool. Mind you I fully understand a great deal of stress comes with command and that some commanders do agonize over their failures. But it’s still a lie used mainly to fool the lessers into believing that they should love and revere their leader even more. In this case the leader is beyond reproach and owed complete obedience so how this is supposed to not lead to grave abuses is beyond me.
And what if women just don’t want to? What if women love their husbands and recognise that they’re not all that clever and sometimes have to take a guiding hand: like “No, we are not sending our child to a boarding school/arranged marriage/uncle in Bradford/nunnery/Catholic laundry/hell house… And what if women despise husbands who are cruel, violent, spendthrift, paedophiliac small-time crooks/gangsters/serial killers/louts; or just oafish (oavish?)?? “Ah, that’s sin, that is. ‘Cos I believe it, and if you don’t do as I believe you ought you’ll go to hell.”
Of course, we all know that men love their wives as Christ loves, all the time. Then again, how many men have any idea what that actually means? How did Christ love his wife? Oh! well, how did Christ love anybody? Well, he fed a very large crowd on five loaves and two fishes, cast devils into pigs, changed water into wine, raised a couple of people from the dead, predated Abraham, got himself crucified, opened the gates of hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and — apparently — sat on God’s right hand (most of this is relevant, really)… Easy! I could do that! He also drank, went to parties, told stories no one could understand, repudiated his mother, told people to hate their families, said he was going to cause strife and bring swords and things…and one must admit that that is much much easier. So which is more likely, eh? And why should an intelligent woman listen to all that fanatical lunatic garbage?
“No no no, the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church!” So, Christ tells the Church what to do? Christ tells them to set up the Catholic laundries and let paedophile priests off the hook and threaten people who complain with excommunication? And I thought it was just the Pope! You live and learn. Anyway, so that’s what being the head of the wife means. It’s all…very…clear.”No no no, Christ is the Redeemer, who saves us from sin (if we believe it) and is our Guide and Good Shepherd and High Priest and Advocate-with-the-Father.” So, a husband has to “redeem” his wife and save her from sin (if she believes it) and is her Guide and her Good Shepherd and her High Priest and her Advocate with Christ who is his Redeemer etc. etc.? So (thinking through this sacred evolution of spiritual species) you’ve got sinful woman (homo ancilla ignara), who is saved by rather less sinful man (homo sapiens sapiens), who is saved by being part of the even less sinful Church (viri sapientissimi salvati) which is saved by the totally unsinful Christ (vir perfectissimus perfectissimus) who intercedes with his Father (deus ille omniquidvis, A.O., B.C., A.D. etc.) who saved him from death. And that’s how a man should love his wife. So, why should an intelligent woman listen to all that fanatical lunatic garbage?
It’s not a system imposing rules from without? no bigoted self-opinionated self-serving men? no church authorities? no god-fearing community? no ten commandments? no Pauline theology? no hell-fire and damnation?
Sorry, I forgot to mention the animals (animalia innocentia commoda). They come in just before the sinful woman.
It occurs to me that my hierarchy of spiritual species must be on the right lines, because you have woman (just above crabs and stones), and then husbands (men) and then the Church (men) and then Christ (a man, though no doubt a very good sort in his way) and then God (probably a man, and rather typical if so, but definitely male). So why do so many people think of women as a minority? Any clues?
Because men take up so much more cultural space. Women seem like a minority even though of course we’re not. Think movies – so many of them star a man, a man, a man, a man, a man, a man, and a woman. TV shows, same thing: mostly men with sometimes a woman or two. Then you move to real life and it’s still mostly men doing the official talking and running things. Women are way more tucked away out of sight than men are, so people form the impression that men are the majority.
Depends. When does it count as a minority? Is there a percentage?
There ought to be more of one gender most of the time. The latest I heard on the birth statistics was that more males are born, possibly trending at a decreased rate. Was years ago.