.

JESSE POWELL writes:

A multi-page article called “Housewives of God” on the teachings of wifely submission in several Evangelical churches has appeared in the New York Times Magazine. As far as I know this is the most mainstream news coverage the patriarchal movement has ever received. Molly Worthen, a writer on religious issues, profiles Priscilla Shirer as a typical example of an empowered woman who really leads a feminist lifestyle preaching that “Satan will do everything in his power to get us (women) to take the lead in our homes. He wants to make us resent our husband’s position of authority so that we will begin to usurp it. . . . Women need to pray for God to renew a spirit of submission in their hearts.”

I find Molly Worthen’s critique of the patriarchal movement within the church quite amusing. Often feminists will claim that women who support wifely submission are self-hating or, in the anonymous world of the Internet, they will claim that bloggers advocating this message who claim to be women are really men. Molly Worthen takes the approach that women teaching the patriarchal message are really feminists since they are acting as empowered women, in a leadership role.

From my observation it is indeed true that more women than men are openly advocating for patriarchy in the current cultural climate. Feminists would claim that this is paradoxical or a mystery, but I think it makes perfect sense. I think the majority of the early advocates for patriarchy are women for the same reason that the majority of the early advocates of feminism were women; that women take on the role of signaling to men how they want men to behave, how they want men to treat them. When society entered into a period of decline making women feel insecure about men’s willingness and ability to act according to their traditional role many women wanted to become more empowered in order to protect themselves since they no longer trusted in the protection of men. Now, after the ever worsening social disaster of feminism has run its course over a couple of decades, women are seeing that it is much better for men to take the lead and for men to act like men and women to act like women. This is why women are now leading the call for a return to patriarchy.

Men need to listen to what women are telling them and embrace the calling of patriarchy themselves. Patriarchy is where the future lies; patriarchy is where all the desirable women can be found!

Laura writes:

It will be a long time before most desirable women are openly advocating patriarchy. But it is good to remain optimistic.

Evangelical women have found a compelling voice. They are articulating the idea that wifely submission is not a form of capitulation. This is a great development. There is a subculture of women challenging one central facet of feminism, and arguing for the hollowness and emptiness of autonomy.

But, Evangelical culture, as Ms. Worthen illustrates, continues to advocate many aspects of modern  egalitarianism, using imaginative readings of the Bible to support the idea that women should do everything men do and to embrace modern careerism. I think Ms. Worthen is correct in pointing to the disturbing contradictions in Priscilla’s Shirer’s life and in Evangelical culture at large.

By the way, I do not agree that feminism was brought about purely by insecurity in women. Genuine envy, pride and the will to power were also involved.

 

— Comments —

Hurricane Betsy writes:

One could just as soon argue that opinionated women having websites is anti-patriarchy. Further, there’s countless women like, say, Gwen Landolt of Real Women in Canada, who is a lawyer and who speaks not unlike a feminist. The feminists argue, correctly, that if it wasn’t for their outlook and efforts, there wouldn’t be any women with university and professional degrees spouting their opinions. Landolt (this is only one example) may be using her legal training and experience to promote pro-family policies etc. but can’t anyone here see the irony of it all?

Submitting to men all the time? What if the husband wants to buy an expensive house that the family can’t afford? What would one of those submissive Christian evangelical wives actually DO if she couldn’t dissuade him about the dangers of such a poor decision? Wait for “God” to sort it out? Run to their pastor for “counselling”? What if the husband just goes ahead and buys the house anyway and forces the family to move (and then they have to live on porridge 3X/day to make the mortgage payments)? Is this the wife’s fault, because somewhere along the line she wasn’t godly or submissive enough?

What am I getting at? If men were as smart, wise and deserving of their head-of-household status as these evangelical women think, merely by virtue of their sex, the feminist movement would never have slithered into all our lives to address a few domestic issues that needed examination in the first place. It’s 2 steps forward and 1 step back, this business of domestic life. Mindless obedience to a literal translation of a 2,000 year old book written by wandering desert people is not my idea of wisdom. The Biblical prescription for men being boss and women being unquestioning, submissive “helpmeet” is laughable if not tragic.

Laura writes:

Your comments are filled with superstitious nonsense and contempt for Christianity. You display the inability to draw distinctions that is typical of the miseducated female.

You say women were uneducated before modern feminism. That is patently false. My grandmother went to college. Queen Victoria was no dummy. Neither was Jane Austen. Even in highly patriarchal Ancient Greece, there were women of high learning. But no education is arguably better than the anti-education of today, in which women imbibe the drivel of women’s studies and dumbed-down humanities.

I have never, by the way, advocated that women not be educated and in fact  have said they they should be well-educated. The idea that the Christian women mentioned in the article are advocating mindless submission to all men is also false. The women cited are advocating submission to their husbands, who are Christian men enjoined to love their wives or face eternal punishment, men who must confront a host of egregious consequences if they fail to pursue traditional morality.

The Bible is explicit in its opening pages that it is normal for a man to listen to his wife. Even in Paradise, Adam listened to Eve. A wife in the Judeo-Christian view is a man’s helpmeet. She uses mind and body in that role. Not only is she an intellectual and practical advocate, she is fully his moral equal.

Let’s take the case you mention: the wife of a man who wants to make a disastrous financial decision.  The Christian woman would strongly urge him not to buy the house. The Christian man would not force his wife to sign papers that she does not approve. He is enjoined to love her. Also, Christianity does not call on a woman to follow her husband if he tells her to do something wrong. She is not required to follow if he tells her walk across the road without looking. She is not required to consent to financial suicide if it is truly a question of that. She is required to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What more power in such a case does a feminist possess, other than to threaten her husband with divorce?

You seem to believe society is possible without submission. In reality, it is not a question of whether people will submit to each other, but how and in what way. Feminism has forced many men to submit to the foolish decisions of their wives. Seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. Men have no choice but to agree to being stripped of half of their assets and, in many cases, their children.

Feminism requires men to submit to laws that force employers to favor women in a significant percentage of hiring decisions. A man must submit if his partner wishes to abort his child over his protest.

The idea that feminism represents “two steps forward, one step back” is very difficult to prove outside the fortunes of a very small number of powerful women. Look around you. The devolution of our culture is in full swing. Many women are forced to leave their children in the care of strangers. Our prisons are filled with adults who never lived with their fathers. Male and female relations among those who are not rich have never been worse. Children have never been more spoiled and neglected.

By the way, your comment that the Bible is just a “2,000-year-old book written by wandering desert people” is extremely ignorant. One doesn’t have to be a believing Christian or a Jew to recognize the most influential book in Western civilization as something more than primitive ramblings.

Anonymous writes:

Laura wrote, “She is not required to consent to financial suicide if it is truly a question of that. She is required to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

In those times when I was very reluctant to follow a financial course my husband wished to pursue, I let him know my sincere wishes and opinion, then followed his wishes, whether to sign for a house, etc. I was at ease that he knew what I thought, though had determined otherwise. In EVERY CASE of what many would call less-than-wise decisions, I and my children were blessed and provided for, even as my dear husband felt the sting of godly chastement. God is our Provider, and I do not have to make it a point of contention when he has decided to do what I disagree with. Also, too many times I think we as women are blind to the fact that we arent’ always correct in our assessments either.

Laura writes:

Only stupid and self-loathing women marry someone who dislikes them so much that he completely disregards their opinions and would deliberately make them poor.

Honestly, feminists have not the slightest confidence in women. They really think they are dumb.

Eric writes:

I very much wish we could find another word to label that thought. I don’t think ‘submission’ is exactly what anyone is thinking of.

Laura writes:

Good point. We are made to serve, not submit.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

You said,

“Only stupid and self-loathing women marry someone who dislikes them so much that he completely disregards their opinions and would deliberately make them poor.”

Of course your statement is correct. However, I can see two situations:

No. 1: Sometimes a man seems quite nice, intelligent and of at least average judgment in financial & other matters. I’m not talking about emotionally disturbed women marrying crazy men who would “deliberately make them poor”, here. I am talking about the fact that people change. A man who may have had normal judgment in various aspects of life can suddenly behave irrationally. It happens so often! The man who starts spending like crazy (on credit) is not a new thing; some folks think it’s some kind of hormone problem. But Christian evangelicals just think, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, that God will straighten things out if the wife shows enough submissiveness and reads her Bible enough. Ain’t so. I’ve had much debate and discussion with the JWs who come to our door. They have been known to say: “Let Jehovah take care of it,” when I bring up examples of difficult situations in life.

And No. 2: Suppose a stupid or self-loathing woman marries a man who does not give a hoot for her opinions – but some years later she converts to evangelical Christianity and comes to realize that she was stupid, blind and self-loathing but was healed by her belief in Christ. What is she suppposed to do, now, with that sociopath of a husband? Just dump him? (Suppose there’s small children?) Pore over that Bible day and night? Look to an evangelical (male) pastor who’s going to tell her to pray more and have greater faith?

So as regards those stupid and self-loathing women out there – I would say their numbers are great because the feminists have had a heyday getting these women to see selfish and wicked men for what they are, but have gone overboard, turned evil and now we live in this liberal pool of ***t.

Laura writes:

I haven’t read the works of the women mentioned in the article, but I cannot imagine they are advocating unreasoning obedience to everything a husband does. Christianity does not advocate personal suicide or unlimited authority.

As for the first scenario, there are many ways to change a spouse other than by divorcing him. Some unhappy marriages will never be repaired and, yes, a woman can turn to God for help. All human relationships occur in relation to God, whether they are happy or not. The woman who marries a sociopath will be a lot better off after she has turned to Christ whether her practical problems are solved or not. Again, I am sure these Evangelical women are not saying that a woman can obliterate all her problems by merely submitting to her husband and believing in Christ. If they are, that is not orthodox Christianity, which recognizes the realities of existence.

By the way, your Jehovah’s Witnesses who give you the impression that human beings do not have to find practical as well as spiritual solutions for their problems are evangelizing. I’m sure they don’t turn to God when they need an oil change or a haircut.

Charles T. writes:

Hurricane Betsy wrote:

Mindless obedience to a literal translation of a 2,000 year old book written by wandering desert people is not my idea of wisdom. The Biblical prescription for men being boss and women being unquestioning, submissive “helpmeet” is laughable if not tragic.

Same old tired feminist argument by Hurricane Betsy. Here is the text that Paul wrote in Ephesians 5: 22-33:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

The church submits to Jesus. The husband submits to Jesus. The wife submits to her husband. The husband submits to the needs of his wife. Where, Hurricane Betsy, is the mindless submission that you have referenced? It is not in this text. This text teaches that, in addition to Christians submitting to their Lord, the husband and wife are in a mutally benefical relationships that inolves submission in both directions, i.e., to each other, yet, the husband retains the overall responsibilty for the relationship; hence, he is the head of the home. The wife respects her husband and the husband loves, cherishes and meets the needs of his wife. Any man that loves his wife and children and makes the attempt to meet their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs finds himself in submission to their needs. This is not a mindless submission either; however, any man that attempts it finds himself simulataneously exhausted and fulfilled. He is still the head of the home and the family, but everything he does, i.e., earning money, saving, spending, living arrangements, etc., must be done with the needs of his family kept in mind. By submitting himself to the needs of his family, the husband is submitting himself to his Lord. Any Christian – or pagan for that matter – who uses these verse to dominate their family are mis-reading the text. There is a difference between domination and rightful authority to lead a family. Hurricane Betsy cannot distinguish between the two concepts.

Paul’s text illustrates a dynamic of worship, and family life of fulfilling relationships, not one of domination. In cases of severe abuse by a man or – gasp – a woman, to their partner, the injured party would have to, at some point, and depending on the situation, consider leaving. Is some cases, this would be necessary to save a life. However, again, domination and abuse are not even taught in the text above.

Laura wrote:

You seem to believe society is possible without submission. In reality, it is not a question of whether people will submit to each other, but how and in what way.

Tragically true. Submission to someone or something is a fact of life. As Bob Dylan says – ” You gotta serve somebody.”

Laura also wrote:

The women cited are advocating submission to their husbands, who are Christian men enjoined to love their wives or face eternal punishment, men who must confront a host of egregious consequences if they fail to pursue traditional morality.

Excellent summation of what Paul taught. Another writer, I cannot remember who at this point, made the same argument. Paul is not advocating women to submit to any man, but only to their husbands, and only in the type of relationship described above. And this text does not give a man the right to demand submission from any woman. There are many women, whose feminist philosophy has led them to submit to many men and institutions, but not to a husband. I think that is a very unhappy life. When a woman submits to the leadership of her husband, she is protected from many other influences in the world. My own spouse has told me that she notices how this works when she is interacting with other men on a daily basis. Men who know she is married to me are respectful towards her.

Laura also wrote:

By the way, your comment that the Bible is just a “2,000-year-old book written by wandering desert people” is extremely ignorant. One doesn’t have to be a believing Christian or a Jew to recognize the most influential book in Western civilization as something more than primitive ramblings.

 Excellent. The 2000 year old wisdom taught by Paul is so relevant to our world where the relationships of men and women are painfully fractured.

Mdavid writes:

Laura writes: Honestly, feminists have not the slightest confidence in women. They really think they are dumb.

 I know this may sound trite or even self-serving (I’m a married trad w/ 7 kids) but I’ve often noticed feminists are not generally bright…either in practical real-world affairs or social settings. Feminism is usually an emotional crutch masking some other issue and any intelligent woman would forgo this method of emoting.

Truth be truth, a feminist has gravely missed the mark on reality any way one slices the bread…be it from a Darwinian, historical, practical, or religious point of view. So the reason that a feminist would think most women are dumb and helpless is…well, as self evident as their glance in the mirror.

David C. writes: 

As Mr. Powell noted, “women take on the role of signaling to men how they want men to behave, how they want men to treat them.” Right – and does it not happen, without exception, that men will always follow the lead of women? Sure, it may take decades for men to fall completely into line with the wishes of their women, as happened with feminism, but it seems clear to me that the dynamic always unfolds this way: what women want, women get, and if they wish, they will make us men get it for them.

If by some strange turn of events women, after decades of complaining miserably about the patriarchy, suddenly decide they want patriarchy restored, they will, first of all, think nothing of jerking us around (“Honey… now I want the patriarchy… do that for me instead of the matriarchy” – “But sweetheart, you’ve been telling to give you the matriarchy for decades!” – “I know, but I changed my mind”), and I believe this is fundamentally because women are only concerned with themselves and other women, and never with men. Women will never admit this, but I think this is only because they can’t see it. They just don’t care how they treat us. I’ve seen it too many times to believe anything else. Anyway, second, we men, now faced with women’s new (hypothetical) request, will not only consent to it, but third, we ourselves will perform all the work necessary to make it happen. Who can deny it? If women wanted the patriarchy – or anything else, for that matter – is it not only a matter of time before they would get it?

So if this is true, what is the reality of the relationship between man and woman? As I see it, only one image is correct: a woman walking a dog on a leash. The dog may either trot behind her obediently or resist his domination, but he cannot escape the fact that she holds the leash. Well, I suppose a third option is to attack his master, but then, what will be left for him? A life without his master is unimaginable.

Patriarchy can only exist as an illusion. Women are the true powerbrokers in every human society, and nothing will ever change that. As for men, all we stand to learn is that we were born conquered; after this, we must only choose whether to live or die.

Laura writes:

David’s comments typify the sort of demonization of women that is common in the men’s movement. This is largely an emotional view. He assumes two falsehoods: 1) men have no will and no power in relation to women and 2) women are morally inferior to men.

The statement that “what women want they get” is sometimes true but no one who lives in the real world would say it is always true. David says women are purely selfish. They are unable to ever consider the feelings of men. In other words, they are spiritually deformed and any appearance of selflessness on their part is just that, an appearance only. Certainly many women are selfish and all women are partially selfish, as are all men. And, feminism has enhanced and boosted female selfishness to new heights. But women are still human beings. They are capable of love.  The majority of women I know love their husbands. The scourge of female-initiated divorce is female selfishness at its worst, but most women do not divorce their husbands or deliberately disregard their husbands’ happiness.

“Patriarchy can only exist as an illusion.”

Patriarchy in the feminist sense, which is the complete power of all men over all women, is an illusion. In reality, because of the natural desire for friendship and love between the sexes, and because of the drive to reproduce, the totalitarian power of men over women could never be lived, though there have been societies in which powerful men demonized women and believed in their complete inferiority. I agree women have innate power over men. It is too extreme to say that women are always the “true powerbrokers” in society given that men as a group have a higher intelligence than women, have greater physical power, hold most positions of leadership and possess free will. I don’t mean to suggest that men are always more powerful than women. But they do possess some distinct advantages of their own to counterbalance the power women possess.

David adds:

Laura wrote: 

The women cited are advocating submission to their husbands, who are Christian men enjoined to love their wives or face eternal punishment, men who must confront a host of egregious consequences if they fail to pursue traditional morality.

Where is it said that men who do not love their wives will burn in Hell? I am not familiar with this teaching. Is there a corresponding demand on women, or do all the women who divorce on weak grounds get to destroy their husbands’ hearts without penalty? 

So if I am married to an evil, selfish, manipulative woman, God himself will say to me, “Love this woman, or you will suffer eternal punishment.” I had thought women were a gift from God. Increasingly, they seem like burdens hung around the necks of men, with God himself holding the whip that urges us to keep marching. 

I love the remarks of Anonymous: “In EVERY CASE of what many would call less-than-wise decisions, I and my children were blessed and provided for, even as my dear husband felt the sting of godly chastement.” She about perfectly summarized what I’m saying here. 

As I see it, the Christian conception of marriage is slavery, pure and simple, at least for the men. The man is shouldered with the entire burden of responsibility for the family — the woman need face no punishment for her failures. He is expected to lead a group of people (his wife and children) who never really want to follow him and always think they know better than him. When he fails, his wife will be the first line to let him know it, and then God himself will punish him severely, during which time the man’s wife and children, enjoying their protected status, look on with glee, saying, “Haha, I told you so!” 

Why on earth does any man volunteer for this position? “Love your wife or burn in Hell?” What? Forget it – there must be ways to serve humanity that are not so demeaning and dehumanizing.

Laura writes:

Again, David engages in more men’s rights logic and distorts the meaning of Christian love with the same sort of reductive logic used by Hurricane Betsy.

The second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. So said Christ. He also spoke of the sanctity of marriage and the unlawfulness of divorce. Now what Christ means when he talks of love is not simply the feeling of love. When he tells us to love our enemies that does not mean we must feel love for our enemies nor does it  mean we do whatever our enemies want us to do. Love in this sense is recognition of the humanity of others. Our love for ourselves is complex. So is our love for  others.

If you are married to an evil, selfish, manipulative woman (whom you freely chose), you are indeed enjoined to love her to the extent of maintaining your vows to her and of viewing her as a human being. Paul said this was a divine law. Obviously one is not required to love the evil aspects of a spouse anymore than one is required to love evil in oneself. David deliberately distorts the meaning of what I said. He contends Christian marriage is complete humiliation for the man,  even though the idea that men only have the obligation to serve others is never presented in the New Testament. How each spouse fulfills his obligations to the other does have bearing on eternal life, as do all our actions. David fails to mention that a Christian man is likely married to a Christian woman, who is enjoined to obey him.

The man is shouldered with the entire burden of responsibility for the family — the woman need face no punishment for her failures.

This entry was about how women should serve and obey their husbands. It’s amazing that out of this theme David has drawn a commandment for universal subjugation of the male sex. It is true that men shoulder a heavy responsibility. That’s why they have more authority. Where did I ever say women “face no punishment for their failures?” That’s an absurd idea.