|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 27, 2010 10:44:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gardenkatz on Jan 27, 2010 11:01:08 GMT -5
If the men in this movement are so manly and of course natural leaders.... Why do so many of them come off as repressed gay men with their perfect hair and their perfect non denim pants and their perfect white shirts and neckties?
Some of the most visible men in this movement seem rather less than masculine to me...
Sorry for the run on sentences...I'm on break at work and in a hurry!
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Jan 27, 2010 13:06:16 GMT -5
we can all see what the results of this mentality have brought. few men could have this role without any form of abuse. it's amazing how many people know what god wants. and guess what it is what they want too. but the thing is why is it they can't agree on what god wants? you would think god would be consistent. but he sure is not.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 27, 2010 13:29:21 GMT -5
jouney, thank you for doing such a great job of explaining the core sameness of the patriarchal and the complementarian teachings! Lately I've been realizing that there's also a core sameness to all of the different fundamentalist religions. Though of course there are also doctrinal differences, they actually seem more similar than different to me. If the men in this movement are so manly and of course natural leaders.... Why do so many of them come off as repressed gay men with their perfect hair and their perfect non denim pants and their perfect white shirts and neckties? I read someone making comments like this about Doug Phillips on another site. It does rather make one wonder. Yet I have actually known some gay men who are comfortable with their sexuality, and they've been very easy to talk to and get along with. One of my husband's former supervisors was gay, and I think my husband liked him best of all the supervisors. Whereas it seems many gay men actually enjoy the comany of women, and have close women friends, it just stands to reason that if you feel you HAVE to be with someone sexually for whom you only have platonic feelings, you might start to resent this person, even if you could have been close friends otherwise. So ... maybe most or all of the male leaders of the complementarian/patriarchy movement, are really repressed gay men who want to be with men but can't? This might even explain the emphasis on having lots of kids -- because for a man who's not attracted to women, the only real benefit to heterosexual sex is that it has the ability to produce children.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 27, 2010 13:50:35 GMT -5
Ooh and maybe it's repressed gay men who've made some of the rules that I've heard of in fundamentalist Mormonism (and also the Hare Krishna religion that Tapati has shared about) -- i.e. that sex should only occur once a month during the woman's fertile time! What heterosexual man would make a rule like that?! journey, about patriarchy/complementarianism having a different definition of "liberation" -- I wonder if it's similar to the way that some of the Pearl Train Up a Child followers define happiness and freedom for children. I've heard that some of the mothers who practice that awful blanket-training recommended by the Pearls, wherein you place a newly-mobile baby on a blanket on the floor, and "tap" Baby everytime she tries to venture off the blanket, until she learns to stay on the blanket and it's like the edges of the blanket are walls to her ... Well, I've heard that some of these mothers will blog about how peaceful and happy their babies look after they've been blanket-trained.They feel like their babies feel really safe and protected -- which I guess would be a "liberating" feeling, huh? I think fundamentalism definitely has it's own defininions for "liberation," and also, obviously, for words like "tapping" (since before I heard it used to describe administering pain to children, I saw it as more of a gentle gesture, kinda like "rain tap-tapping on the roof" ).
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Jan 27, 2010 13:59:24 GMT -5
I really like that you included the bit about how evangelicals actually promote the same hierarchical "equality" but the just don't hammer it home with the same force. That's how I grew up. I wrote four years of papers on religion and gender equality at college. I never drank enough of the Kool-Aid to really get how I was actually equal as a woman if a man had veto power over every decision. How am I equal if the cooking. cleaning, childrearing, moving to accommodate careers are all things the wife does but not the husband?
And I have been wondering ever since I found this site just how possible it is to hold even the "softest" of hierarchical gender views without setting up an automatic power dynamic that puts women at a disadvantage. No one really believed that Separate But Equal bathrooms and education worked for race relations--why does anyone think it works for sexual relations?
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 27, 2010 14:59:01 GMT -5
Thanks for writing that post, Journey!
You wrote: “The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior.”
Piper's definitely got a thing with "flourishing". I wonder how he defines the word!
Piper goes on to say that it is not male egotism that would cause a man to not want a female umpire to make calls during a baseball game, or a female superior officer in the military who commanded men. It’s not male egotism, says Piper, but “a natural and good penchant given by God (pg. 45).”
I've never read the book. I think I'm not yet at the place where I can read something like that. This paragraph reveals just how "Biblical" their position is. Does God give men fragile egos that need women polishing them all day? My former pastor's wife and I often say "we don't do fragile ego polishing, we might break them!"
|
|
calulu
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by calulu on Jan 27, 2010 15:03:23 GMT -5
All that blathering about how to tell a man where the freeway is without being authoritative over man is the very thing I gag on over the patriarchy movement. Hair splitting and silly.
I've always wondered if in the context of their own home and church where many of these guys insist on being the head if it's the only place in their lives where they aren't being bossed around. Sort of like you know what rolling downhill.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 27, 2010 15:08:06 GMT -5
All that blathering about how to tell a man where the freeway is without being authoritative over man is the very thing I gag on over the patriarchy movement. Hair splitting and silly. Yes, that seemed really silly to me, too.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 27, 2010 15:21:26 GMT -5
Very silly. How do you do it? I'm a SAHM and I'm starting to feel left out because I don't know how to direct a man while affirming his "natural and good penchant" to "lead"
Does the term "servant leader" annoy you all as much as it annoys me? It's an oxymoron, like equal but subordinate.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 27, 2010 15:22:42 GMT -5
I have this argument over and over again with patriarchalists on blogs: that the way they use the word "equal" doesn't actually mean "equal" at all.
Most of the time, trying to explain this is impossible. They simply cannot see it. They think giving lip service to "equality" is the same thing as teaching actual equality. It's very frustrating.
And if you bring in the "separate but equal" thing from racial segregationism as an example, they simply get offended.
Thanks, Journey, for articulating this so well! Maybe someone in that camp will read it and see!
Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 27, 2010 15:43:23 GMT -5
Hi all, That "separate but equal" ploy is something I blogged about not long ago: www.fether.net/2009/11/02/sound-familiar/And "it isn't about male ego" is just plain hogwash. It's ALL about male ego, about "who will be the greatest", about pride in the flesh. I've heard many of them claim that they are humbly accepting this heavy burden, but when I remind them that the Christian leader is to be "the slave of all", and like Jesus "not to be served but to serve", they either stomp off or try harder to redefine the meaning of practically every word in the English language.
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Jan 27, 2010 15:49:23 GMT -5
^^ LOL at Inigo Motoya!!!!! Journey, such an important post. Thank you for your clear exegesis. I write a lot about authoritarianism. Today I am aghast to read a prominent document by a prominent ministry which stated that they decry "authoritarian one-man ministry." Yet in many many homes, this is precisely what *they* support / teach. It is akin to the argument (red herring? Not too familiar with the types and terms) that allows them to back-peddle if confronted: "See? We are against authoritarianism, it says so right here!" all the while the practical day to day living is very much so. I think this is similar to the separate-but-equal issue. If they can say the "right" thing and pull the wool over another's eyes, all we're left with is cognitive dissonance. And that's OUR problem.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jan 27, 2010 16:45:54 GMT -5
Thanks for including quotes and citations - I've been wanting to use some material like your writings in my correspondence with my father, but what I really needed was to be able to show direct evidence of where Christian leaders said specific things. It's especially great because he doesn't consider himself a fundamentalist, and so would give no credence to the faith healer or home church types, but Piper is one of his favorite writers.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 27, 2010 16:59:23 GMT -5
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 27, 2010 17:30:34 GMT -5
Very Good, Journey. I hope this is one of many.
Piper makes male and female gender roles of such great importance that IF* it isn't directly related to salvation, it IS DEFINITELY on the same footing as the issue of salvation. He makes gender issues just as important as salvation issues. Not behaving gender appropriately as defined by him is rebelling against creation (natural order) which is rebelling against God.
*That is a big IF, btw. I know what you are saying about them making it a salvation issue. They do. Even if they are in denial about it.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 27, 2010 18:09:43 GMT -5
Vyckie, that kind of response is so typical. It's like nothing you can say will get through. They are so very very certain that they are preaching equality that they can't see what is actually being said, what is actually being taught. It's the weirdest thing. Piper's got much worse quotes out there. These aren't being taken out of context. The book I quoted from is a tiny little thing, easily available via Amazon. Get a copy for yourself, those who believe he's being taken out of context, and see it for yourself. And, yes, while he's not technically saying that your salvation is at stake, he IS saying that you are in direct rebellion to God, perverting His ordering, if you do not subscribe to cbmw's/Piper's views on gender... So, um, let's see... Generally speaking, do most evangelical Christians consider as "saved" people who are unrepentantly living in direct rebellion to God? No. Btw, on gender hierarchy being directly related to the gospel (our salvation)....yes, they actually DO openly say it is. Piper's CBMW group writes an article stating that a church damages its witness to the Gospel, and the authority of Scripture, if it does not adhere to a complementarian view of gender roles: www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-13-No-1/Why-Together-for-the-Gospel-Embraces-ComplementarianismThis article linked to below is not at all odd when it boldly declares that complementarianism IS part of the Gospel. In it, the author actually says this: "Biblical truth should be trusted and treasured, not ran from. Christ died on the cross for complementarianism—he died to rescue us from the broken order of gender and marital relations. "This is not a rare statement, but more common than you might think. blinkministries.org/?p=324 There's plenty more, for those willing to look. Again, those comps who are married to healthy men will generally experience a nice marriage. For those comps married to abusive men, they can always fall back on Piper's actual advice to abused wives: eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.htmlstrivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/It doesn't matter, though, if you have the exact quotes. They still can't hear it. It's just almost impossible to HEAR when you are inside of a system like this. Everything gets run through your paradigm filter, and I believe that they literally don't get how destructive and dangerous their words (or the word's of their esteemed leaders) are. On the comment Vyckie linked to, the comment writer also wrote about the Trinity and the Trinitarian hierarchy proving that women can be "subordinate but equal." What that commenter likely does NOT know is that the view of the Trinity he/she espouses there is a relatively new invention. It is not at all the definition of the Trinity found in the creeds (in fact, some creeds specifically condemn such a view, such as the second helvetic creed, which outright calls it heresy!)... It is now, however, the version of the Trinity that is resoundly taught in complementarian churches, and, sadly, no one knows that it is a new thing. I speak as one who based her former comp beliefs upon the hierarchical Trinity, first and foremost... It can really shake you up when you do your due diligence and research it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 27, 2010 18:15:07 GMT -5
One more to add: S.M.Hutchen's, another evangelical favorite, says that a Christian egalitarian (one who does not believe in a gender hierarchy instituted by God) is not a Christian but is the same thing as a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon (which, to evangelicals, are not Christians and are not "saved"). www.dennyburk.com/c-s-lewis-and-egalitarianism/#comment-27540
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 27, 2010 22:52:34 GMT -5
Journey: "Btw, on gender hierarchy being directly related to the gospel (our salvation)....yes, they actually DO openly say it is."
Yes, this is true. Once watched a man who believed in patriarchy try to convince the egals on an egal blog that if they rejected patriarchy then they rejected God because God is the Father of everyone...
Later this man tried to say to these egal Christians who had a clear mission statement and statement of faith that is very Christian and Bible based, that they weren't Christians at all. The commenter on the link Vyckie gave didn't know what he/she was talking about at all.
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Jan 28, 2010 0:12:01 GMT -5
the guy sounds like he is really afraid of woman. he is the typical male coward that has to lord over woman.
I cant believe idiots are still trying to be more important then woman. no matter what a man thinks they tend to be controlled by woman. why is that? because woman tend to be smarter then men.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 28, 2010 0:27:59 GMT -5
I have never had any religious beliefs although my parents exposed me and my sisters to Sunday School to learn about the prevailing belief/cultural background.
My question, as an outsider is "Why?"
On one of the other threads, many pretzel-twists of interpretation - or not - are applied to the biblical teachings. Why do people, women in particular, want so much to belong to a club that so obviously doesn't want you - except to keep the place tidy?
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Jan 28, 2010 10:43:49 GMT -5
doggie: I cant believe idiots are still trying to be more important then woman. no matter what a man thinks they tend to be controlled by woman. why is that? because woman tend to be smarter then men.
Puh-leeze! "Women" are not better than "men" - women are individual people, just like men are individual people. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are better with children, some like to teach, some are patient, kind, and considerate, some are gifted leaders. Some are stupid, some are weak, some shouldn't be left alone with a child, some are mean, some are nasty, thoughtless, and inconsiderate, some couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. (Whether the some in question are men or women is deliberately left unclear.)
A pedestal is as confining as a jail.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 28, 2010 11:24:57 GMT -5
First, syfr, thanks for bringing that up. doggie, men are no better or no worse than women. We are all human beings trying to make our way in the world.
ambrosia: "My question, as an outsider is "Why?"
You may not really want an answer to this. And I'm trying to think of how to keep it short for that reason.
Not everyone in the movement is like this. The teaching is bad. But this doesn't make all the people bad and all the men dismissive of women. Since we focus on the bad actions of some and the bad results of this teaching, it could appear that it's that "black and white." It's not.
Since you don't believe in God, it is not important to you to find other people to hang with who also believe in God. Because some of those people have gone off the deep end with extreme teaching doesn't mean that they all have. I hang with the ones who think more like me, who don't hate women but promote them along with the men.
I could say more and try to clarify further but, as mentioned above, I wasn't sure if you really wanted an answer or just wanted to express a general disgust at this teaching and at the stupidity of Piper et al. A disgust I share.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 28, 2010 11:52:09 GMT -5
One more to add: S.M.Hutchen's, another evangelical favorite, says that a Christian egalitarian (one who does not believe in a gender hierarchy instituted by God) is not a Christian but is the same thing as a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon (which, to evangelicals, are not Christians and are not "saved"). www.dennyburk.com/c-s-lewis-and-egalitarianism/#comment-27540Oh yes. They love to pretend they've got the moral high ground, with all their rhetoric about protecting God's word. They are the only ones who don't see how abhorrent and morally bankrupt their position is. Nor do they see that they "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to take at face value just as much as those they accuse. It's just that they like to read every passage that relates to women as restrictively as possible, while giving a much more liberal reading to anything that affects men. It makes me sick. Frankly, I think it's high time other Christians started calling them what they really are: male supremacists.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 28, 2010 14:11:28 GMT -5
ambrosia: "My question, as an outsider is "Why?" You may not really want an answer to this. And I'm trying to think of how to keep it short for that reason. Thanks for that. I would like to have an answer, but over time and through many discussions, I have come to realize that there is likely no mutually-intelligible way to frame one. I could say more and try to clarify further but, as mentioned above, I wasn't sure if you really wanted an answer or just wanted to express a general disgust at this teaching and at the stupidity of Piper et al. A disgust I share. That too.
|
|