Patriarchy - contrasting the societal and biblical ideas

[MooCar93]

I'd like to note, also, that I am in agreement with moocar93's relatively gentle defense of feminism, and that it should be understood that any suggestion that 'all feminists are radical feminists' can be hurtful to discussion. Really, even bringing up radical feminism in this circumstance tends to put a rein on the tongue of any woman who wishes to debate these delicate issues politely, for fear she will be not taken seriously, written off as a 'radical fem'.

Very true. I tend to try to be gentle whenever I'm talking about this kind of thing to men, though... otherwise they tend to think you're some hell-bent banshee screaming for their emasculation.

 

[Bombila]

Tsk! I've been a feminist for almost forty years, and have yet to emasculate one single man. I may have considered it once or twice, but there were extenuating circumstances not really dependent on my feminism. ;-)

 

[Argent]

Very true. I tend to try to be gentle whenever I'm talking about this kind of thing to men, though... otherwise they tend to think you're some hell-bent banshee screaming for their emasculation.

Oh? Really?

 

[Mling]

I am curious to hear what a more moderate feminist view on patriarchy is though.

Well, according to what how you've defined it, patriarchy isn't THE ULTIMATE EVIL!!
But I still couldn't really accept it as something that ought to be accepted by an entire class of people.

To swing off on a tangent for a moment, I was listening to the radio a while ago, and there was a discussion about the history of slavery in Europe and America. It was pointed out that when England first turned against slavery, it was not due to concerns for human dignity, it was because slavery was not an economically wise institution.
Society is harmed when people are not allowed to develop to their full potential, and also when people are forced into roles for which they are not equipped. If a wise person and an idiot are both working on a plot of land (for example), but the wise person is forced to do little more than harvest the grain (because he is a slave), and the idiot is given control of the entire plantation (because he happened to be the oldest son of the former owner) not only will both individuals suffer, but the plantation will fail and the society will not benefit from the crops.

Likewise, if one member of a couple is an outgoing natural leader and the other is more introverted and meek, there is great potential for them to be a strong, healthy and balanced family--but if they are both forced into a role that does not suit them, neither will perform their assigned role well, and the entire family will be weaker for it.

On the subject of protection, if I was to find myself standing between a lion cub and one of its parents, I'd pray it was not the mother.
A mentally healthy woman, who was not raised to believe she must be submissive or weak, can be perfectly capable of protecting her family.

On responsibility, if God is just, I must believe that we are judged on the decisions that we make, and not on the decisions that other people make. Flipping that, I must also believe that we are judged based on the decisions we make, and that the accountability for those decisions is not shunted off to somebody else.
Now, obviously, when two people entangle their lives together and vow to care for each other, there is going to be some degree of shared responsibility. If one parent is abuse to their children, for example, the other may not actually participate in the abuse, but they do have the choice of whether to protect the child or not. Likewise, if that parent is abusive due to some type of mental problem (including the inability to handle too much stress), the other has the choice of whether to let their spouse handle it on their own, or help them.
So I'm not claiming that anybody is an island, or should be treated that way, just that, ultimately, we can only control our own decisions and actions.


And besides all of this, it is just a part of human nature that even the slightest amount of power or authority or even the illusion of power or authority is going to be corrupted. Even if patriarchy in its purest form is not about control or domination, the longer it is allowed to go on, the more it will inch in that direction. And after control and domination comes abuse. I saw a survey done during the 60's, asking men if was ever appropriate to punish one's wife by spanking her. A significant number of people, maybe even the majority, said yes, and included comments like "It's a man's world, and she needs to learn that," or "If she acts like a child, I'll treat her like one."

 

[christalee4]

Good thoughtful post, although I'd like to bring up some points about your subject, in spite of the fact that I may have been typecast as "radical feminist". Not that I care, because people will think what they think.

Patriarchy is defined as "A family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced." I believe feminism has demonized this definition even more, adding spousal abuse, domination, and even sexual slavery as inherent elements in the system. To summarize the contemporary idea, patriarchy is a social system where "men 'lord it over' women". Indeed, when patriarchy is usually mentioned in a contemporary social context it is this male domination of women that is being spoken of.

In my view, the biblical view of marriage is completely the opposite of this unbiblical and sin filled model that we have come to define as patriarchy. That is why I would not use the word to define the biblical model, simply because of people’s preconceived notions of what it means.

So what is the biblical model? Well, to start with, the ultimate authority in a family is God. Men and women are to both submit to each other in love but submit to God in authority. Moreover, roles and responsibilities in the family are to be delegated not based on gender but based on giftedness and divine direction. Decisions are made with consideration of everyone’s input and often, as with roles, the final say goes to the person most experienced or gifted to make those decisions. Sex, within this structure, is something equally shared, with both partners giving themselves selflessly to meet the other partner's needs (1 Cor 7).

Your definition above of what you think is an ideal softer, more compassionate patriarchy is indeed laudable, but contradicts then the issue of "headship" or leadership. I bolded your definition of how you think family structure should work in this definition, which doesn't imply any sort of structured role on who is the decider and who is follower. If decisions are based on the skills, experience and knoweldge of the person most able to make that decision, why then should the headship be automatically assumed to be male? I am talking, as you are, of modern family social structure, and not what families in societies hundreds of years ago did.

First, understand that this is not a position of dominion and it is not a position of privilege. Headship means we are to interact with our families like Christ interacts with the church.

First and foremost, it means we are to be accountable for our family. It is our job to take responsibility when the family screws up, and our job to intercede when the family is threatened. This means protection, but it is even more on a spiritual front than on a physical front.

There is no reason, based on your earlier description of family roles, and the fact that our society has evolved into modernity with the benefit of knowledge of science, higher learning, love and understanding, why mothers and wives, cannot also be held accountable for their decisions for the family.

The second element of headship is to serve the family. This is a self sacrificing service. Our family should be our number one (earthly) priority and we should serve and sacrifice for it even unto death, just as Jesus did.

Finally, another responsibility of headship is to pray for the family. Although it is good for all of us to pray, it is specifically a husband's responsibility as demonstrated repeatedly by Jesus.

Ditto and double ditto here. Wives and mothers will sacrifice their hearts, souls and physical beings for their husbands, children and kinsmen, just as bravely and sincerely as any man. Wives and mothers pray just as sincerely and with earnestness to God just as any man, and I am sure God hears their prayers just as well as He hears those of men.

To insist that only men must take reponsibility for familial decisions, protect their family, and pray for their family is a gender role assignment. It doesn't take into account people's individual talents, strengths and weaknesses. Some women make good leaders, some men do not. Some women prefer to stand aside and be passive, some men are "type A" personalities who confidently take charge. Everyone is different. But to say that in spite of these individual differences that gender roles must still be assigned to please God, seems to contradict the fact that God made us to be equal, with abilities regardless of gender that are capable of leadership, showing tenderness, respect and love.

To summarize my opinion, patriarchy as it has been practiced even amongst God's people throughout the ages onto this very day does not reflect God's design for marriage.

Based on your earlier description of how you believe a good marriage should work, why not dispense with the notion that patriarchy is even needed? Especially since patriarchy has been used against women for ages? Why not give the nod to the early feminists who basically pleaded with society to regard women as equal human beings, and not chattel?

 

[MooCar93]

Mling and Christalee4, you are my new heroes. Where have you guys been all day?

 

[wanderingone]

Read that chapter and you will not find anything near the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" woman that radical feminists think is the biblical wife. God has extolled the virtues of this woman through the knowledge departed to Solomon. This is God's idea of a Godly wife. Where is the authoritarian, domineering, ruling husband in all of this? Nowhere to be found. Why? Because that design is not God's design. God, it may surprise some to hear, was the first person to say (outside of certain physical realities) that "a woman can do anything a man can do". The authority in the Proverbs 31 woman's life is God, no one else.

Most feminists I know (including those far more radical than myself) will point out the same things about the Proverbs 31 woman you have. However discussion on CF women's threads indicates many many women prefer to see the Proverbs 31 woman as working ONLY in the home, and pretty much barefoot and pregnant. Many submissive women who have bought into a men in charge model are living with quite a different set of values than you claim as a biblical model of patriarchy.

 

[christalee4]

Most feminists I know (including those far more radical than myself) will point out the same things about the Proverbs 31 woman you have. However discussion on CF women's threads indicates many many women prefer to see the Proverbs 31 woman as working ONLY in the home, and pretty much barefoot and pregnant. Many submissive women who have bought into a men in charge model are living with quite a different set of values than you claim as a biblical model of patriarchy.

Indeed. In discussing gender roles in marriage, most women on many of the Christian boards and discussion groups who are "for patriarchy" certainly practice it in which they submit to the leadership of their husband, try to keep a quiet and passive attitude towards their relationship with their husband, and say that they are glad they don't have the responsibility that the husband has. Many of these women ask permission of their husband to do things, and see quiet servitude as a virtue. Or if they are struggling with submission, they seem to be at war with themselves that they are not obedient enough, or faithful enough to the concept.

Are these websites in line with your view of true Biblical
patriarchy, or are they too dominion-oriented, IYO?
http://www.patriarchspath.org/
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/

 

[Ignorance]

In your opinion. Actually, it is a curse, not a punishment per se. We trace much of the ills in the patriarchy exercised throughout the ages directly back to these curses.

Hey man, I just want you to know that I support and back you 100%. Just like you, I totally oppose giving equal rights (or any rights) to women. It's good to see strong Christian men like you standing up for Patriarchy and against Women's Lib.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Let's clear something up: the Bible says the word "submit," as in the sense to "submit oneself to the authority of another." God placed men at the head of the family to lead them, not to boss, although when one leads, one has to command. Nobody is saying that the husband forces her, as Christ does not force us to do anything, but does everything for us out of love. He does, however, tell us to do things for either our good or for the good of others (which always benefits us in the end anyway). So you see, the marriage relationship is supposed to a physical representation of the church's relationship to Christ: we're supposed to listen to Him and let Him lead, as are wives.

*sigh* And if you have to ask the question relating to trusting your husband, then you probably shouldn't be married to someone you don't trust to put your best interest first anyway.

 

[gengwall]

Good thoughtful post, although I'd like to bring up some points about your subject, in spite of the fact that I may have been typecast as "radical feminist". Not that I care, because people will think what they think.

Your definition above of what you think is an ideal softer, more compassionate patriarchy is indeed laudable, but contradicts then the issue of "headship" or leadership. I bolded your definition of how you think family structure should work in this definition, which doesn't imply any sort of structured role on who is the decider and who is follower. If decisions are based on the skills, experience and knoweldge of the person most able to make that decision, why then should the headship be automatically assumed to be male? I am talking, as you are, of modern family social structure, and not what families in societies hundreds of years ago did.



There is no reason, based on your earlier description of family roles, and the fact that our society has evolved into modernity with the benefit of knowledge of science, higher learning, love and understanding, why mothers and wives, cannot also be held accountable for their decisions for the family.

Ditto and double ditto here. Wives and mothers will sacrifice their hearts, souls and physical beings for their husbands, children and kinsmen, just as bravely and sincerely as any man. Wives and mothers pray just as sincerely and with earnestness to God just as any man, and I am sure God hears their prayers just as well as He hears those of men.

To insist that only men must take reponsibility for familial decisions, protect their family, and pray for their family is a gender role assignment. It doesn't take into account people's individual talents, strengths and weaknesses. Some women make good leaders, some men do not. Some women prefer to stand aside and be passive, some men are "type A" personalities who confidently take charge. Everyone is different. But to say that in spite of these individual differences that gender roles must still be assigned to please God, seems to contradict the fact that God made us to be equal, with abilities regardless of gender that are capable of leadership, showing tenderness, respect and love.



Based on your earlier description of how you believe a good marriage should work, why not dispense with the notion that patriarchy is even needed? Especially since patriarchy has been used against women for ages? Why not give the nod to the early feminists who basically pleaded with society to regard women as equal human beings, and not chattel?

Those are points well taken. I only could comment in general.

First, and most important, I have never considered you radical.

OK - My 3 points of headship do not preclude women from fulfilling those roles. I am not saying that women can't or even that they shouldn't do those things. I just believe that God has mandated that men do them. As far as the accountability thing, I only know that God called out Adam. I'm not going to question why God made the man accountable.

And, hopefully this is the last time I have to say it, it has nothing to do with making family decisions.

I would love to dispense with the idea of patriarchy but I fear that would be impossible. That is why I have started the thread - to see if we can separate the biblical idea from the historical, cultural, societal one. It may all be wishful thinking on my side.

What I know is this. God has designated the man as the head of the family. That makes it a patriarchy, unfortunate histories and man made definitions aside. But God has also made it clear (at least to me) that men and women are equal, that they need to submit and serve each other equally, that they manage the family equally, and that their uniqueness is designed to compliment each other so that the two equal halves make the whole. My search has been to find how those two biblical truths reconcile, and to subsequently live my life accordingly.

 

[gengwall]

Most feminists I know (including those far more radical than myself) will point out the same things about the Proverbs 31 woman you have. However discussion on CF women's threads indicates many many women prefer to see the Proverbs 31 woman as working ONLY in the home, and pretty much barefoot and pregnant. Many submissive women who have bought into a men in charge model are living with quite a different set of values than you claim as a biblical model of patriarchy.

I understand that and certainly have seen that in practice. It is of course, as I'm sure you will agree, an errant viewpoint. Most of those women have probably never actually read Proverbs 31, being satisfied to only believe what fat, happy, content to be king men have told them.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Let's clear something up: the Bible says the word "submit," as in the sense to "submit oneself to the authority of another." God placed men at the head of the family to lead them, not to boss, although when one leads, one has to command. Nobody is saying that the husband forces her, as Christ does not force us to do anything, but does everything for us out of love. He does, however, tell us to do things for either our good or for the good of others (which always benefits us in the end anyway). So you see, the marriage relationship is supposed to a physical representation of the church's relationship to Christ: we're supposed to listen to Him and let Him lead, as are wives.

But human men AREN'T Christ, and aren't naturally any more like Christ by virtue of being male than women are. So why should they be placed in such a godlike position? That comparison has always disturbed me, to be honest. No human being should be in a position where he essentially takes on the role of God.

 

[MooCar93]

But human men AREN'T Christ, and aren't naturally any more like Christ by virtue of being male than women are. So why should they be placed in such a godlike position? That comparison has always disturbed me, to be honest. No human being should be in a position where he essentially takes on the role of God.

Which is what I've been saying all along. How nice to see I'm not the only one who takes issue with that! How can a relationship #1, which is basically imperfect human being : imperfect human being = relationship #2, which is perfect, sinless son of God : imperfect group of human beings (i.e., church)? How can those equations be equal?

 

[MooCar93]

Hey man, I just want you to know that I support and back you 100%. Just like you, I totally oppose giving equal rights (or any rights) to women. It's good to see strong Christian men like you standing up for Patriarchy and against Women's Lib.

Is this sarcasm?

 

[gengwall]

Let's clear something up: the Bible says the word "submit," as in the sense to "submit oneself to the authority of another." God placed men at the head of the family to lead them, not to boss, although when one leads, one has to command. Nobody is saying that the husband forces her, as Christ does not force us to do anything, but does everything for us out of love. He does, however, tell us to do things for either our good or for the good of others (which always benefits us in the end anyway). So you see, the marriage relationship is supposed to a physical representation of the church's relationship to Christ: we're supposed to listen to Him and let Him lead, as are wives.

*sigh* And if you have to ask the question relating to trusting your husband, then you probably shouldn't be married to someone you don't trust to put your best interest first anyway.

Aha - finally the other "evil" word - "submit".

First, let's make sure everyone is on the same page. I certainly hope that no one anymore thinks that the correct translation in this context is "obey". Please tell me we have moved beyond that at least.

So, if not "obey", then what exactly are we talking about. The Greek word "hupotasso" that is alternately translated "submit" or "subject" is generally a military term. But Stong's has this very interesting note at the end of it's definition:

In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

This sounds more like a partnership to me. I don't sense an overriding hierarchy, at least not in terms of "who's the boss".

This is supported even more by the fact that all Christians are to "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) Where is the hierarchy? How does this differ in marriage? I say it doesn't.

The other question one must ask if this is a submission to a ruler, is what areas of family life does the husband have unilateral rule over? I find nowhere in the bible where it says that the husband is unilaterally in charge of 'x'.

I think this submission gets back to what I have been contending all along. I think wives are to submit not to an authoritarian leader, but to an accountable leader. That is what the church does with Jesus. Jesus isn't sitting up in heaven on His throne ordering us around and making all our decisions for us. He is there interceding on our behalf. I disagree in a sense with the contention that "He does, however, tell us to do things for either our good or for the good of others". Jesus explained that His words were not his own but God's. Jesus, as husband, looks to God as the authority and calls the church (wife) to do the same. Although Jesus certainly was the ultimate teacher, the gifts related to communicating God's directives are not gender specific. God remains the only authority figure in marriage. It is not, (or at least shouldn't be) difficult for us to submit to such a leadership as modeled by Jesus. That is because He is not an authoritarian leader. He is a servant leader who has accepted accountability for his "family". Although we mere men can not follow that model perfectly, it is the model that we are charged with striving for. If we do that in all sincerity, then why is it so hard to submit to that leadership?

 

[Bombila]

Yes, gengwall, it is hard to submit, because there is still the implication that women are not equal spiritually in God's view (as I posted earlier), as he expects the husband to intercede, pray for, and spiritually guide the wife (and family). The message received is one of lesser souls, lesser understanding, lesser ability to communicate with God, which is why we had centuries of arguments regarding whether women had souls, and why women have been and still are in some Christian communities denied positions of spiritual leadership.

The Bible is full of confusing messages. So you can pull the quote from Ephesians that says "submit to one another", but then there are the verses regarding headship and submission (voluntary or not) to husbands.

Women and men are not portrayed as equals, IMO. Regardless of how benevolent and gentle the headship is, it is still there, and it colours Christian attitudes toward women, sometimes subtly, other times blatantly.

When I was a young Christian woman, I witnessed good and gentle Christian men, who had excellent equal partnerships with their own wives, being scandalized by the proposal that the congregation might select some women elders. Eventually, it became normal to most of them, but at the time, they believed it was spiritually wrong.

I don't know how Christians can address this. It may be so basic to masculine leaning of the religion that it cannot be reconciled with equality. However, you've done an able job of rejecting some of the worldly aspects of those unfortunate (IMO) verses.

 

[Argent]

Yes, gengwall, it is hard to submit, because there is still the implication that women are not equal spiritually in God's view (as I posted earlier), as he expects the husband to intercede, pray for, and spiritually guide the wife (and family). The message received is one of lesser souls, lesser understanding, lesser ability to communicate with God, which is why we had centuries of arguments regarding whether women had souls, and why women have been and still are in some Christian communities denied positions of spiritual leadership.

The Bible is full of confusing messages. So you can pull the quote from Ephesians that says "submit to one another", but then there are the verses regarding headship and submission (voluntary or not) to husbands.

Women and men are not portrayed as equals, IMO. Regardless of how benevolent and gentle the headship is, it is still there, and it colours Christian attitudes toward women, sometimes subtly, other times blatantly.

When I was a young Christian woman, I witnessed good and gentle Christian men, who had excellent equal partnerships with their own wives, being scandalized by the proposal that the congregation might select some women elders. Eventually, it became normal to most of them, but at the time, they believed it was spiritually wrong.

I don't know how Christians can address this. It may be so basic to masculine leaning of the religion that it cannot be reconciled with equality. However, you've done an able job of rejecting some of the worldly aspects of those unfortunate (IMO) verses.

A woman's place in the church?


Barefoot, pregnant and sitting in the back row!!!

 

[MooCar93]

The Bible is full of confusing messages. So you can pull the quote from Ephesians that says "submit to one another", but then there are the verses regarding headship and submission (voluntary or not) to husbands.

That's another thing, Bombila. I don't have nearly as big a problem with Ephesians 5 as I do with the verses in 1 Corinthians that talk about woman being the glory of man (whereas man is the glory of God, implying that men are closer to God than women), women needing a sign of authority on their heads so as not to vex the angels, and women being silent in church because for them to speak up is "disgraceful" (I've honestly wept while reading that last verse... it just sounds so cold, and so extremely unloving).

 

[gengwall]

Yes, gengwall, it is hard to submit, because there is still the implication that women are not equal spiritually in God's view (as I posted earlier), as he expects the husband to intercede, pray for, and spiritually guide the wife (and family). The message received is one of lesser souls, lesser understanding, lesser ability to communicate with God, which is why we had centuries of arguments regarding whether women had souls, and why women have been and still are in some Christian communities denied positions of spiritual leadership.

Although I can understand how someone may interpret things that way, especially if they are inclined to think that anyway, the bible just doesn't support that idea. Our endowment with the image of God is equal, Adam and Eve were equally charged with maintaining the garden and subduing the earth, our inheritence in heaven is equal, the distribution of spiritual gifts knows no gender, our duty to serve each other in Christ has no weighting applied to it, and the one flesh relationship is a whole built from two equal halves. I know man has twisted and parsed scripture in the past and so I understand the difficulty in that historical and cultural reality to submit, but the true Godly model does not imply any of the things you have listed.

The Bible is full of confusing messages. So you can pull the quote from Ephesians that says "submit to one another", but then there are the verses regarding headship and submission (voluntary or not) to husbands.

Yes you can, and that is why one must review the entirety of scripture to reconcile and clear the confusion. For example, I used the Ephesians verse simply to show how the Greek word can have a context that implies no hierarchy. That does create an interesting "confusion". So, I review the rest of scripture to find out if a hierarchy is indeed established in God's marital design. Over and over I find none. So, what do I make of these verses that you reference? Husband is the head of the family and Wife must submit but there is no hierarchical model in terms of roles, responsibilities, and decisions. Finally, I look at Jesus (and I contrast him to Adam). Jesus is not an authoritarian figure. His headship parameters are those I have mentioned - intercession, accountability, service. None of these have anything to do with making decisions or performing certain tasks within the family. So, if He is the model of leader, and wives must submit to that model, and there is no hierarchy regarding family "operation", it must mean that it is these characteristics that the woman is submitting to. They do not diminish her equality in the human race and in the marriage at all.

Women and men are not portrayed as equals, IMO. Regardless of how benevolent and gentle the headship is, it is still there, and it colours Christian attitudes toward women, sometimes subtly, other times blatantly.

You must separate history from Godly design. As we have all noted, history is full of humans screwing up God's design. But, as I listed above, in every category that means something to God - endowment with God's image, etc. - men and women are equal. I do agree, of course, that our attitudes have been colored by the history. But that does not change the beauty of God's original design.

When I was a young Christian woman, I witnessed good and gentle Christian men, who had excellent equal partnerships with their own wives, being scandalized by the proposal that the congregation might select some women elders. Eventually, it became normal to most of them, but at the time, they believed it was spiritually wrong.

I am in such a church today. They are scripturally in error. The bible, old testament and new, especially within Jesus' earthly minstry, is full of examples of women who had authority over men in social/religious environments. That, of course, is not the family. But social contexts do need to be addressed as well.

I don't know how Christians can address this. It may be so basic to masculine leaning of the religion that it cannot be reconciled with equality. However, you've done an able job of rejecting some of the worldly aspects of those unfortunate (IMO) verses.

I agree. I actually think heels are firmly dug in on both sides. Men are reluctant, because of their fleshly pride, to acknowledge the equality that is in God's design. Women, because of abuse from virtually day one of our existence, are reluctant to believe that men can change. And so we stare at each other across this divide, neither side daring to drop the rope. I will tell you that it is my opinion, in line with our charge as leaders, to drop the rope first. I think that the church as a whole, being dominated by men (and exclusively men in some instances) is failing in it's duty to educate men on God's good design. It is we men who need to correct our own camp. Women, in essense, have been right all along.