I actually stumbled upon the patriarchy idea while interested in freedom. How ironic. I was looking up libertarianism, while thinking about the advantages of a small government that only see to a few basic things like police, courts (with few and just laws) and border protection. I jumped into the blog of a self-admitted “Christian libertarian”, and started commenting.
It didn’t take long to notice these guys are weird. Why, when I talk of freedom, is it regarded in a different way than the same statement from a male? Why did some of them accuse me of being a man with a female nickname? And why, when I showed, in one of the religious threads on the blog, that they understand something wrong, did they call me a “feminist”? And these apparently “biblically” religious people refuse to learn anything from what I clearly show from the Bible!
How can a guy call himself a libertarian, and offer the opinion that women should not be allowed to travel alone? (Apparently, women alone, far from where they live, are more likely to get drunk or sleep around. But so are men, and that blogger don’t claim men should not travel alone…)
Why this constant anti-woman speak, if they are Christians who should love others as themselves? This was beyond hypocrisy. Hypocrites know they have something to hide. Point out his double standards to a hypocrite, and he will be embarrassed or reason with you that this is not really double standards. If you point out their double standards (one for men, another for women) to patriarchy supporters, they are baffled that anyone could oppose double standards.
It was delusional. It was … narcissistic? … Schizophrenic? … Sociopathic? It drove me to sleeplessness and prayer and unsociability, desperately worrying about their wives and daughters – and for different reasons about myself. (Sleeplessness to the point where I struggled to concentrate at work, ironically remembering how they said “women should not work” when my work was not up to par…)
I tried to find words for all that I saw there, to warn people to stay away from a movement like that. But others say it better. And these authors have a lot more experience of the patriarchy cult than I do:
Women under Christian™ patriarchy cannot choose to follow Christ:
How can a woman under the thumb of patriarchy say to the Lord, “not my will but yours,” and “not my life but yours” when she has no will or life of her own? If her life and will do not exist, then the giving of herself fully to our Lord Jesus Christ is prevented or obstructed. Those who are not allowed to have a relationship, an opinion, an expression, a life, or a heart of their own will be hindered in entering into a personal relationship with the Lord because it is in the Lord’s name that they are told they do not exist. “The Lord is my shepherd” is taken out of their reach by those proclaiming the dominion of males, which then results in abuse, enslavement, and a rationale for men to fulfill their desires for power and the gratification of their own flesh. Jon Zens
Religious patriarchy supporters have double standards:
The most disturbing thing about the hyper-fundamentalist, patriocentric crowd, though, is the hypocrisy of every political position they take. They want the government out of their lives as much as possible, with intrusion at an absolute minimum, no Big Brother forcing them to do things they don’t want, telling them how to do the things they are allowed to do. No controlling or meddling in their lives in areas the government has no right to be snooping and directing. They likely consider the old Soviet Union and it’s oppressive communist system to be very much the “Evil Empire” Reagan described it as. Freedom, freedom, and more freedom, so they say. I’m with them so far.
They want corndogs, apple-pie, Pepsi and Coke, and freedom galore for everyone, so they say – except for their own families (who are treated like their own personal state property), ruling their own homes in the oppressive style of Stalin, and except for those with opposing political views. Freedom…for them to be unabated religious tyrants and control the lives of others.
Democracy for themselves. Communism for their families and enemies.
Maybe it’s just me, but I just can’t get the math to work out right. – Lewis
Christian™ Patriarchy sets fathers as idols beside God, and men under patriarchy will often misuse scripture to get people to do as they say (not to only do as God say):
… the idea that Dad is equal to God as far as the kids were concerned was well taught and accepted by all of the ATIA families I knew, including my own.
Ill be quite blunt.
Every last ATIA family I knew parented like what is being described here.
As for Mr. Gothards teachings being bastardized…he is well aware of the issues his teaching create and does nothing that Ive seen to correct or even to address the problems.
I can only surmise that his silence lends itself to approval of such heavy handed, hate filled parenting practices. –Jenny
In short, religious patriarchy is man-centred (man as in adult male, not as in human) in a way that will often be dangerous to others:
It seems that this set up is in the guise of protecting women, when it really is making men live like kings and have subjects. I dont care if it’s for love of country or anything else, you NEVER exchange freedom for protection. History should teach us that lesson. – Anonymous
One last thought: On patriocentric/ “biblical womanhood” blogs, (and their comments on the blogs of others) I often encountered the opinion – given by women – that women should defend men and never speak badly of them. I usually answer that with a point-blank question to the giver of that opinion: “If your husband or pastor molests your daughter, what will you do?” Not one of them have yet answered that question. Someone who cannot answer that question clearly, is unfit to be a parent. It makes me quiver to think that some of them home school and have eight children.
PS: Edited 2011/6/2 “beyond hypocrisy” is now better described, and headings was inserted to separate the quotes..