Check out this fascinating essay from the latest issue of Mother Jones on the Christian patriarchy movement. And excerpt:
...the movement offers a "separate but equal" division of duties and authority. Men, the embodiment of Christ, are the breadwinners and spiritual leaders in worship, decision making, finances, and sex. Women, representing the church, are encouragers, "completers," and helpmeets, bound to transform the culture by example and to sacrifice in God's honor.
Reaching this austere conviction via shared women's study is a process that oddly parallels the protofeminist consciousness-raising groups of the '60s and '70s, in which women recognized their common complaints as part of a larger pattern of oppression. Gloria Steinem called those groups "the primary way women discover that we are not crazy, the system is." But the Titus 2 message is precisely the opposite: The Lord's system is righteous, ungrateful feelings are sins to be surmounted, and feminist rebellion is a cultural scourge to be eradicated. The radical leap taken by Titus 2 women is unconditional surrender--an army of Phyllis Schlaflys, fighting for their own subordination based on the promise that the meek shall inherit the Earth. "It is a revolution that will take place on our knees," writes author and Peace's contemporary Nancy Leigh DeMoss.
Whoa. I've already ordered Kathryn Joyce's new book, Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement from Beacon Press and plan on reviewing it soon!
If you're in New York, you can see Joyce read from her book at Bluestockings on March 10 and at the Flying Saucer (along with Michelle Goldberg and Jennifer Baumgardner) on March 31. Check out our events calendar for more details.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Women of the Christian Patriarchy Movement .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12305
what does this "meek shall inherit" bullshit really mean, anyway? it's just a line anti-feminist Christians use to tell women there is some reward for being subservient. but what is that verse actually fucking saying? what? women will someday rule the earth? not if the Qiverfull movement has anything to say about it! it's ridiculous.
okay, i need to breathe.
Favorite button seen pinned to a nun:
"The meek are ready."
what does this "meek shall inherit" bullshit really mean, anyway?
It means women will be rewarded once they die on their knees. And if its untrue, then women are more than welcome to come back from the dead to complain.
Who says religion isn't a racket?
Just another example of people co-opting words to fit their own meanings.
Jesus himself was talking about compassion towards the poor, not submission of women.
it's been a while since I read the bible, but I really believe that is part of the sermon on the mount. I can't give you exact verses w/o looking it up, but it's in the bible. people below have given what I would use as an interpretation. It also wasn't given for one sex and not the other-these churches forget that. If I recall, jesus said almost nothing specifically about one sex and not the other, with the exception of divorce that I can think of-and that exception was making it more equal. Not in the way I'd have liked, but more equal. This is not to say that can be seperated from the other misogynist stuff condoned in the church currently. that was part of why I'm not christian. but this isn't even self-consistent. for people who ostenably believe these words are from a god, they sure don't seem to mind entirely changing the point of them.
"it's just a line anti-feminist Christians use to tell women there is some reward for being subservient"
Not just women, everyone (that isn't powerful/rich/etc)...
I think the same interpretation of that passage was sold to African Americans in this country, first during slavery and then during the Jim Crow era.
I don't think it's even this high-minded.
This is sexual fetish. The man is the leader in sex? This revolution will take place on our knees?
A lot of people like to play subs and doms. If you want to say "yes master" and get on your knees and suck cock because it gets you off, fine. But don't pretend it's anything other than what it is; a sexual fetish.
Do we really need to make a religious movement out of cock-sucking? I'm not a believer, but I'd love the chance to ask these self-flagellating dupes - is this what Jesus died on the cross for? Your right to suck dick on your knees on command?
It's taking every ounce of will-power I have not to say something snarky about this quote:
It is a revolution that will take place on our knees.
*grits teeth and tries to act mature*
LOL...I was totally thinking snarky things. :-)
And,where, oh where did I watch that news show about the Quiverfull movement? It was an Anderson Cooper-like show... though I don't think it was him. Featured a white family with like 13 children and mom pregnant again. I remember the male-interviewer being really interested in the woman's story, and concerned, asking her things like, "Isn't your husband concerned about the health implications of being pregnant for 12 years?" She looked exhausted, and not nearly as into it as the dear-old hubby.
Going hunting for it now...
Here's the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5245431
and I was wrong, only 8 kids.
I feel so bad for their daughters, being denied any potential life outside of motherhood.
He came so, so close to slipping up and admitting that they'll do everything in their power to prevent their daughters from going to college and pursuing careers. You can totally see him self-censor there right at the end. God, it's so depressing.
Just finished watching that clip... Truly ludicrous.
That old "grandma" of this movement says birth control is not "natural" since that's not how bodies "naturally" work. Well by the same token it's even more unnatural that this mother has survived so many births and all her children have lived past the age of two! Throughout most of human history when we did not have modern medical technology and science (one more thing we had to create for ourselves -- thanks God!), maternal and infant mortality was far, far higher than today. Every birth was practically playing the Russian roulette for the mother, and few could have survived a dozen spins. Even if the mother somehow did, most of the kids would have died soon after being born due to disease and malnutrition.
LOL, the article says that while Joyce tells wives to never deny sex with their husbands, there are certain "homosexual" practices that they shouldn't allow. I'm guessing BJ's fall in that category.
So no performing oral sex because it's something gay men do? Ok, if that's true, it's golden, it really is.
They probably mean anal sex. I can't imagine any man, no matter how conservative, turning down a blow job. But I've heard plenty of people say that anal sex is 'just for gay men,' and I imagine someone super-conservative would think that way.
I'm glad that the repressive Christians are at least finally being honest about their repressiveness. A lot of megachurches around here like to claim that somehow, even though God designed men and women for different roles and women are explicitly advised to submit to men, both sexes are equal. The same places often paint feminists as whackos.
"It is a revolution that will take place on our knees," writes author and Peace's contemporary Nancy Leigh DeMoss.
I can't decide if I think the woman knows about the blowjob connotation or not...
I feel bad for the women duped into this sort of belief, but worse for the children they're raising in it.
I second the note on the blowjob connotation. It seemed like a pretty stupid mistake to make, regardless of the implications of prayer.
As someone who is vehemently non-religious, I always find this problematic, because I see a huge link between sexism and religion (just as I see a huge link between homophobia and religion, and racism and religion).
Schalfly really doesn't have a clue, though. This notion that "the submissiveness of women will liberate them" is crap. If someone had said that about blacks before the civil rights movement, they would have been taped naked to the hood of Jesse Jackson's car.
Revolutions aren't about shutting up and waiting for Jesus to come back and give you what you want. There are many things that I didn't agree with Malcolm X on, but if there's one, it's that freedom and liberty are well worth fighting for (non-violently, of course, whenever possible).
Nancy Leigh DeMoss's comment is one of those that makes me think of an old Irish saying that I love:
"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
I can't be sure, but I would think these same people who think "separate but equal" is acceptable for the sexes probably see the error of racial segregation.
They also believe that women are baby-making machines and should pop out as many babies, breeding like rabbits.
Shudder
If I remember right meek shall inherit the earth is a saying that if your not proud and aggressive but submit your self to xtian authority you will be rewarded by inheriting the earth. Basically it’s an xtian brain washing move to stifle any opposition to church authority. As to these women, how many of them are their? I’m a man can’t I just order them to go to the nearest NOW meeting?
I find "the meek shall inherit the earth" to be a beautiful phrase [said by Jesus] to mean the oppressed will not be forgoten. Also to me it is a reminder of non-violent resistance.
It DOES NOT mean one should strive to BE meek, and anyone who reads it like this have ulterior motives of greed.
In my christian patriarchy brainwash days...I thought my purpose in life would be to "instigate the return of femininity".... yikes, and yes, I did really mean I wanted to inspire women to become the "other" as subservients to men, spiritual followers, baby-makers and the like.
Thank God (literally) I found the classics of Friedan and Steinem to get me thinking (literally).
I also interpret that line to mean nonviolent resistance and maintaining one's sense of self and purpose even in horrible circumstances. It has jack shit to do with submitting to men or any institution. Anyone who thinks it does is trying to marginalize and oppress others (or themselves), which is the antithesis of what Jesus taught.
That was supposed to be posted under LoveFromAlaska's post.
This stuff truly scares me. As a Christian, it frightens me that someone can turn what was supposed to be a call to love others and stand up for justice into a tool of oppression. It also angers me that people turn religion into a prostitute for power.
As a Christian, I believe that God made me as a woman in His/Her own image and gave me free will in order to stand for justice and to make my own decisions in life. I believe that Jesus died for all for the forgiveness of sins and that when He said help the poor and love one another, He meant it. Even St. Paul, who wrote the submission stuff said that there is no Greek or Jew, slave or free, no woman or man, but that all were to be united. THAT'S CHRISTIANITY AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!
Sadly, it seems all mainstream Christian leaders care about are making money, oppressing women, excluding the queer communities and spreading the gospel of Republicanism. How disappointing.
I really liked your comment. while I am no longer a Christian except in a cultural sense, I was raised in a liberal Christian tradition where I was encouraged to ask questions, think for myself and stand up to injustice. When I was a kid, the first gay people I knew where at my church.
Sometimes I get frustrated that there doesn’t seem to be more “noise” coming from liberal Christian traditions about issues like reproductive choice and equality for women and LGBT folks. However, then I remember that the media loves a cat fight and always seems to pay attention to the most extreme things being said by whomever in God’s name.
Seriously!
It frustrates me to NO end that Christianity has grown into this political beast more intent on "being" a certain way-- enacting certain policies-- than what it's meant to be: a way of living that is dedicated to love, generosity, and, well, more love.
I, too, went through a phase after I read "Captivating" by the Eldrigdes where I wanted to be this blissful creature; everything out of my mouth was going to be a blessing, I was going to be this perfect embodiment of grace and humility.
But, well, I'm opinionated and have a fondness for four-letter-words, etc etc. I'm not made for babies and needlepoint. But, over time, I've really come to understand that those sorts of actions aren't what Jesus preached. Humility, meekness, mercy, peacemaking-- that's what my faith is based on. Not Evangelicalism.
I was in the shower today thinking about that, actually-- how the movement is Evangelical, not Evangelists. Probably because the first ascribe to a policy, and the second actually try to make the world a better place (in their own way).
Katie - I don't know if that St. Paul stuff is such a great example of a modern, justice-loving Christianity. "No Greek or Jew" as some utopian vision = creeptastic. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding you... to me it is a kind of passive violence to presume Christianity will be uber alle. Promoting "Saved by Assimilation" doesn't sound like a good place to start when fighting injustice. I do really appreciate and strongly share your commitment to reclaiming those parts of a Christian heritage that are positive.
You know what I think will save us? Keeping our cultural, ecological, and spiritual assets diversified!
That isn't what I meant, but I can see how it could be taken that way. I saw it as united by God, regardless of your background, not assimilation. But I do see how it can be viewed as assimilation.
I do agree about keeping everything diversified though!
word.
please, everyone....PLEASE don't think that all christians are assholes like this.
The dimension of the irony here is truly marvelous. According to the article, these women called themselves "Titus 2" -- based on a misogynist quote from a letter supposedly written by the apostle Paul. Yet according to most biblical scholars the Epistle To Titus is almost certainly a forgery, written by someone in his name long after Paul was dead. Paul himself, living in an earlier time closer to Jesus's life and death, very likely did not harbor such misogynist views. For example, he may very well have praised a woman named Junia as a great apostle, that is to say, a great leader of the Church.
So why the change? Early Christianity was an apocalyptic branch of Judaism. Both Jesus and Paul believed the end was nigh. Jesus actively associated himself with sinners and others of low social positions since the last shall be the first very soon. Who cares what others think?
Yet as Christianity gained more followers and the end was not coming, it probably came under the pressure of the popular culture of its time -- Roman patriarchy. What would my respectable middle class neighbors think if my nifty new religion allow women to run around as leaders? Better keep 'em quiet...
Ironically (yes, even more of that good stuff), to truly understand these women's psychology, one probably needs to consult that famous misogynist Nietzsche. As far as I'm concerned, he gave the best explanation for the behavior of various types of ascetics (these "Christian women" are exactly like the ascetics Nietzsche talked about): why inflict pain and suffering upon yourself, and even regard them as virtues? It's an useful exercise of self-delusion. Let's face it: there are going to be women (and men) who are weak and unable to take responsibility for themselves. Unable to assert itself against others using its strength, their will would rather war against themselves than war against nothing. They debase and humiliate themselves to feel a thrill of that will to power.
There's no "very probably" about it: Paul flat-out praises Junia as an apostle equal to himself. He also sent the letter to the Romans via Phoebe, the leader of her congregation, whom he stated would be able to answer all the Romans' questions as if she were him.
Other women Paul praised and worked with: Prisca, who worked with her husband Aquila, and Phoebe, a wealthy merchant who sold purple dye and hosted a church in her house. It's clear if one read's *Paul's* letters, not the Pastorals and the psuedo-Pauline epistles, that Paul treated women as colleagues and equals, not subservients.
And oh, as for the passage in Corinthians about women keeping silent in church...most mainline Biblical scholars believe that this was either a later interpolation, or a response to a specific situation (a small group of women continually gossiping and chattering instead of paying attention). It was *not* intended to a rule for the Church as a whole, and I have little doubt that Paul himself would be horrified by what the Quiverfulls are doing.
Correction: Lydia was the dye merchant. It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet....
"Both Jesus and Paul believed the end was nigh"
I'll say. Jesus explicitly stated multiple times the world was going to end in his followers' lifetime (ie over 1900 years ago).
How the religion survived such an obvious failure of prophecy (direct from the mouth of an alleged aspect of God, no less!) is beyond me...
What these women are doing is trying to teach to be helpless parasites who need a man as a “protector/provider” They assume that men want to be protectors and providers. I can tell you for a fact that that is bull shit. I don’t see any thing in a weak limbed, weak minded, cowardly woman who want’s her daddy. If all women were like that I would go live in a cave up on a mountain by my self. I AM excited by strong brave intelligent women, and it’s not because they make babies either, it’s women who make scientific discoveries , art, business deals, social reform and the list goes on. Babies? That can be a wonderful experience for a couple if they so choose , but it’s only a part of what we are capable of. I mean let’s keep things in perspective, before I had her spade, my cat could do the that to.
So I went to my Bible upon reading this post to search out Titus 2. I had trouble believing that the Bible would directly call out Feminism as the writer seems to think it does. When I found the passage I was happily surprised, it's really not so bad...
"Tell the older men to have self-control and to be serious and sensible. Their faith, love, and patience must never fail.
Tell the older women to behave as those who love the Lord should. They must not gossip about others or be slaves of wine [both reasonable in my opinion but it makes me wonder if men have the same rule about wine...]. They must teach what is proper, so the younger women will be loving wives and mothers [okay so there is clearly heteronormativity here but what does one expect? And we could debate for hours on what the proper is]
Each of the younger women [that's me!] must be sensible and kind, as well as a good homemaker, who puts her own husband first [okay this makes sense, the husband bit, best to put your husband before other people's husband's.]Then no one can say insulting things about God's message.
Tell the young men to have self-control in everything. [Does this mean we don't have to be sure that he isn't going to lured in by our womanly ways and that he can control himself? wow, what a concept...]"
Anyway, the other thing is if you look at the entire chapter the point of the chapter is that in order for people to take you seriously when you teach you must practice what you teach. It's saying if you are teaching God's word, live that.
Oh and on a final note...I'm a lousy homemaker...
Being a Christian feminist is really hard because most christians are not feminists and believe this garbage. Even in some of the "radical seeming" christian pockets, there are people that STILL believe in patriarchal christianity. It really enrages me. I feel really frustrated. I stopped going to this church that was superfically radical (tattooed and pierced 20 somethings, biking, thrift shopping, etc) but I realized pretty quickly that it was conservative and alot of folks had the belief that women should submit to your husband ::shudder::
Wow, I am so shocked that someone posted this. It is like they were speaking directly to me. This has been one of the main issues in my life recently. It has been causing me quite a bit of grief as well. I live with 3 other young women who all go to the same church and no matter what I say, they continue to stick by their women and men are equal, yet men are the head of the household bullshit.
It's really upsetting. They believe that feminism is the problem with the world, even though they are living the freedoms that feminism has fought for. I have looked for a long time for a church that is Christian and that believes in women..but I haven't found one yet. It is trully depressing. I believe in God. But God's people can't seem to believe in women.
Does that mean I should just abandon it all together? Are there any Christian Feminist churches out there?
You might try looking into the Quakers. A conservative semi-programmed meeting might be up your ally.
I live in a community with one (at least one) church that sponsors female submission. They -- or at some (some of) their leadership -- are also neo-confederate slavery apologists. If you like filling your ear with drek, here's some of their ****ola on Amazon.
The Fruit of Her Hands: Respect and the Christian Woman
http://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Her-Hands-Respect-Christian/dp/188576734X
Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man
http://www.amazon.com/Fidelity-What-Means-One-Woman-Man/dp/1885767641
Federal Husband
http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Husband-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576751X
And here's an "article" for free:
A Home With a View
http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol4/femi4-6.htm
If you chose to purchase any of it, I only ask you buy used copies, so you aren't subsidizing their publishing company.
As an aside, I believe their officially stated goal is to take over ownership of the town. What with the economic downturn and all, though, that plan might be on the back burner. Silver linings...