Evangelical talibans

Christian patriarchy, misogyny, oppression and abuses  

Christian patriarchy is a radical Calvinist movement  which teaches that the state of affairs concerning the treatment of women in the Old Testament does not only reflect the culture of the ancient near east at that time but also represents God’s holy will for females living at all times.

Christian patriarchs like John McArthur teach that it is a sin for a woman to work, to vote and to choose herself her husband.

But even more moderate Conservative Evangelicals fosters a structure where abuses against women are much more likely to happen than in the secular world or in progressive Churches.

Timothy Swanson did an excellent job at exposing this madness in a post whose content I have reproduced here.

The post is very long but it is really worth being read entirely.

Mein Foto

On Domestic Violence: How Conservative Christianity has Chosen Patriarchal Gender Roles Over the Protection of Victims

 
“A woman, an ass, and a walnut tree, the more they’re beaten, the better still they be.” ~ European Proverb c. 1400 AD
“Take up a stick and beat her, not in rage, but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will rebound to your merit and her good.” ~ Friar Cherubino in Rules of Marriage on what a medieval husband should do if his wife does not obey his verbal correction
“Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” ~ Noel Coward, from Private Lives
The men are placed in charge of the women, since God has endowed them with the necessary qualities and made them bread earners. The righteous women will accept this arrangement obediently, and will honor their husbands in their absence, in accordance with God’s commands. As for the women who show rebellion, you shall first enlighten them, then desert them in bed, and you may beat them as a last resort.
~ The Koran, Sura 4:34
“Yes, he pushed you around and hit you in the face and left bruises all over your kids, but he is still your husband.  Just go home, pray for him, turn the other cheek, have more sex with him, and look for better ways to keep your house cleaner and make your children obey immediately. A happy husband whose wife is loving him this way would never abuse her!” ~ The typical advice given in ultraconservative and Patriarchal Christianity to abused women (see below)
Since I was first admitted to the practice of law, I have represented victims of domestic violence, first as a staff attorney for the local Legal Aid organization, and both in my private practice and a volunteer on pro bono cases through the present time. Some of the cases involved violence against an aged parent, a few involved violence against men, and a few cases were same sex or sibling disputes. However, and unsurprisingly, most were violence by men against their intimate partners.
In that time, I have noticed a common thread among the victims. In the vast majority of the cases, the victims belonged to either a church or a culture that emphasized the submission of women to men – often both. The city and county in which I live and practice is home to many immigrants from all over the world, and most of them come from “traditional” cultures. Our county also tends to be conservative, and has a high rate of church attendance. We also have a relatively high rate of poverty, which is also associated with domestic violence. All of these contribute, of course.
Without a doubt, the biggest frustration for a lawyer in these cases is that, very often, the victim goes right back to the abuser and the cycle repeats itself.
The problem is, a lawyer, a judge, and a policeman can only do so much. We have a limited time in which to encourage a victim to protect herself and to continue to protect herself (and sometimes children as well) in the future. In my experience, the barrier to this is the culture, which usually works against the victim by telling her that she needs to submit more, obey more, express her opinion less, and then she won’t be beaten. Not only that, but she is expected to reconcile despite the abuse, and without proof of a genuine and long-term change by the abuser.
I wish I could say that the church is helping to change the culture, but that would be a lie.
The conservative church, in particular, has become focused on the idea of “feminism” as the enemy, and has thus decided that marital problems are caused because the woman isn’t submissive enough. I will detail more of this later, but first, a history of the laws related to the abuse of women will help to show the connection between power and abuse.
Pretty much as far back as any record of civilization can be found, men have been considered to be the superior sex, and women were expected to obey them. I could spend a lot of time and space putting citations for this fact, but it is readily apparent to anyone who has studied history.
In Hammurabi’s Code (c. 1772 BC – before the Old Testament was written) – best known for “an eye for an eye” – put women in the same class as children, slaves, and chattel. The husband (father, master, owner) was owed obedience, and could subject his wife to criminal prosecution if she failed to obey. (It was assumed he could use physical discipline as well, as long as he didn’t maim her. Although he could use deadly force for the worst offenses.)
Aristotle, who along with Plato provided much of the philosophical backbone of the Greek and Roman world of the New Testament, believed that females started out as males in the womb, but suffered a developmental defect that made them female. Thus, women, children, and slaves were all fair game to be punished and corrected with physical force, because they were congenitally inferior and in need of correction.
 
 
In ancient Rome, a man could strike, maim, or even kill in some circumstances, a wife who was not sufficiently submissive. Saint Augustine strongly advocated for women to be obedient in order to avoid beatings. It was just assumed to be the way of the world. (Again, I am not going to spend time finding the exact citations for these ideas, but they are not difficult to find. See the note at the end for a good starting place.)
Even as late as the late 1700s, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England notes that “chastisement” was considered normal.
“The husband … by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children…for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer.” (From Chapter 15.)
Note: there are multiple references in writings of this period of the “rule of thumb.” The rule was that a husband could beat his wife with a stick, so long as it was no wider than his thumb – or longer than his forearm. (For me – a fairly small man – the stick would be ⅞” in diameter, and 17 ½” long. Any volunteers?) By the time this saying became popular, the law had already changed, so it is not certain that this was a true statement of the fine points of the law, but it is not disputed that “chastisement” of a wife was not actually outlawed until at least the late 1600s.
Throughout the history of literature, the abuse of women is treated as a source of humor, or taken for granted. In my blog, I have already noted a couple of these instances. In the Miracle Plays of the Middle Ages. In modern impoverished communities such as those described in Their Eyes Were Watching God. It’s in the culture.
And now, I will say something nice about the Puritans, who I am not generally very fond of, for a variety of theological and ethical reasons. However, they did get this one right. The 1641 Massachusetts Bodie of Liberties, while it did not grant freedom of religion or speech, did grant this important, and somewhat unprecedented freedom to wives:
To be “free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband.”
Unfortunately, this right was all too often a right without a remedy, as it was poorly prosecuted, and inconsistently punished. In 1976, twelve battered wives filed suit against the New York City Police Department, alleging that battered wives were treated differently than victims of assault by strangers. They won. The court held that justice was indeed being denied to beaten wives. Bruno v. Codd, 407 N.Y.S. 2nd 165 (1978)
The sad thing about this is that this wasn’t the Middle Ages. This was the late 1970s: during my lifetime. While things have improved somewhat, there is still remaining inconsistency in prosecution.
Up until now, I have been discussing primarily the criminal justice available to beaten wives. But what about divorce? Couldn’t they leave? Actually, no. Not until the late 1800s in most parts of the United States. In England this happened in 1878. A woman could not divorce for violence, nor for her husband’s adultery. (A man could divorce for these reasons.) A woman would have to be “abandoned” in order to be granted a divorce. (There is a tedious, but informative story about this very thing in Peregrine Pickle by Tobias Smollett, which I reviewed here.) So, as long as a man financially supported a woman, she was stuck. She could try to have him prosecuted, but she couldn’t leave.
 
The point of this history is in part to dispel the current fad in conservative Christian circles to believe that the past was a more moral, “godly” time. The second point is that an acceptance of violence against women has been the norm for most of history, in all times and places. It is only in the relatively recent past that this has changed. And obviously, it has changed only to a degree, and only in the attitudes of some. Thus, it is ludicrous to say that the cause of domestic violence is feminism. General acceptance of such violence predated even first-wave feminism by 3500 years. At least. Feminism was a reaction, in part, to this violence.
Furthermore, it follows that the key to changing the mindset that tolerates and encourages violence is not to attack “feminism” as the bogeyman, but to change the attitude that says that it is okay to force a woman to obey a man.
Caveat: Before I get going on this point, I do want to make some things clear. Domestic Violence is not just male to female, but the damage primarily occurs in this direction. Also, the power differential has historically been in favor of the man, as I have shown, so male to female violence reinforces this inequality in power.
Second caveat: I do want to be clear that a general belief in male rule is not the same thing as violence. Not all who believe the woman should obey the man are abusers. If I am reading the statistics correctly (see the links below for the source), 75% of those who believe in the “traditional” hierarchy will never abuse their wives. However, the point is that we need to stop the 25% from feeling encouraged by our culture and our religion.
I also want to make a distinction between “hard” Patriarchy and “soft” Patriarchy (whose proponents often prefer “Complementarianism”). Hard Patriarchy is represented by Douglas Phillips of Vision Forum (Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy), Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles), Michael and Debbie Pearl, and a number of others. Hard Patriarchists advocate an absolute rule by men and fathers strikingly similar to Hammurabi’s code. (I have discussed the Patriarchists’ connection to Christian Reconstructionism and White Supremacy here. I have discussed the Patriarchists’ desire to return to the culture of the ancient world – such as Hammurabi – here.) The emphasis is on hierarchy and obedience.
In contrast, “soft” Patriarchists hold to a view of male rule within the home and church, but balance it with a corresponding duty by the man to love and serve his wife. This would describe most of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, who largely functioned in egalitarian manner, with mutual decision making, and an emphasis on love rather than hierarchy.
My concern is that over the last couple of decades, the focus in Complementarian circles has shifted away from the idea of mutual sacrifice and love toward the hard Patriarchal emphasis on womanly obedience and the supposed evils of “feminism.” (I use the quotes because the term is used as a bogeyman, and no distinction is made between the various waves of feminism or the different schools of feminist thought. Thus, Douglas Phillips can use the term to refer to everything from women’s suffrage to the present, while most probably are thinking of some sort of lesbian man-hater promoting abortion. That is a big difference. As I explained here, the Patriarchists are big fans of R. L. Dabney, the Confederate chaplain who claimed that women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery would destroy Christendom.) This is also why Doug Wilson can claim that those who disagree on “feminism” are heathens. Note the use of the code phrase “creation order of human sexuality,” which means male dominance. See below for more on this.
Why do I go to such lengths to explain this? Because the ancient lie that the cause of domestic violence is unsubmissive women and that the cure for violence is more submission is making a comeback in conservative Christian circles.
Let me start off with John Piper, who I once considered to be a reasonably mainstream preacher. (Before learning of statements like this, and others that are pretty far out there.)
I posted this link in my previous post on women in ancient cultures. Here, Piper clearly advises that a woman should stay and submit to abuse. Not leave and seek safety for her and her children. Not report a violent crime to the authorities. Stay and submit to abuse. 
Or how about this one, from a Saddleback Church pastor. (Not Rick Warren, the most famous of the bunch.) That’s right, just like it used to be legally, he says that morally, violence is not grounds for a divorce. Stay and submit to abuse. 
Or what about Paige Patterson, president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? What does he say?
“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.”  And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”  And sure enough, he did.  She came to church one morning with both eyes black.  And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter.  And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”  And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.”  And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
“And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came.  And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front.  And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.”  And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?”  And he’s a great husband today.  And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.  And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.  Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.”
Well, bully for him that he came to church, but I see nothing about follow up to be sure that the abuse stopped permanently. Based on my experience, it probably returned as soon as the cycle continued on to the next phase.
 
I hesitate to even dignify Michael or Debbie Pearl with a quote. They are best known for their book, To Train Up A Child, which advocates beating children with plumbing tubes. Several children have died as a result of their teachings. (See note below.)
In what surely must come as no surprise, the Pearls advocate women submitting to violence as well. 
“Has your husband reviled you and threatened you? You are exhorted to respond as Jesus did. When he was reviled and threatened, he suffered by committing himself to a higher judge who is righteous. You must commit yourself to the one who placed you under your husband’s command. Your husband will answer to God, and you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer.Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands’…You can freely call your husband ‘lord’ when you know that you are addressing the one who put him in charge and asked you to suffer at your husband’s hands just as our Lord suffered at the hands of unjust authorities…When you endure evil and railing without returning it, you receive a blessing, not just as a martyr, but as one who worships God.”
That’s right. Better to be a martyr – that is dead – than to leave and protect yourself or go against the man in any way.
[Note: I do not personally know anyone who is a fan of the Pearls, but they are somewhat popular within the Christian Patriarchy movement, and the teachings are a slightly more extreme version of the beliefs regarding absolute obedience by children and women that are the hallmark of Patriarchy.]
One more example. This one is from Nancy DeMoss, in an interview (along with Mary Kassian, promoting their new series on “biblical” womanhood) on the once fairly mainstream Focus on the Family radio.
We need to be sensitive to the occasions where women have a background of abuse—but we can’t say that the solution for abuse is for women to “cling to their rights.” Christ laid down his rights . . . We are the most like Christ when we are serving, and when we’re not “the end thereof is the way of death.” Feminism is the “forbidden fruit,” and the world’s ways are attractive, but when we bit into it we get a mouthful of worms . . . When you lay down your “rights,” then you find God leads you to pleasant paths . . . We live in a broken world, no one has a perfect marriage . . . we have to wait for eternity to find happiness. 
That’s right! Once again, the “solution” to violence is for the woman to “lay down her rights.” You know, like the right to safety for her and her children.
I also can’t help but note the gratuitous reference to “feminism” as being the enemy. I’ll admit that the use of “feminism” to represent the idea of getting out of an abusive marriage makes me rather inclined to embrace that form of “feminism.” [I want to do a further post on this interview, because there are so many more poisonous things said that need to be addressed.]
I also wince at that line, “we have to wait for eternity to find happiness.” This is sometimes true – the world does not owe us happiness – but again, this is used in the context of explaining why women should endure abuse.
The great Victorian novelist, Wilkie Collins notes this attitude in No Name, when the passive Norah resigns herself to her fate. (See my more in-depth review of that book here.)
“The way to happiness is often very hard to find; harder, I almost think, for women than for men. But if we only try patiently, and try long enough, we reach it at last — in heaven, if not on earth.”
Or, as C-3PO puts it: “We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.”
The basic worldview is that women’s happiness, women’s right to be free from violence, and indeed women’s right to life, are all secondary to the need to submit.
[Note: there is so much more awful stuff in that Kassian/DeMoss interview that I wish to address in a different post on the current obsession with gender roles in the conservative church. Stay tuned.]
Needless to say, I find this to be an appalling response to a serious problem. Furthermore, it demonstrates a tendency to side with the perpetrators against the victims – something totally contrary to the Christian ethic. In fact, I would say that one of the key themes of the Bible is to do justice to the oppressed. To oppose the oppressor, to defend the powerless, not those with power. (See Isaiah 58 for more.)
The problem is that for some reason, conservative Christianity has decided that the main if not sole cause of problems in marriages is that women are no longer “submissive.” That is, that “feminism” is the source of our problems, and that all we have to do to go back to whatever Utopian ideal of great “biblical” marriages is for women to reject feminism, give up their rights, and take whatever men give them.
This is a disgrace to our faith.
As a lawyer, I know there is a better way to address domestic violence. It isn’t a secret.
1. Call the police. Violence, even between spouses, is a crime in the civilized world. Treat it as such.
2. Zero tolerance. If you hit, the marriage is over. We do not risk the lives and safety of others, particularly children.
3. Since women – particularly poor women – are at financial risk in a split, be prepared to assist.
4. Before even considering putting the marriage back together, the abuser needs to demonstrate a change. Anger management, two years of a demonstrated change minimum. Preferably five years. (This is similar to drug or alcohol addiction – a long track record of sobriety is needed.)
Now, one of the things that is often raised in this case (and was raised by Patterson, above) is the idea that submission to abuse will result in the salvation of the perpetrator. I’m sure all of us who have spent time in conservative churches have heard that one. In fact, we probably heard a story similar to the one told by Patterson. Leaving aside the fact that I have deep suspicions of anecdotes told by pastors when they are a bit self serving, I have noticed that the stories circulating in churches have all the hallmarks of urban legends. It is always a friend of a friend. Somebody someone once knew. As I indicated above, I deeply doubt that Patterson’s case resulted in a complete transformation. If it did it would be rare. But all the rest are third hand stories. Urban legends.
Do you know what? Unlike those urban legends, I could easily demonstrate the more usual result when a woman goes back and submits. I dare you. Look through the archives of the newspaper of your city or town. Chances are, you will find a case involving a dead woman. Dead at the hands of a husband or partner. And, chances are, the story will mention that the police had previously been summoned to the residence due to violence. Perhaps she even filed for a restraining order. But she went back. And now she is a “martyr” as the Pearls would put it. Thirty percent of women who are are murder victims were killed by their intimate partner. (US Bureau of Justice statistics, 2000)  In fact, here is a recent case from my own hometown. I am happy to note that the wife survived her gunshot wounds. [Update 7-11-2013: She subsequently died from her wounds.] I am not happy to report that the shooter was an attorney. 
This is the usual result of returning and submitting. Not conversion of the violent man. Not some promised miracle. No. After the victim goes back and submits, the abuse continues, and probably escalates. In some cases, someone dies.
There is a solution to the cycle of violence, and it isn’t telling the victim to be nicer and more submissive. It is removing the violent person from the situation.
It is fitting that Eminem and Rihanna perform this song, as both have had their own experiences with domestic violence. Trigger warning. This song contains violence and language, and is highly disturbing. It also illustrates the cycle of violence far too well.
I have, in the course of my law practice, assisted in quite a few divorces involving Christians and also involving violence. I could write an extensive post on the problems in marriages, and may some day. I think that churches often take the wrong approach. However, it is particularly in the “women must submit” diagnosis that things go the most wrong. In the non-violent breakups, the woman generally believes she has been submissive. (I would note that in many of these cases, she has, but has been unloving – a totally different problem.) In all my cases, I have only had one in which the man complained of a lack of submission.
This particular case was also the most troubling divorce I have ever facilitated. (I represented the wife.)
The husband was (and is) a pastor. Also, one of the creepiest people I have ever met. He insisted upon having his way sexually with his wife in a way that she found degrading and painful. Things got so bad that she would lock herself in the guest room every night to avoid rape. It wasn’t until her adult children insisted she get counseling that things changed. The female counselor (provided by the denomination, actually, and a licensed professional) recognized the problem, and helped her end the marriage. It took some work by the counsellor and myself to break through the years of “submit” to get her to believe that she was not sinning by ending the marriage. (I am happy to report that she is doing well several years later. I am also happy to report that the denomination terminated him from his position – a very rare thing, in my experience. However, he quickly found another position in another state. Apparently real creeps never lack employment in ministry.)
Once again, not all or even most of those who espouse hierarchy in marriage are abusers. But the philosophy attracts abusers because it provides them with cover and justification. And, when we tell women that they must stay and take abuse, we become participants in that violence.
This is one of several areas that the American Church seems blissfully unaware of how non-Christians view it. I was told from my childhood that “unbelievers” rejected my religion because they wanted to sin. They viewed us as a bunch of prudes intent on ruining their fun. This isn’t completely untrue. We are viewed as prudes. Sometimes, we deserve it.
But what I have come to realize working in Family Court is that we are also viewed – for good reason – as immoral. Because we say things like this.
There is a great comment on John Piper’s video (linked above) by a person who goes by the handle of “butchkitties.”
“Richard Dawkins wishes he were as effective as this video at convincing people that Christianity is a morally bankrupt mess.”
When we decide that a belief in an ancient hierarchy of rule by men trumps the physical safety and lives of women, we are indeed morally bankrupt, and even an atheist can do better than that.
Note on SGM and child abuse:
Not only is this tendency to emphasise power structures over damage to people expressing itself in a failure to defend women from violence, it has also popped up in the recent lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries resulting from the cover-up of child molestation. (SGM is a church popular with The Gospel Coalition, one of the better known proponents of Complimentarianism, and also known for its authoritarian ways. John Piper is a prominent member of this group.)  (Since several of the perps have been convicted, it is safe to say that the abuse occurred. I think there is also good evidence that the church attempted to cover for the abusers.) Again, submission to the powerful (the church leaders) becomes more important than justice for the victims. Or even protection of the victims. In fact, the leadership apparently made the molested children formally “forgive” and “reconcile” with their molesters. For more on this, I recommend thewartburgwatch.com for their ongoing series on the abuse and coverup.
Again, the same prescription applies – as it should for the Catholic Church as well: Call the police. Prosecute the perpetrators. Support the victims in their recovery.
Note on the Pearls:
Here is a quote that gives an idea of the philosophy of child raising advocated by the Pearls:
Never reward delayed obedience by reversing the sentence. And, unless all else fails, don’t drag him to the place of cleansing. Part of his training is to come submissively. However, if you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.
Unsurprisingly, Sean Paddock, Lydia Schatz, and Hana Grace-Rose Williams died as a result of these teachings.
 
Note on Rape:
This is a bit beyond the scope of this post, but a related misconception, particularly in Patriarchal culture is that rape is caused by something the woman did or didn’t do.
I previously noted Douglas Wilson’s claim that rape is caused by women not submitting enough, and I reproduce it here:
A blogger and friend of Douglas Wilson re-posted the following excerpt from Wilson’s book, Fidelity: How to be a One Woman Man as a response to the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, a novel about kinky, violent sex. All excerpts can be viewed on Amazon.com using the search within the book feature.
Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.
True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours. (Page 88.)
It is beyond the scope of this post to explain why this is offensive, and I assume most of my readers will find that point to be completely obvious. It also fits neatly with the Christian Patriarchy view that women are in fact lesser beings, and therefore must always be under the protection (and control) of a man. In fact, Wilson makes this reasonably clear in the opening of the first chapter of the book:
This book was written for men and their sons. I suggest that wives read this only when their husbands give it to them, and not the other way around. The introduction mentioned the issue of “straight talk” – and this means, in part, a rejection of euphemism. Some of what is said here may be offensive to Christian women, but the point is certainly not to give offense. The point is to provide biblically specific and pointed help to Christian males. (On page 13.)
Although, again, this discussion is beyond the scope of this one post, I may have to explore the degree to which misogyny and the control of women are a core belief of the Christian Patriarchy movement.
Suffice it to say that, like many of Wilson’s ideas, this one is not only factually false, but obviously factually false. Those places in the world where women are most likely to be raped also happen to be those places which most adhere to the Patriarchal view of male-female relations. Even worse, many of those in these areas of the world that advocate patriarchy mutilate the genitals of their females, which ensures that the sex act is not an “egalitarian pleasure fest.” That, in fact, is the point.
If Wilson were really concerned about ending rape, he might note that women are the safest in those countries that have strong rape laws, a view of women as equals, and influential feminist movements.
[Subsequent note: in the same book, Wilson denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS, and advocates that women have unprotected sex with their HIV positive husbands. No, seriously. Search inside the book at Amazon.com. Page 169]
I would add as well that in the aftermath of the recent Steubenville rape case, there has been a renewed assertion of the lie that rape is about sexual desire. (This ties in nicely with the claim that “she was raped because she was wearing that.” Again, just like with domestic violence, the response is to blame the victim. Not submissive enough. Wearing the wrong thing. I really wish that more people would make an open-minded study of rape culture and the actual facts regarding rape before making such offensive and obviously factually false claims.
Here are a few good rebuttals: Gang Rape is about violence, not sex. 
Note on the duty of the woman to obey:
It is beyond the scope of this post to argue over the particular theological interpretation given to certain passages of the Bible by patriarchists. I may eventually compile some links by those who have a better knowledge of Greek language and history than I have in a future post.
For now, I want to focus on the implications of the supposed duty of a woman to obey her husband. (Patriarchists interpret the Bible to require absolute, unquestioning obedience.) As lawyers, we refer to such things as rights. The husband (in this hypothetical) has a right to his wife’s obedience. The question then would be, what is the remedy? How can the husband enforce the right to absolute obedience? If he can’t, then it isn’t worth much as a right.
As I have demonstrated, the historical patriarchal answer has been that a husband may take physical action to compel obedience. In Hammurabi’s time, that might extend to capital punishment. Later, this would be limited to reasonable beatings, however one might define that.
So, what to do if one cannot outright advocate committing a crime, eliminating beatings as a method of enforcement?
The ever-resourceful Douglas Wilson has a solution for you. (I swear, finding crazy stuff written by DW is almost too easy.)
Yes, that’s right! You can subject her to church discipline (the Protestant equivalent of excommunication) if she doesn’t do what you want. After all, to fail to obey one’s husband is sin. To do it after being warned is persistent sin – and thus warrants discipline until she decides to stop sinning by obeying her husband absolutely. So I guess threatening one’s wife with damnation is sort of better than beating her. I still find it abusive.
[I note that, after this post made a big stir on the internet, Wilson retracted it. However, it is very much in harmony with his views of the absolute duty of obedience, so I’ll admit to doubting that the retraction represents a true change in Wilson’s actual opinion.]
For a good rebuttal and discussion, see this post. 
One of my favorite exercises is to reverse the roles in a situation to expose how sexist (or racist) the “solution” is. In this case, note that the woman is told to go pray about it, but the man is allowed to seek a remedy. Try it backwards. Tell the man to go home and pray. “God, please make my wife do the dishes.” Or, “God, please make my wife have more sex with me.” I would be embarrassed to make that request. But instead, it’s, “God, please keep my husband from beating me.” Yeah, that makes sense.
Or how about this. “A man shouldn’t cling to his rights to have sex and a clean house. Christ’s example proves we should lay down our rights.” Why don’t we hear this? It actually makes more sense than “don’t cling to your right not to be abused.” Didn’t Saint Paul actually use Christ’s sacrifice to describe the way a husband should act. But instead, the woman is told to submit to abuse, while the man is advised on how to get his way. The man is never told that he will need to wait for the afterlife to have clean dishes.
The conclusion is inescapable. A man’s “right” to be obeyed trumps the woman’s right to personal safety.
But, it does fit with the worldview that men are active. Women are passive. They “receive, surrender, accept.” A man takes action to get what he wants. A woman must passively hope that God rescues her.
I will also admit that if I were the pastor and a parishioner came to me asking me to discipline his wife for not doing the dishes, I would be sorely tempted to tell him to get off his lazy ass and go wash them himself.  
Note on the Martyr Complex:
During my childhood years, our family attended John MacArthur’s megachurch in Los Angeles. While he is not nearly as extreme as the partriarchists I quoted above, he is not only a complementarian, but also does not believe abuse is grounds for divorce. At least he grants that a woman has a right to protect herself from physical harm. However, I note that he does not consider verbal and emotional abuse to be grounds for a split.
I believe that this has some serious moral and practical problems. Let me explain.
First, there are plenty of abusive spouses who stop just short of a hit. However, they create an environment of fear and intimidation that is far from healthy. Also, it is damaging to the children, who are typically emotionally abused as well. I can speak from the experience of my practice, my observation of friends and acquaintances, and an abusive situation within my extended family.
Here is the problem: the spouse (nearly always the woman) is able to feel self righteous because she stays and submits. She becomes a martyr. She can tell her friends at church (and her relatives) about how hard her life is, and she gets lots of sympathy. She is able to be the “good person,” the “godly person,” even as she allows her children to be verbally and emotionally abused. And the Church backs her up.
This is yet another reason why domestic violence – and its little sibling verbal and emotional abuse – should be treated seriously. By insisting that there is nothing noble about staying in a bad situation, the following could be accomplished. First, bullies would lose their enabling. If victims leave, they would be left with their own unpleasant selves. Second, all this complaining and the martyr complex would be met with a demand for action. Protect the children, and stop enabling bad behavior. 
 
Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Evangelical talibans

  1. Just a clarification: I would not classify John MacArthur as a patriarchist. He is conservative, and I disagree with him on a number of points. The Christian Patriarchy movement would be best represented by names such as Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Bill Gothard, Scott Brown, Vodie Baucham, and so on.

  2. On Domestic Violence: How Conservative Christianity has Chosen Patriarchal Gender Roles Over the Protection of Victims

    Right from the start, this fumbles pretty badly. The article sets up a choice: either you give up ‘patriarchal gender roles’ altogether, or you approve of wife-beating, or at the very least you aren’t REALLY trying to stop it. And that is simply bonkers.

    The author goes from talking about how wrong it is to not distinguish between various flavors of feminism to condemning ‘Conservative christianity’ wholesale.

    And one important question:

    2. Zero tolerance. If you hit, the marriage is over. We do not risk the lives and safety of others, particularly children.

    Does this apply to women as well?

    • If I believed in this principle, I would apply it to women too, and it is a fact that there are abusive wifes, even if they are (fortunately) less numerous than abusive men.

      I don’t hold to this rule at all. If the husband or the wife hit, feels horribly sorry and begs for forgiveness, I see no reason to end the marriage, provided of course the other partner is ready to pardon him or her.

      Cheers.

      • If I believed in this principle, I would apply it to women too, and it is a fact that there are abusive wifes, even if they are (fortunately) less numerous than abusive men.

        See, this I don’t buy. Not by a longshot.

        Less numerous, according to what? Arrest statistics?

        I don’t think less women are radically less abusive than men, especially in the west. I think the reality is that women’s physical abuse is taken far less seriously, and men’s far more seriously. She says ‘spousal abuse is a crime, treat it as such’? Try calling the police saying a woman struck you, when you’re a man. Say your girlfriend did it. Will you really be surprised if the reaction is far, far more restrained?

        Regardless, this author tries to connect ‘rejecting feminism’ with ‘spousal abuse’. There are a wide variety of social ills that one could conceivably link with feminism, but I suspect that if that were done then suddenly the problem wouldn’t be with feminism, but with some particular sub-attitude – except that same thing can be said about rejecting feminism.

        Here’s a thought: if ‘feminism’ cashes out to ‘equality’, then a woman striking a man shouldn’t be treated any differently than a man striking a woman, or a man striking a man.

  3. Crude, you say:

    I don’t think less women are radically less abusive than men, especially in the west.

    Do you have any support for this? Sure, abuse of men by women does happen, and it is probably underreported- and of course it should be handled as seriously- I doubt you’ll find any argument about that.

    But do you think that murders of men by women are underreported for the same reason? Do you think that women starting wars and dropping bombs and raping is also underreported? If you can’t see that men are simply more violent than women, then you are living on another planet, possibly one where women also have a Y-chromosome. Look at other animals: it’s crystal clear that there are genetic differences here. Males are bigger and more aggressive, on the average.

    • Based on the currently available evidence, it is a possibility that men and women are equally abusive in domestic partnerships, on average. Although even agreeing on a common definition of what constitutes “abuse” (is physical violence required?) is a problem here… The wikipedia article on the issue is not bad and also mentions the many methodological problems for studies on this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men .

      Underreporting for male abuse victims also does seem to be a problem (interesting blog post on that issue: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/ ) – but I completely agree with feminists that the main reason for why male abuse victims are not taken seriously by the society (and the police…) and are thus not reporting the abuse, is the persistence of patriarchal stereotypes about men and women.

    • Zilch,

      Do you have any support for this? Sure, abuse of men by women does happen, and it is probably underreported- and of course it should be handled as seriously- I doubt you’ll find any argument about that.

      I’ll find lip service paid to the idea in general. You see the example of what I’m talking about presented in this very article: abuse is declared to be a thing that men engage in, and a man hitting a woman is a very, VERY serious thing, for which there should be absolutely zero tolerance. End and break up the family immediately… if it’s a man hitting a woman.

      A woman hitting a man? This isn’t even discussed.

      Andy’s already mentioned some of the evidence.

      But do you think that murders of men by women are underreported for the same reason? Do you think that women starting wars and dropping bombs and raping is also underreported?

      Nope, because in the first case, biological differences between men and women do a good job of explaining the discrepancy. In the second, biological differences and more.

      Women are also vastly more likely than men to misrepresent who the actual father of their children is. Gonna go out on a limb here – I think biological differences are in play.

      Look at other animals: it’s crystal clear that there are genetic differences here. Males are bigger and more aggressive, on the average.

      Sure are. Why, it’s almost as if men and women should be treated differently, isn’t it?

      Andy,

      but I completely agree with feminists that the main reason for why male abuse victims are not taken seriously by the society (and the police…) and are thus not reporting the abuse, is the persistence of patriarchal stereotypes about men and women.

      Feminists are precisely the people who are not taking male abuse victims seriously, because if they did, it would throw a wrench into a favored narrative. Nor does it come down to ‘patriarchal stereotypes’ but other factors: on average, a woman striking a man is not striking a defenseless or helpless man, physically speaking. If there were not severe societal penalties for striking a woman – even striking a woman BACK – it would quickly come close to being a non-issue, at least in one direction.

      Remember what we’re talking about here, according to the article’s very standard: being hit, once. ONCE. If women were charged with abuse every time they slapped a man, whether a spouse or a stranger, we’d have quite the prison population.

      The very word ‘patriarchy’ makes it sound as if the problems and roles in society were created by men, for men. In reality, whatever problems and roles exist had and have mutual support. There is no patriarchy, and there never was. Feminism sure is a wannabe-matriarchy, though.

      • Feminists are precisely the people who are not taking male abuse victims seriously

        As a first approximation, no one takes male abuse victims seriously.

        Nor does it come down to ‘patriarchal stereotypes’ but other factors: on average, a woman striking a man is not striking a defenseless or helpless man, physically speaking. If there were not severe societal penalties for striking a woman – even striking a woman BACK – it would quickly come close to being a non-issue, at least in one direction.

        I cannot parse this, how does what you say here explain anything about why male abuse victims are not taken seriously?

        The very word ‘patriarchy’ makes it sound as if the problems and roles in society were created by men, for men. In reality, whatever problems and roles exist had and have mutual support. There is no patriarchy, and there never was. Feminism sure is a wannabe-matriarchy, though.

        😀
        http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

      • As a first approximation, no one takes male abuse victims seriously.

        Except the MRAs, I suppose?

        The point is that we just saw an article by a feminist going on and on about physical abuse and zero tolerance regarding it… and the entire time her thoughts on it were oriented towards male on female abuse. The very idea of female on male abuse was for all purposes invisible.

        And you’re not going to see it taken seriously in a prominent way, because it would come immediately at the expense of robbing some female abuse victims of some of their victim status. Or worse. See below in this response.

        And before you ask for some evidence of that, let me supply some in another way.

        I cannot parse this, how does what you say here explain anything about why male abuse victims are not taken seriously?

        How seriously would you take the claim that an average 23 year old woman was hit by an average 10 year old boy? What is it about those two individuals that would make the incident seem less important than usual?

        And before someone yells that I’m comparing women to children – the point of the comparison is relative, typical strength and capability. A 10 year old boy isn’t much of a threat against a 23 year old woman, typically. Likewise, an average woman isn’t much of a threat to an average man in a typical ‘hitting’ situation. At least, not physically.

        Let’s throw in another example. If a man strikes a woman, is the woman justified in striking back? Now, reverse the pair in this situation. Same answer? Note that saying ‘yes, if a woman strikes a man he’s justified in hitting the woman back’ blows abuse statistics to smithereens.

        But if you say no – if a man strikes a man, is the latter justified in hitting back? If you say no here (to be consistent) then you’re taking a self-evidently ridiculous position.

        http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

        Your link just adds more evidence to my claim, and indicates misunderstanding on your part.

        I never said that the patriarchy involved ‘blaming all men even decent men for women’s woes’, much less that it was a ‘conspiracy theory’. I said that the very word makes it sound as if problems and roles in society were created by men, for men – no ‘all’ included. And I said that in reality, whatever problems and roles exist had and have mutual support – and that there is no patriarchy, and never was.

        The reality is that various ‘gender roles’ and associated problems benefited various men and women alike at times, and were a burden on men and women alike at others.The reality is that ‘privilege’ is very often a local concept, not cultural or national.

        But these acknowledgements complicate matters. No neat little FAQ to sort questions about that out, at least not with nearly as much ease. Who the Big Responsible Parties are, what they look like, becomes a lot more complicated. And we can’t have that.

        • In future posts I will expose this double standard which is very similar to the one used by “anti-racist” organizations in France.

          But as far Conservative Churches are concerned, women can be oppressed but they are almost never the oppressors.

          And this is was I created this topic, this has to change, the abuse of feminism in the secular world notwithstanding.

          Cheers.

      • Except the MRAs, I suppose?

        I said “as a first approximation” – meaning that the overwhelming majority does not take it serious.

        And you’re not going to see it taken seriously in a prominent way, because it would come immediately at the expense of robbing some female abuse victims of some of their victim status.

        There are some hidden assumptions in this statement:
        1. We can either take the suffering of male or female abuse victims seriously, both is categorically impossible.
        2. Women enjoy being recognized as an abuse victim, but they only enjoy it if male abuse victims are never taken seriously.
        3. Women have the power of stopping society from taking male abuse survivors seriously and will use this power, meaning that we actually WILL never take male abuse victims seriously.
        All three assumptions are pretty ridiculous if you think about them.

        And before someone yells that I’m comparing women to children – the point of the comparison is relative, typical strength and capability. A 10 year old boy isn’t much of a threat against a 23 year old woman, typically. Likewise, an average woman isn’t much of a threat to an average man in a typical ‘hitting’ situation. At least, not physically.

        Let’s throw in another example. If a man strikes a woman, is the woman justified in striking back? Now, reverse the pair in this situation. Same answer? Note that saying ‘yes, if a woman strikes a man he’s justified in hitting the woman back’ blows abuse statistics to smithereens.

        But if you say no – if a man strikes a man, is the latter justified in hitting back? If you say no here (to be consistent) then you’re taking a self-evidently ridiculous position.

        1. And what makes you think I would take that position?
        2. So violence is ok as long as it´s reciprocal? I don´t think it is, and I don´t care who started it (if there is reciprocal violence, you´ll never reliably be able to find out who started it anyway), both should be punished and in extreme cases, both should get the help they need (e.g. anger management treatment)
        3. I don´t see how that clarifies your point. What I said was, that I fail to see how your position explains the fact that neither society in general nor law enforcement in particular are taking male abuse survivors seriously.
        Your first example rather seems to prove my point, the assumption that the party with less upper body strength cannot possibly be the aggressor is often false (not only for domestic violence, also for other situations like schoolyard bullying), that this assumption universally applies is a patriarchal stereotype, and it does explain why society does not take female on male violence seriously and why this is even widely considered to be funny instead of being considered a serious offense (reversal of expectations – a classical method in comedy).
        So, how do you actually explain the striking observation that female on male violence is not only not being taken seriously by law enforcement personell or society in general and why this is even considered to be funny, since you reject my explanation?

        I said that the very word makes it sound as if problems and roles in society were created by men, for men – no ‘all’ included.

        So you don´t like the word, cool, that´s not what it means though, so this kind of detracts from any real issues.

        And I said that in reality, whatever problems and roles exist had and have mutual support – and that there is no patriarchy, and never was.

        Since you have just redefined what patriarchy actually means, that is moot.

        The reality is that various ‘gender roles’ and associated problems benefited various men and women alike at times, and were a burden on men and women alike at others.The reality is that ‘privilege’ is very often a local concept, not cultural or national.

        Erm… yes, absolutely, but again, this has nothing to do with feminism and nothing to do with patriarchy.

      • Lothar,

        But as far Conservative Churches are concerned, women can be oppressed but they are almost never the oppressors.

        And this is was I created this topic, this has to change, the abuse of feminism in the secular world notwithstanding.

        What has to change? Like I said, the article at first nitpicked about how conservatives are critical of ‘feminism’ without properly acknowledging all the various forms and subforms of feminism there are – and then slid right into bashing ‘conservative churches’ wholesale. I don’t think it stands up, whatever problems there are.

        The problems are certainly not boiling down to ‘they reject feminism!’

        Andy,

        There are some hidden assumptions in this statement:
        1. We can either take the suffering of male or female abuse victims seriously, both is categorically impossible.
        2. Women enjoy being recognized as an abuse victim, but they only enjoy it if male abuse victims are never taken seriously.
        3. Women have the power of stopping society from taking male abuse survivors seriously and will use this power, meaning that we actually WILL never take male abuse victims seriously.
        All three assumptions are pretty ridiculous if you think about them.

        Not at all – and not a one of those assumptions is necessary for my statement to go through. All that’s necessary is something like this:

        Feminists enjoy bringing attention to “women’s issues”, especially ones that gain them sympathy. It is vastly easier to gain sympathy if issues are simplified into black and white “villain and victim” contrasts, rather than complicated. Thus, when the situation is such that men are far and away more likely to be charged for abuse than women, even with comparable rates of women hitting men, even when women start the physical attacks or are mutually involved in attacking in a large amount of the altercations, if it’s possible to overlook this it will be overlooked.

        I mean you’re basically telling me ‘People angsting for a particular social/political view will never seek to maximize their appearance as victims or ‘good people’ and oversimplify things.’ THAT is pretty ridiculous.

        1. And what makes you think I would take that position?
        2. So violence is ok as long as it´s reciprocal? I don´t think it is, and I don´t care who started it (if there is reciprocal violence, you´ll never reliably be able to find out who started it anyway), both should be punished and in extreme cases, both should get the help they need (e.g. anger management treatment)
        3. I don´t see how that clarifies your point. What I said was, that I fail to see how your position explains the fact that neither society in general nor law enforcement in particular are taking male abuse survivors seriously.

        1. What makes me think you’d take what position? I explained two possible answers here and what problems they invite.

        2. You’re basically arguing that if someone physically attacks you, you have no right to defend yourself or strike back. And that is going to be one hell of a hard sell.

        3. And I think it does: because a 10 year old boy isn’t much of a threat, in and of himself. And most women aren’t either – save for the legal aspect, and extreme situations. (Physically crippled male, weapon involved, etc.) Back to the biology.

        Your first example rather seems to prove my point, the assumption that the party with less upper body strength cannot possibly be the aggressor is often false (not only for domestic violence, also for other situations like schoolyard bullying), that this assumption universally applies is a patriarchal stereotype, and it does explain why society does not take female on male violence seriously and why this is even widely considered to be funny instead of being considered a serious offense (reversal of expectations – a classical method in comedy).

        No one said ‘a party with less upper body strength cannot be the aggressor’. It wasn’t implied by me, or even my story. I acknowledged they CAN be the aggressor – it’s simply not taken as seriously for a very straightforward biological reason: the capacity for harm is far less. So no, the ‘patriarchal stereotype’ you suggest, is not in play.

        What’s more, it’s not a ‘patriarchal stereotype’ anyway. If an old white male christian tells me the sky is true, that’s not a ‘patriarchal claim’. It’s just a claim – a self-evident one, at that. In this case, the view is that women are just not as threatening, whether or not they’re the aggressors. And biologically speaking, talking in terms of averages and typical cases – that’s true.

        But if we’re going to go by the ‘One hit and that’s it!’ rule – and I, by the way, advocate no hitting ever myself – then this is going to have to apply to women as well. Or it’s going to have to be acknowledged that roles are different, as are expectations and judgments. And maybe the latter is a reasonable way to go.

        So you don´t like the word, cool, that´s not what it means though, so this kind of detracts from any real issues.

        No, that is what the word means. ‘Male’ is sewed right into the word, and words mean things. This is a little like the bit where people say that feminism doesn’t just benefit ‘women’, it benefits -everyone-. And the patriarchy isn’t ‘pro-male’, it harms -everyone-. Okay, well, time to choose new words then, because whoever chose the original ones made some mistakes.

        Since you have just redefined what patriarchy actually means, that is moot.

        No, I didn’t. I rejected the entire mentality regarding ‘patriarchy’ as inaccurate and ill-considered. It’s a bad model inside and out.

        Erm… yes, absolutely, but again, this has nothing to do with feminism and nothing to do with patriarchy.

        It has a lot to do with feminism, and certainly with patriarchy insofar as it sets up the contrast.

        From the wikipedia: Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.

        Okay, say it’s not authoritative. But there you have it – it’s males, males, males over females, females, females. Male rule and privilege, female subordination. It’s not that simple and never was.

        • I mean you’re basically telling me ‘People angsting for a particular social/political view will never seek to maximize their appearance as victims or ‘good people’ and oversimplify things.’ THAT is pretty ridiculous.

          So your original comment was not meant to single out feminists in any way since they do exactly what everyone else does as well?

          And I think it does: because a 10 year old boy isn’t much of a threat, in and of himself. And most women aren’t either – save for the legal aspect, and extreme situations. (Physically crippled male, weapon involved, etc.) Back to the biology.
          ….
          No one said ‘a party with less upper body strength cannot be the aggressor’. It wasn’t implied by me, or even my story. I acknowledged they CAN be the aggressor – it’s simply not taken as seriously for a very straightforward biological reason: the capacity for harm is far less. So no, the ‘patriarchal stereotype’ you suggest, is not in play.

          Since you believe that the capacity for harm coming from female on male aggression is “FAR less” and that “most women are not a threat” except when the potential victim is a “physically crippled” male or a weapon was involved – those feminists that do say that female on male violence is so rare that it is essentially a non-issue must be completely right. Your view is actually so extreme that if it were true, the police could *reasonably* dismiss ANY allegation of abuse if the accused is female and there was neither a weapon involved nor is there an alleged victim that is a “physically crippled” male (because even if there actually was a female aggressor, no harm would have been done).
          I have rarely seen a better example of the patriarchal stereotype I mentioned than your comment right here.

          No, that is what the word means. ‘Male’ is sewed right into the word, and words mean things. This is a little like the bit where people say that feminism doesn’t just benefit ‘women’, it benefits -everyone-. And the patriarchy isn’t ‘pro-male’, it harms -everyone-. Okay, well, time to choose new words then, because whoever chose the original ones made some mistakes.

          If that´s what it would sound like to you, cool – it still doesn´t mean that.
          It means that positions of authority are exclusively, or largely, filled by men, and that rules, norms, expectations etc. pp. are biased towards a male perspective for that reason. That doesn´t mean that men conspired to screw women over and it also doesn´t mean that it benefits men over women in *every* situation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s