Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Outlandish: TX courthouse may get Bush’s name on it Previous entry: Not a biological clock gone haywire

Tools and patriarchs: The re-normalizing of domestic abuse

Feminism

I’m currently reading Kathryn Joyce’s book Quiverfull, which is scheduled to come out next month, and I’ve been enjoying the articles she’s been publishing to promote the book.  She’s got one up at Alternet today about one of the worst aspects of the Christian patriarchy movement—-if you tell women to submit, even if you deny that it’s true, you’re encouraging wife battering.  The dirty little secret of evangelical tolerance of wife battering is that it’s not a problem for just a slim minority of super crazies, but is in fact part of the mainstream evangelical movement, basically any church or belief system that’s invested in male dominance and bleats about “family values”.  Yes, that includes Rick Warren, who teaches that battered women have no right to divorce their abusers.

After years of pressure from anti-feminist forces, we as a culture have gotten into the habit of pretending that domestic violence—-while wrong—-is an individual problem instead of the logical result of a patriarchal culture.  At best, I think most people believe that most abusive partners are men because we slip into essentialist thinking about how men are just more violent.  At worst, there’s the percentage of people who just deny that there’s a real problem, and pretend that abuse is about equally powerful people tussling with each other.  However we see it, we refuse to see how much domestic violence is directly linked to male dominance—-abusers are often (usually?) men who, on one level or another, buy into the idea that they are superior to women and feel entitled when they hit or otherwise force submission.  When you see domestic violence in the more individualized way, though, I think it’s easier to lull yourself into believing that couples that are torn up about it can fix their relationships up with therapy.  This sort of thinking dominates the evangelical movement, for instance.  Saddleback “allows” abuse victims to sleep elsewhere when their husbands are in a beating mood, but demand that the women return as soon as things have cooled down, to try to make it work.

Saddleback’s position is “typical evangelical fare on the subject of domestic abuse and domestic violence,” responds Andersen. Typical because, like other well-known and extremely influential evangelical leaders, Saddleback is pushing a message of “leave while the heat is on,” but only with the intention of returning to the marriage when the violence has cooled. This is the message that Andersen tracks from Christian leaders as prominent as megachurch pastor John MacArthur, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, and established Christian radio psychologists Minirth and Meier on the far-reaching Moody Media empire. “Everyone with a lick of sense knows that, in a violent marriage, the heat is never really off,” Andersen tells me. “Everything can be fine one minute, and the next minute you’re dead.”


Damn skippy.  I fail to see how this isn’t just encouraging the cyclical nature of domestic violence, which has three well-known stages.

All they’re doing is encouraging the false belief that the honeymoon phase can be counted on, when in fact it’s just a prelude to more violence.  But we can’t expect the believers in the submission doctrine to be able to really oppose domestic violence in a substantive way, because they sympathize with the abuser’s objectification of his spouse.  For all that believers tell men that they must love their wives, the larger truth is they’re told to objectify their wives, see them as objects created by god specifically to serve them, much like you feel about your car.  Ideologically incapable of realistically understanding domestic violence, conservative evangelicals are pretty much stuck with supporting abuse, both by legitimizing the cycle, and in some cases, encouraging victims to blame themselves by not being submissive enough.

But hey, for once I have to spread some blame around for this, because it’s not just the growing fundie movement that’s putting women in danger by encouraging the incorrect belief that standing by your man is an effective response to abuse.  On this week’s podcast, I cover the criminally irresponsible VH1 show “Tool Academy”, which promotes the same idea that foul and likely abusive relationships are there for working on, instead of ending as soon as you can do so safely.  I’m sure they did some cursory screening for domestic violence to cover their asses on this show, but it couldn’t have been too much, because we actually see the men engage in vicious levels of emotional abuse of their girlfriends, as well as violent acting out such as throwing things.  One of the tools actually brags that he’s “trained” his girlfriend into submission, which is indistinguishable from the motivations of many men who beat women regularly.  Many of the men are, if not hitting their girlfriends in private already, flashing big warning signs of being potential abusers, and the only thing their girlfriends need to do is get out as soon as it’s safe.

Instead, as I document on the podcast, the producers promote the idea that working on the relationship is not only a legitimate tactic, but the preferable one.  And even if every single woman on the show is actually safe from flying fists, which I have trouble believing, there are absolutely women in the audience watching this who are being beaten and are seeking validation of their erroneous belief that hanging in and “working” on the relationship will stop the abuse.  It’s been well-documented that abuse victims go through a long phase early in the relationship of telling themselves that he means well, that if they try harder it can get better, etc., and this show, by reinforcing that message to women who are desperate to believe it, is violating even the lower standards of moral codes that reality shows observe.

Worse, and I don’t cover this in the podcast, one of the phony exercises they do seems indistinguishable to me from the evangelical advice to abuse victims to learn to submit with more grace to manipulate the man into not abusing.  One of their exercises is to learn to do the tango, and the instructor makes a big deal out of how the women need to learn to be more vulnerable and let the men lead.  Since these men are, to the last one, massive assholes and most are liars who are happy to pretend to be remorseful if it lulls their girlfriends into sticking by them.  the last thing these women need is to be told to follow them or trust them.  Trust isn’t just some endlessly wonderful virtue.  It’s a major flaw if you keep giving your trust to men who don’t deserve it.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:51 PM • (120) Comments

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Awesome post.

Comment #1: Floyd  on  02/03  at  02:04 PM

Totally not the entire point of this post, but I really have to say I HATE the idea of partner dancing as a metaphor for gender roles. Any semi-serious partner dancer (I do east coast swing, lindy hop, and blues) will tell you that it is extremely common for women to lead and men to follow, that the proper terminology is ‘lead’ and ‘follow’ not ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ etc., and that some of the best dance ‘couples’ are same-sex (with their actual sexuality being totally irrelevant).

Comment #2: Ashley  on  02/03  at  02:07 PM

Excellent post. Really excellent. I think the whole thing is complicated, and not in a good way, for evangelicals by their inherent bias towards staying in an abusive relationship *with god* in the first place. By that I mean that to the extent that its “turtles all the way down” evangelical families are shown, time and again, a “model” for correct authoritarian relationships which is inherently abusive. God is always demanding shit, and failing to live up contractually to his end of the bargain. But the one unforgiveable sin is not calling god to account or complaining but *leaving the relationship entirely.* And the believer is always exhorted to work on his or her own faithfullness to the relationship to the exclusion (or with the exclusion) of rationality.  If god hasn’t delivered yet its always the believers fault in the evangelical imagination, either because the believer doesn’t have as long a time frame as god, as much insder information as god, or a correct understanding of god’s motivations and intentions. 

aimai

Comment #3: aimai  on  02/03  at  02:12 PM

The other thing I truly don’t understand about evangelicals (and conservative religious people in general) is why so much of their faith is dependent on gender roles. They spend so much time railing about the destruction of “traditional” gender roles, trying to affirm them in their own life, and trying to impose them on others that I almost never see talk about charity, or love, or peace from them, but solely the difference between Man and Woman.

Comment #4: Ashley  on  02/03  at  02:17 PM

This is total craziness.  It’s so clear to me that patriarchy=increased violent behavior.  All of my friends growing up were abused by their dads, and all of them came from cultures where men had absolute power over the family unit.  And of course, the less the women earned independent of the man, the worse the abuse was.  That doesn’t mean, of course, that women with high powered jobs and independent minds dont’ sometimes get stuck in abusive relationships, but certainly it makes it easier to get out if you have the economic means and you see other people in the day.

This is one of the ugliest things about evangelical christianity.  My close friend growing up was from a born again-ish family, and her dad was totally nuts—he’d monitor how many miles the wife would drive in the day to make sure she wasn’t lying. they ate day old bread because he was too stingy to pay for the real thing.  He’s thinking of bricking up the windows to save on “heating costs.”  On Christmas one year they had to defrost the turkey in the freezing cold because he didn’t want to waste money on heating a frozen turkey inside. And of course mean and horribly violent as well. Total nutter. But the mother, who is wonderflly sweet and resourceful, of course stayed with him, with the logic that it was better for the kids to have a horrible father figure than no father figure at all.  The fact that she earned none of the income was also probably daunting. And much of her thinking stemmed directly from biblical passages and stuff Jesus said about not getting a divorce.

Comment #5: t-ster2  on  02/03  at  02:18 PM

THANK YOU, Amanda, for this post. Just…thank you.

Comment #6: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  02:23 PM

Ashley,
I think one reason that evangelicals are so gendered is because it’s at the root of their religion.  It’s all about being fruitful and multiplying, and patriarchy is the most effective way to increase population numbers. And increasing the number of kids you have is the best way of ensuring a captive audience for your religion. (And considering how many evangelical kids “turn away from God”, they need all the warm bodies. Since the religion itself is so very authoritarian, it makes sense to make sure the structure of the family mimics what they see as the celestial order, or whatnot.  The Christian church is supposed to be the “bride of Christ”, which submits to God’s will.  God’s supposed to love the church as his own flesh or something, as well, but that seems more optional on his part, as far as I can tell. So the whole model of the church is very explicitly based on the patriarchal family structure.  It’s the root of the religion.

Comment #7: t-ster2  on  02/03  at  02:23 PM

And, this:

Trust isn’t just some endlessly wonderful virtue.  It’s a major flaw if you keep giving your trust to men who don’t deserve it.

Thank you. I had to have this conversation the other day because I didn’t “trust” and therefore didn’t “love” someone enough. I had to dig up a Pandagon quote that,hey, you love your gambling/abusive/alcoholic mother/sister/brother, but that doesn’t mean that you TRUST them.

Yay Pandagon.

Comment #8: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  02:25 PM

t-ster2, I understand that intellectually, but what I don’t get is how they justify it to themselves. I mean, they pretty much ignore that whole Sermon on the Mount thing, turn the other cheek, and all the peaceful hippy stuff Jesus said. How do they get away with that without exploding from the logical inconsistencies?

Comment #9: Ashley  on  02/03  at  02:26 PM

Oh, but <a >teh womynnz sometimz beats up teh mens!</a>

Comment #10: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  02:30 PM

Dang, I blew that tag ... [/mra bullshit imitation]

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  02:31 PM

One question: does this subculture create batterers or does it attract those who are already inclined to batter - or both?

Comment #12: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  02:32 PM

Interesting (if slightly off topic) note: the first person in the Bible to say the name of God is Eve.  And the two oldest parts of the Bible as a whole are the Song of Miriam and the Song of Deborah.  (Thank you, Richard Elliot Friedman).

Ashley, I’ve found that very few people who point to the Bible really know what they’re talking about.  At best, they’ve usually cherry-picked things to say what they want to say.

Also, aimai, great comment.  If you buy the bit from Paul about how a husband is the head of his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, it totally makes sense that you don’t leave your husband or your god.

Comment #13: FashionablyEvil  on  02/03  at  02:36 PM

Hmm, I think it’s convenient that Jesus speaks in allegories and metaphors and the first four books are all kind of, well, more literary than the rest of the new testament.  So you can theoretically say your fulfilling its commandments while actually doing the opposite. “yeah, I’m totally loving my neighbor the abortion provider while harassing him with these anti-choice picketer signs. because it’s good for him to see the light” Those first four books don’t have the same kinds of specific injunctions, like “Submit to your husband no matter what,” or “women should never teach men.” If your’e a biblical literalist, I can see how it’s easy to think that the specific injunctions are more important, easier to get off your checklist or at least, require a more specific action on your part.
Also, I think thoughtful Christians do struggle with the contradictions, but maybe they see it as a kind of Hegelian dialectic wherein totally illogical things that are contradictory actually have some kind of sublime, transcendent unifying principle that is God’s logic, and even if you don’t understand it now, you’ll eventually be able to see why it’s the ideal if you’re holy enough or lucky enough or something.

Comment #14: t-ster2  on  02/03  at  02:36 PM

FashionablyEvil, I’m not sure what point you were making with the “oldest parts” belonging to women, so apologies if I’m overstating the obvious, but the Bible is just not internally consistent. For every one “women are great” portion, there’s another five involving the God-sanctioned rape, slaughter, and abuse of all women who aren’t the “right” women.

Comment #15: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  02:41 PM

Sorry, I didn’t mean that it was internally consistent.  Rather, was pointing out that those parts of the Bible were written first (chronologically).

Comment #16: FashionablyEvil  on  02/03  at  02:50 PM

Also, I think thoughtful Christians do struggle with the contradictions, but maybe they see it as a kind of Hegelian dialectic wherein totally illogical things that are contradictory actually have some kind of sublime, transcendent unifying principle that is God’s logic, and even if you don’t understand it now, you’ll eventually be able to see why it’s the ideal if you’re holy enough or lucky enough or something.

Either that or, like my wingnut cousins, their knowledge of the bible is limited to formatted xeroxed text extracts provided by their minister that are edited and “explained” in footnotes in order to conveniently simplify things down to what the minister wants them to believe.

Comment #17: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  02:54 PM

where did you get the book? it’s not out yet?

Comment #18: t-ster2  on  02/03  at  02:57 PM

Awesome, Amanda. Thanks. I’ve been trying to get my head around this issue ever since my sister’s abusive husband passed away, thereby (oddly) saving the wife & children he so often abused. I could never figure out why he was abusive in the first place (no financial issues, cheating, etc.). This post helps. He was VERY religious. I can see how that payed a huge part.

Comment #19: Mark  on  02/03  at  02:58 PM

Interesting (if slightly off topic) note: the first person in the Bible to say the name of God is Eve.

Does it record if she was clutching Adam’s butt at the time?...

Comment #20: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/03  at  03:01 PM

“One question: does this subculture create batterers or does it attract those who are already inclined to batter - or both?”

I’d say both.  It’s like any other authoritarian doctrine with few if any in-built checks or oversight—it appeals to and attracts people who already actively desire that sort of power, it encourages people who have those tendencies to go for broke, and it raises people to see that sort of exercise as correct and desirable.

It’s not just physical abuse, either.  That sort of shit is fucking Ground Zero for emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse, and, depending on the denomination, female abusers can be given the same sort of carte blanche wrt non-physical abuse if they make a good show of being on fire for God in public.

Comment #21: preying mantis  on  02/03  at  03:01 PM

I think the focus on gender roles also has the added “advantage” of actually keeping them from accomplishing any of the stated goals of Christianity.

By moving a perpetually losing issue to center stage, they can focus entirely on the number one issue - the moral decline of society, and since, of course, they are not violating (or admitting to) any of the precepts there, they don’t have to do anything but bitch about others.

By making it so very much more important than any other issue, they never need to get around to feeding the poor, clothing the naked, or healing the sick, much less that pesky loving of the neighbor thing - all important of course, but they’ll get to those once the moral crisis is averted.

Comment #22: Lymis  on  02/03  at  03:19 PM

Also, aimai, great comment.  If you buy the bit from Paul about how a husband is the head of his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, it totally makes sense that you don’t leave your husband or your god.

I second that. aimai FTW.  It makes you totally understand why Warren counsels women to go back to abusive husbands.  If you are supposed to stick by a cruel and capricious God, the least you can do is put up with your imperfect husband.  I guess the Saddleback women should be grateful that they get an occasional break from the abuser.  You’re never supposed to take a break from God.

Comment #23: DonnaDiva  on  02/03  at  03:26 PM

Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, right-wing Roman Catholics and other so-called Christian conservatives are so far from the spirit of the merciful, loving Redeemer that their congregations are not Christian in any reasonable sense of the word, but are rather cults of patriarchy.  A sign of this is just how much they’ve jettisoned/ignored their seriously deep sectarian and theological differences just to ensure the violent subjugation of women and the elimination of gays. They’ll sell anything out—charity, kindness, whatever intellectual or spiritual credibility they may have had, even their historic identities—to meet these goals.

(The posts that proclaiming that Christianity is essentially patriarchal cult will surely come in droves, of course, from people who will never take the time to take theology and any history before the 19th century seriously. And ironically, too, given the remarks against essentialism. But it needs to be said anyway.)

Comment #24: wapsie  on  02/03  at  03:31 PM

I join everyone else in complimenting Amanda on a great post.  I especially appreciated how you compared fundie patriarchy with the secular type on the VH1 show.  Certainly organized religion has a vested interest in maintaining authoritarian power structures within the family but so does the corporate world.  Rigid gender roles keep people divided, distracted, and pushing out new consumers.

Comment #25: DonnaDiva  on  02/03  at  03:32 PM

My mother-in-law a few years ago dealt with a controlling, emotionally abusive husband (not my father-in-law, who has many faults, but that is definitely not one of them). Once she tried to get out, he started with repeated, long-winded quotes from Scriptures on her voice mail. Fortunately, restraining orders and divorce put an end to that.

A particularly telling recent tv event was the freak show marriage of the oldest Duggar. Both Mama and Papa Duggar, along with the minister, made enormous efforts to point out that the husband is the lord over the wife. They made sure that everyone at the wedding and everyone watching at home caught that. It wasn’t some incidental issue (like say mentioning that marriage was established before the Fall). The only religious-ish point that got bigger play was the couple’s impending awkward kiss and evening. 
I felt like there must be a book for these assholes called “So Ya Want to Be a Patriarch”, although I can’t see that they need it.
And in a bizarre bit of irony, the whole show was sponsored by Plan B contraceptives. Still trying to figure out what must have been going on at that meeting.

Comment #26: histro-geek  on  02/03  at  03:34 PM

On a side note, it’s sad to me how many posters here are either victims of abuse or at least have a close friend or relative who is a victim of abuse.

Underscores how common this problem is, but in a really sad way.

Comment #27: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  03:39 PM

“that their congregations are not Christian in any reasonable sense of the word, but are rather cults of patriarchy.”

No true Scotsman. 

“The posts that proclaiming that Christianity is essentially patriarchal cult will surely come in droves, of course, from people who will never take the time to take theology and any history before the 19th century seriously.”

Equal droves, I’m sure, will come from those desperately clinging to hints, speculation and suggestions of equality and inclusion that never manifested in the real world.

I studied religion for years while I was still trying to convince myself there is a god, under the tutelage of each religion’s holy men and women. Christianity, Judaism, a significantly smaller smattering of Islam.  Their promises of equality and inclusion (such as it can be believed that they offered any) never materialized. They are cults of patriarchy.  Period.

Comment #28: Gypsy Lee  on  02/03  at  03:44 PM

“but so does the corporate world.  Rigid gender roles keep people divided, distracted, and pushing out new consumers.”

Too right.  And moreover, rigid gender roles keep the privileged on top.  For the corporate world, it means that Joe Bob Middle Manager has a wife at home to take care of all the mundane, unimportant duties of home life, so he can work 80 hours a week.

Comment #29: Gypsy Lee  on  02/03  at  03:45 PM

Actually, Gypsy Lee, in Joe Bob Middle Manager’s case, he probably doesn’t work 80 hours a week and doesn’t make that much money. However, the rigid gender roles and patriarchal mentality helps Joe Bob Middle Manager feel “superior” to and “in control” of someone, even though he doesn’t have a great job, is beholden to someone else, and doesn’t make a lot of money.

Comment #30: Tyro  on  02/03  at  03:50 PM

Paul had issues. He was an unmarried Jewish man who resisted marriage and complained about an unnamed “thorn in the flesh”. Some people have suggested that Paul was homosexual and unhappy about it, since not reproducing was considered a serious taboo in the Jewish community of the times, whether in Judea or elsewhere. At any rate, Paul was uncomfortable with the whole idea of sex being pleasurable and human, a view having some commonalities with Stoic philosophy, where sex was strictly for procreation, and pleasure was acknowledged but considered an unimportant side effect and not a reason for sex. Paul also was evangelizing Gentiles in a context where Jews and heretic Jews were considered peculiar, hicks, not from the best set, etc., and where Greek-derived Stoic philosophy was popular among the elite. The business about very specific restrictions on women must have been in part an attempt to appear as respectable as possible to a Gentile audience. The creation of a role for virginity available to women of all classes was a new and attractive feature to many women - hitherto virginity with respect and independence was only available to a handful of women holding high religious office in the Empire (eg, Vestal Virgins, all taken from the most powerful families of Rome, all having legal independence available to no other unmarried or married women, though available to widows). Paul had both psychological tendencies and strategic evangelical concerns accounting for his attitudes toward women in the “true” Pauline letters (those thought to have been written by the same person in the mid-first century CE). Interestingly he was successful in recruiting fellow women church-founders and travelling evangelists, who gained enough power within the churches to represent a threat to the following generation of male church elders, and these elders wrote some of the most misogynist of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul but from textual analysis (often of the simplest sort, mind you!) 50 years later than Paul’s writings.

It must be noted that the fundamentalist/conservative evangelical movement does NOT evaluate the Biblical letters from a textual/ historical - critical perspective, insists that Paul wrote them all and that they are all of equal importance, and avoids the Synoptic Gospels’ narrative and Red Letters (words attributed to Jesus)  because the “meaning” of the parables isn’t always obvious as One and Only One meaning. It’s not for nothing that fundamentalists speak of the Bible as Life’s Instruction Book. Ambiguous koans freak them out.

Comment #31: NancyP  on  02/03  at  03:53 PM

The posts that proclaiming that Christianity is essentially patriarchal cult will surely come in droves, of course, from people who will never take the time to take theology and any history before the 19th century seriously. And ironically, too, given the remarks against essentialism. But it needs to be said anyway.

Actually, this didn’t need to be said. Also, you might want to look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Comment #32: Entomologista  on  02/03  at  03:54 PM

Doh! Gypsy got there first.

Comment #33: Entomologista  on  02/03  at  03:55 PM

“in Joe Bob Middle Manager’s case, he probably doesn’t work 80 hours a week and doesn’t make that much money.”

D’oh, you’re right.  What I was trying to say that an executive has the wife/domestic servant to take care of those things so he’s free to work (and play) a lot.

“However, the rigid gender roles and patriarchal mentality helps Joe Bob Middle Manager feel “superior” to and “in control” of someone, even though he doesn’t have a great job, is beholden to someone else, and doesn’t make a lot of money. “

Also true.

Comment #34: Gypsy Lee  on  02/03  at  03:57 PM

Entomologista - do you know the name of the second logical fallacy in that post?  It’s escaping me at the moment. The second bit (that you quoted) is implying anyone who disagrees is just stupid (or, uneducated) about REAL Christianity(tm).  I know there’s a name for that fallacy.  What is it?

Comment #35: Gypsy Lee  on  02/03  at  04:00 PM

Fortunately, restraining orders and divorce put an end to that.

Which is why so many of these people want to put an end to divorce and restraining orders.

Comment #36: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  04:13 PM

And in a bizarre bit of irony, the whole show was sponsored by Plan B contraceptives. Still trying to figure out what must have been going on at that meeting.

Makes sense to me—the pharma company probably assumed that most people watching the show would say, “Holy crap, I never want to be that crazy!  Where are my pills?”

Comment #37: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  04:14 PM

The thing, waspsie, is that us unrepentant historical materialists tend to deal with Real Existing Christianity, rather than the idealized fictional version that theologians study.

Comment #38: BlackBloc  on  02/03  at  04:33 PM

I’m respectfully dissenting on No true Scotsman.  I’ve been told for years by the fundies that I’m not a real Christian, because I disagree with them about…  almost everything other than the existence of Deity and the divinity of Christ… and I think they’re missing the point on the latter, anyway.  I’m asserting the right to reciprocate.  The evangelical movement is riddled with heretics, bibliolators, and penis-worshipers.  While they may represent many of the worst practices of the historical Church, they do not square with what Jesus preached, taught, lived for, died for.  Nor do I perfectly represent what I believe God wants, that’s the nice thing about forgiveness, you can always admit when you’ve been wrong, and learn from it.

So yeah, not making much sense, not a lot of sleep, but to sum up…  Progressive Christians have as much authority as anyone to call out fundies for failing to live of the Jesus’ example.  After all, there are no true scotsmen who aren’t, you know, scotsmen.

Comment #39: Scott the Obscure  on  02/03  at  04:36 PM

FashionablyEvil - It’s pretty well established that the earliest religion of the Israelites had a pair of deities, one male and one female.  Statues of the female deity are found wherever ancient Israelite homes are excavated.  They also ate pork, incidentally.  The strictly monotheistic religion we are familiar with is a later development.

Comment #40: togolosh  on  02/03  at  04:38 PM

(The posts that proclaiming that Christianity is essentially patriarchal cult will surely come in droves, of course, from people who will never take the time to take theology and any history before the 19th century seriously. And ironically, too, given the remarks against essentialism. But it needs to be said anyway.)

Yes, because when Augustine and his ilk declared that women don’t have souls it was SO <u>not</u> a “patriarchal cult.

It was just a good ol’ boys club.

Comment #41: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  04:40 PM

Sadly, I know people who think that wives being abused should not get divorced because it’s unbiblical. Get away from the man, yes, but get a divorce? Absolutely not. So what is the woman supposed to do, live separately and in celibacy the rest of her life? That’s just brilliant. Ugh.

Anyway, this is a really great post.

Comment #42: Margaret  on  02/03  at  04:51 PM

Again, I’m going to have to remind people that ‘what Jesus preached’ seems to change from one book of the Bible to another, and depends mostly on the prejudices and preconceptions of the author and reader than on what he might actually have preached (assuming he existed in the first place, which for some of us is still a rather shaky claim).

“I came not to bring peace but a sword”?

Also, giving up all material attachments may be interpreted as proto-leftism, as some have, or as a pretty standard practice of a doomsday cult that asserts the end times are coming soon, which to a lot of us seems to fit a lot more with the proto-Christianity depicted in the Bible.

“Verily, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all thing take place.”

Comment #43: BlackBloc  on  02/03  at  04:52 PM

stuff Jesus said about not getting a divorce.

Granted, it’s been a long time since I read the Bible, but didn’t Jesus say you can get divorced, you just can’t remarry?  Perhaps some abused women would rather stay with abusers than be alone, but Warren apparently can’t be bothered to actually read his holy book.

Comment #44: keshmeshi  on  02/03  at  04:53 PM

I felt like there must be a book for these assholes called “So Ya Want to Be a Patriarch”,

The Bible

And in a bizarre bit of irony, the whole show was sponsored by Plan B contraceptives. Still trying to figure out what must have been going on at that meeting.

It’s been my belief, for some time, that shows of the Baby Poopers and Super Nanny variety are in fact government or corporate sponsored birth control propaganda. Of which I approve.

Comment #45: mothworm  on  02/03  at  04:54 PM

“Hindu extremists ‘will attack Valentines Day couples’”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4447238/Hindu-extremists-will-attack-Valentines-Day-couples.html

As unsympathetic as I am to Xianity, its still worth remembering that patriarchy is both much older and much larger than monotheism, the Bible,  or “Western civilization”.

Comment #46: Cass  on  02/03  at  05:06 PM

The question for me is whether there’s any stuff in christianity that can reasonably be separated from the patriarchal-cult part. Pretty much every established religion at this point is going to have patriarchal-cult elements in it, just because they were all established in eras when that was the nature of the society around them. Dunno the answer.

Comment #47: paul  on  02/03  at  05:12 PM

Ashley;

“I mean, they pretty much ignore that whole Sermon on the Mount thing, turn the other cheek, and all the peaceful hippy stuff Jesus said. How do they get away with that without exploding from the logical inconsistencies?”

Seeing that no one actually endorses domestic violence, what exactly is the contradiction here? Am I to read one verse that (anachronistically) strikes moderns as vaguely hippyish or feminist or whatever and take that as a comprehensive “progressive” worldview? I see no reason not to turn it around and accuse progressives of being inconsistent for sometimes agreeing with the Bible and sometimes not; after all, the Bible was there first.

Essie Elephant;

Do you have a citation from Augustine to back that up?

Comment #48: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/03  at  05:17 PM

Seeing that no one actually endorses domestic violence, what exactly is the contradiction here?

Abusers themselves rarely “endorse” domestic violence. They just have excuses for all of their actions, plus an outsized sense of entitlement… tendencies which fundamentalism happens to encourage.

Comment #49: Cass  on  02/03  at  05:31 PM

SIF, I’m not going to get chapter and verse from De Trinitate when you can research the topic as easily as I, but the nutshell is that Augustine declared that:

Man + Woman (married) = Image of God / Souled
Man (alone) = Image of God / Souled
Woman (alone) != Image of God / Souled

So I guess I should have pointed out that women don’t have souls, but they do get to borrow their husband’s. MUCH better.

Comment #50: Essie Elephant  on  02/03  at  05:37 PM

OT:

The question for me is whether there’s any stuff in christianity that can reasonably be separated from the patriarchal-cult part. Pretty much every established religion at this point is going to have patriarchal-cult elements in it, just because they were all established in eras when that was the nature of the society around them. Dunno the answer.

That depends on what sort of a Christian you are. If you’re a literalist, no. You’re simply not permitted to separate good elements from bad, or even to see the homophobia and sexism in the Bible as wrong to begin with. (Of course they’d deny it, but literalists – e.g., “It’s not wine, but grape-juice” – do their own cherry-picking and interpretive acrobatics, regardless of what they have to say about “Cafeteria Christians.”)

If, on the other hand, you see the Bible merely as a collection of snapshots from across the centuries – a record, only sometimes candid, of how our forebears viewed and related to God – then yes you can separate the meaningful from the harmful. Don’t merely ignore the harmful and appalling elements within the Bible, however; acknowledge them openly, discuss them, repudiate them, and learn from the grievous mistakes of those who came before.

Comment #51: Nil  on  02/03  at  05:58 PM

Great post.

I was initially amused by the trailer for “Tool Academy” because I simply couldn’t believe how little self-awareness most of the tools had. The chair-chucker in particular made me laugh, with his whining, throwing things, and eventually sitting on the grass in full-pout because his girlfriend had, like, totally emasculated him. I half expected him to start holding his breath.

These guys were lured to the Tool Academy set with the promise they’d be competing for the title of “Alpha Male” on a show called “Mr. Awesome.” Most of them stayed in hope of faking their way to a $100k prize.

But then I got to thinking about the ones who didn’t stay – the men whose girlfriends signed them up but who declined to participate when they learned the deal. It seemed to me that more than a few would-be tools were of the sort who would physically assault their girlfriends for “daring to embarrass them” thus.

Comment #52: Nil  on  02/03  at  06:16 PM

“Seeing that no one actually endorses domestic violence, what exactly is the contradiction here?”

So until they actually come out and give a big old Buddy Christ thumbs-up to wife-beating—perhaps complete with a prime-time commercial campaign featuring ministers hi5ing batterers right in front of their bruised wives—instead of ‘just’ telling women to suck it up and go home, that their husband beating them is just their little cross to bear or God testing them, you don’t really see a problem?  Scary is about right.

Comment #53: preying mantis  on  02/03  at  06:35 PM

Cass, preying mantis;

Someone said the the “peaceful hippy” verses contradicted certain other verses which do not, in fact, have anything to do with violence.

The point you’re making, while wrong, is also on a different subject from what I was talking about.

Essie Elephant;

It’s not my job to back up your claims.

Comment #54: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/03  at  07:09 PM

Christianity is largely anti-woman. It’s anti-gay too. Phelps has a more coherent conception of the Christian religion than most Christian liberals do. Gay Christians are self-decieved fellow travellers. Face the truth: God Hates Fags. But don’t worry, God isn’t any more real than Santa Clause, so it doesn’t matter. Leave your MCC, your Foundry Methodist, and your Covenant Baptist churches. Quit collaborating and start fighting.

The middle-eastern monotheistic religions are the enemies of human freedom. They are openly anti-woman and even as patriarchial as they are they don’t really offer men that good a deal either.

I’m not suggesting violence against Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: I’m suggesting an ecological approach to controlling these manaces to human freedom. I work in an LFS and am confronted with questions about greenwater and excessive algae growth. I recommend environmental solutions and target hardening. More frequent partial water changes will reduce nitrate levels and starve many kinds of algae. Care in feeding will reduce nitrate and phosphate and further reduce algae. Ingreasing light levels such that vascular plants can thrive and outcompete algae for potassium and iron will further reduce algae. If you don’t put in pink gravel and flourescent pagodas, algae will be less a problem. The tank is hardened against the impact of algae if you choose natural gravels and “Greek Ruin” type decorations.

We need to figure out what environmental problems allow these pernicious chruches to thrive and alleviate then so that these churches will die. We need vote such that the government and education system will be less affected by the influences of these enemies of freedom.

Any ideas how we might do this? I think universal health care would be a good first step. Removing some of the uncertainty about our health would reduce the insecirities the churches draw on. I got this idea from a fundie radio station. The fundies hate the expansion of S-Chip. I guess they’d rather see kids die.

Comment #55: Bacopa  on  02/03  at  07:13 PM

Anyone that doesn’t think an abusive boyfriend can fool a lot of people for 30 days is unimaginably stupid. That, as Amanda pointed out, is PART of the honeymoon cycle, the loving “oh look at how much I love you, baby, I fucked up but please I will totally never ever do it again!” part. I do see this show as a lot shallower, I doubt sincerely there would be enough trust of the female to go on any show, to trust her judgment in something, in very abusive relationships. But plenty of emotional abuse can go on behind the scenes. And counseling tends to make abusers BETTER at abusing - they get better at learning “what makes her jump,” and such.

Also, as noted, this show seems to put a lot of burden on the women - THEY need to enroll their dumbass boyfriends to make them change! The boyfriends needs to change, because otherwise THEY won’t have husbands! And that’ll be the end of the world! Instead of just dumping their asses and the boyfriends can willingly enroll to stop their jerkdom and maintain a relationship with women, it is women who must change them for woman’s own need to have a man. Barf, retch, rinse, repeat.

Comment #56: Tenya  on  02/03  at  07:23 PM

Re. Essie Elephant’ comment about trust implying love—I had the same thing.  My father’s loud abusive voice saying, “The problem with you (and your life) is that you do not trust us (he and my mother) enough!”  He couldn’t even be bothered to try to moderate his tone a bit, when he uttered this piece of intended emotional blackmail.  My memoir, which was recently published, examines the nature of this abusive relationship.

Comment #57: scratchy888  on  02/03  at  07:27 PM

Amanda I have to say that this was an excellent post.  I agree that one of the major issues with Christianity is that it continues to work as a support mechanism for patriarchy which in turn justifies many acts of violence and emotional abuse committed against women daily.  These so-called men of God are not actually interested in salvation, they are interested in power. That is the key that often gets lost in their religious proselytizing to the world.  Because they supposedly come in the name of a Deity we get caught up in the dogma and ignore the ways in which their position is nothing more than evil seeking power, or in biblical terms they appear as wolves in sheeps clothing.  The difficulty in arguing with these men is that their arguments are faith based and therefore countering it with statistical data does little to sway opinion, after all faith is to believe without seeing.

Comment #58: womanistmusings  on  02/03  at  07:44 PM

Christianity is largely anti-woman. It’s anti-gay too. Phelps has a more coherent conception of the Christian religion than most Christian liberals do.

Ah now, here’s an area where I’m uniquely qualified to comment. Phelps does not have a more coherent view of Christianity than liberals; his actions are actually the flip-side of liberal Christianity, as opposed to being closer to “true Christianity” on some sort of continuum.

Among his many indulgences, that it’s perfectly okay “hate the people God hates,” because while the Bible commands believers to love their own enemies, it says nothing about loving the enemies of God. And it just so happens, through shear coincidence, that God hates all the same people Phelps hates.

Gay Christians are self-decieved fellow travellers.

No, they’re not. They simply recognize the Bible for what it is, as opposed to loading that completion of two-to-three thousand year old stories with the burden of being inerrant and infallible.

Whether there’s a creator god or not, and whether this being deals one-on-one with people or not, we still make most elements of religion in our own image, for our time, and to fit our needs. Gay Christians tend to recognize this fact, whereas literalists do not.

Face the truth: God Hates Fags. But don’t worry, God isn’t any more real than Santa Clause, so it doesn’t matter. Leave your MCC, your Foundry Methodist, and your Covenant Baptist churches. Quit collaborating and start fighting.

I have a much better idea: continue to attend events and services that you find spiritually fulfilling, and seek God, if that’s your interest; but treat other people with the same humanity and consideration you would like extended your way. In other words, show tolerance for other belief systems rather than tarring adherents as collaborators in evil. 

The middle-eastern monotheistic religions are the enemies of human freedom.

Nonsense. The unwillingness of certain believers to take responsibility for their own actions and prejudices, as opposed to blaming these things on some distant creator god, is an affront to “human freedom.”

Your attitude is merely giving these people another excuse to be assholes: “I’m not a dick; it’s the pernicious influence of religion that made me act this way.”

Comment #59: Nil  on  02/03  at  08:00 PM

Scott, I don’t think you can dissent from a logical fallacy because it bothers you or the wrong people do it, too.  Only if you can show why it’s actually logical.

Comment #60: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  08:27 PM

I mean, they pretty much ignore that whole Sermon on the Mount thing, turn the other cheek, and all the peaceful hippy stuff Jesus said. How do they get away with that without exploding from the logical inconsistencies?

Delurking here to say I found this really interesting.  The whole “forgive” and “turn the other cheek” idea was used on me by my abuser to get back to the honeymoon phrase.  The idea was to convince me I’m a bad person because I wouldn’t just “turn the other cheek” for him to help him change/fulfill his needs. I had to just look away/ignore him when he was yelling/beating/raping me and not take any action against him-including leaving.  I honestly can’t see that quote as anything but SUPPORTIVE of abuse, but that might just be the PTSD talking.  Hope that wasn’t offensive, I just wanted to give food for thought.

Comment #61: Tokidoki  on  02/03  at  08:29 PM

Seeing that no one actually endorses domestic violence, what exactly is the contradiction here?

Read the post.  I point out that they technically claim that it’s wrong because it’s not loving your inferiors properly.  Just that they—-you—-tacitly endorse it because you’re ideologically incapable of doing anything to stop it.  As long as you believe, as you do, that women are inferior to men, then you sign onto domestic violence, which is the logical end of that thinking.  And I don’t buy the “different but equal!” excuse.  That’s just a dodge to make sure women captive to fundie thinking don’t wake up.  I’m smarter than that—-as was the Supreme Court that found that separate is not equal in 1955.

Comment #62: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  08:31 PM

If, on the other hand, you see the Bible merely as a collection of snapshots from across the centuries – a record, only sometimes candid, of how our forebears viewed and related to God – then yes you can separate the meaningful from the harmful.

But fundies are right to say that you’ve essentially given up on faith, then, at least if you a have any desire to be consistent.  Your view of the Bible is the same as the secular view of it and of other literary works like Shakespeare, etc.  You can take a piece of art for what it was at the time, and perhaps glean some wisdom from it. But if that’s all that you’re doing, then it’s not holy or supernatural.

Comment #63: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  08:33 PM

Tokidoki: Thanks for that thought. I’m not even close to being a Christian, and thus I don’t know how they interpret stuff like “turn the other cheek” and forgiveness and all, but my interpretation is about tolerance of other peoples.

That is indeed an interesting way to look at it, and I wonder if it’s regularly used against abuse victims.

Comment #64: Ashley  on  02/03  at  08:40 PM

Amanda,

“But fundies are right to say that you’ve essentially given up on faith, then, at least if you a have any desire to be consistent.  Your view of the Bible is the same as the secular view of it and of other literary works like Shakespeare, etc.” 

I see your point, but I really disagree with you.  Incidentally, my husband who is also a Texan atheist has made this argument to me many times before.  I think (at least for him) it was because he was raised Southern Baptist, and so when I discuss non-literal readings of the bible he has the vague suspicion that I am making things up to counter his arguments, as opposed to talking about sincerely-held beliefs.  (We both like arguing.)  I do not think that the non-literal view of the bible is the same as the secular view, because the non-literal religious view of the bible believes that there is truth in it, even if that truth is not literal.  Non-literalists believe that the text is divinely inspired, but not dictation, and frankly, even if the bible was the dictated word of God, the mistake that many protestants make when they say that Christ descended into hell is based on a mistranslation of Hebrew texts.  (Christ descended into Sheol, the land of the dead, not Gehenna, or hell, which actually literally means “burning pits of trash outside of Jerusalem.)  So even literalists should be into textualism, but usually they choose to take poorly-translated English texts as the literal truth, as opposed to good translations that take linguistics and literary forms of the time into account.

Plenty of religions read their texts in a non-literal way, and the mystics of most religions view the world that way.  (On of my favorites being the sufi mystic, Rabeyah.)  There are two creation stories in genesis (7 days vs. male and female he created them) and they are mutually exclusive.  For that reason alone, taking the bible literally is nearly impossible.  Plus there is the fact that many parts of the bible, according to their authors’ understanding at the time they were written, were not meant to be taken literally.  Revelations, for one.  It was written basically in code, to record the persecution of Christians by Nero, and was not a prophecy of the end times.

I think the difference between literalists and (I dunno, figurativists?) has a lot to do with psychology—rules people like literalism, people who are into balancing like to think about the various lessons one could take from a story, even if it is pure fiction.  (Like Esther.  Didn’t happen, it is a novel.)  So I guess I think the difference between the two is word of God vs. divinely inspired fiction/historical accounts.

Tokidoki,

Damn, that is screwed up.  I am glad you got out.  Innernet hugs!

And in general,

I’ve been reading a book about the FLDS (Carolyn Jessop’s book) and male headship is completely used to justify domestic violence.  In fact, when news got out that Warren Jeffs was horribly abusing some of his wives, women in the community were worried (and rightly so) that the abuse against them would escalate.  A man’s “headship” and power to determine whether his wife on earth would be his celestial wife (the only way for her to get in Heaven, if he did not do this for her, she would be tormented and eventually die a “second death” and be gone forever.)  Really screwed up stuff.  It sounds like the cult went from bad to worse.  Jeffs also preached something called “blood atonement” which ****TRIGGER WARNING**** meant that certain sinners could only expiate their sins by having their throats slit.  I do not know yet if it ever happened.

Comment #65: Ismone  on  02/03  at  08:55 PM

“Turn the other cheek” is yet another example of Jesus speaking in koans.  Think about it:  if someone (like a Roman soldier) smacks you (the impertinent Jewish peasant) in the face and you turn your other cheek to him, he has to backhand you if he wants to hit you again.  And that was considered a *very* unmanly and humiliating thing for the person doing the smiting.  So - it was a way for the powerless to force the powerless to behave in a socially shaming fashion.

Ditto “going the extra mile.”  By law, a Roman could only compel a non-citizen (aka the impertinent Jewish peasant) to carry a burden or assist him in moving something for a single mile.  “Going the extra mile” was not only illegal, it made the Roman subject to arrest and imprisonment.  Jesus urging his followers to carry a burden for an extra mile was a nice little bit of civil disobedience that probably got more than one Roman in hot water.

Comment #66: Ellid  on  02/03  at  10:16 PM

But fundies are right to say that you’ve essentially given up on faith, then, at least if you a have any desire to be consistent.  Your view of the Bible is the same as the secular view of it and of other literary works like Shakespeare, etc.  You can take a piece of art for what it was at the time, and perhaps glean some wisdom from it. But if that’s all that you’re doing, then it’s not holy or supernatural.

Please indulge me a bit here, because this is a matter close to my heart and I would like to fully explain my position on this:

I treat the claims of Biblical literalism with a certain amount of skepticism: I don’t know that actual Biblical literalists can exist, because the Bible contains too many glaring contradictions for a completely literal reading – ‘it’s all spelled out and it’s all literally true’ – to be possible. 

The literalists necessarily have to treat one portion of the Bible as figurative for another portion to be literally true, or they must engage in mental gymnastics to make different accounts of an event fit into a single, coherent, literally true narrative.

More than a few of these literalists play fast and loose with the plain meanings of words, such as “wine,” so the Bible will conform to their own prejudice about activities such as drinking alcohol.

And what’s more, there are serious factual challenges to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The world is not merely 6000 years old. Human beings did evolve from either kinds of life, as opposed to being created fully formed. The parts of the Bible that deal with creation can be taken either as an allegory that addresses something true or as pure fantasy. But fundamentalists have to set aside proven facts to believe the creation account is literally true. They have to turn off their own ability to reason. 

These people – literalists, fundamentalists – could accuse me of giving up on faith, but they’d be wrong. Their offer of a coherent theology based on a literal reading of the Bible is, in my opinion, nothing more than a deluded marketing ploy – and there’s no way they can deliver.

I have faith that the Bible contains truth, but I lack the facility to determine what it is. I have faith that my endeavor is not in vain; that the effort alone does me some good and is pleasing to God.

That’s why I read it every day – even the parts that are morally repugnant to most modern people.  A study of the times and some of the original language helps shed light on what the ancients were thinking when they penned some of stories, but sometimes it’s impossible for me to figure any of it out. The Revelation is one part of the Bible where, no matter how many times I read it, all I can think is, “WTF?”

If it’s anything at all, it’s an allegory – and one that describes a time that was, as opposed to a time that’s yet to be. Even the (pre-millennial) literalists, who believe The Revelation is record of things to come, accept the allegorical nature of that book to some degree. But that degree differs from literalist to literalist, no matter how much talking they do about how they rest entirely on “the plain meaning of scripture.”

I’m guessing that you, as an atheist, wonder why I don’t just ‘accept’ that the Bible is only a book of stories, like a collection of Shakespeare’s plays. Maybe you think, like some, it’s from a fear of death. In my case, no.

I think everyone is afraid of dying to a certain extent; I’m no exception. I like life. Even if life ends and there’s some other plain of existence, I think I’d miss the world of flesh.

A lot of First Century Jews didn’t believe in an afterlife or any sort, and yet they still participated in and contributed to the religious life of their communities. They were grateful to God without demanding an eternal afterlife as compensation for ‘right worship.’

(One can see this belief, or lack of it, woven throughout the Old Testament, in Job and Ecclesiastes especially.)

So my belief the Bible is in some way transcendent or divine is not borne of fear – not of death and not of “hell” for nonbelievers. I simply believe it on…well…faith. It is its own reason.

Comment #67: Nil  on  02/03  at  10:19 PM

Tokidoki -

The explanation I heard for “turn the other cheek” is very similar to Ellid’s.  I’m pretty sure that Jesus specifies “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other”.  Now, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, they’re using their left hand to do it - the unclean hand, supposedly the one you wipe your ass with.  That’s more of an insult than the blow itself.  If you turn your other cheek, you’re forcing them to use their right hand if they want to strike you again.

The gist - as Ellid pointed out - is that it’s an act of civil disobedience, not forgiveness or submission. 

BTW, I second Ismone in the internet hugs.  Glad you got clear.

Comment #68: Seraph  on  02/03  at  10:43 PM

Entomologista - do you know the name of the second logical fallacy in that post?  It’s escaping me at the moment. The second bit (that you quoted) is implying anyone who disagrees is just stupid (or, uneducated) about REAL Christianity(tm).  I know there’s a name for that fallacy.  What is it?

It’s possible that it’s an ad hominem, but I’m not really sure. In any case, I’m seriously tired of theists saying that because atheists haven’t read every single thing ever written by every douchebag apologist that ever existed it means we haven’t got anything worthwhile to say.

Comment #69: Entomologista  on  02/03  at  10:44 PM

Dominator society.

That’s all i’m sayin’.

Comment #70: Mark Foxwell  on  02/03  at  10:47 PM

As unsympathetic as I am to Xianity, its still worth remembering that patriarchy is both much older and much larger than monotheism, the Bible, or “Western civilization”.

True. However the threat of Islam, Hinduism, etc… is hypothetical to me. The threat of Christianity I have to deal with every day.

Comment #71: BlackBloc  on  02/04  at  12:48 AM

Amanda Marcotte;

Again, I wasn’t addressing the original post. I was addressing a specific claim of a Bible contradiction, which I quoted for easy reference.

Sex is not race, and men and women are not supposed to be separate, but we are different. I’m sorry you don’t like “different but equal”, but the only alternatives are different and unequal or denying reality.

If domestic violence is the logical conclusion to a Christian view of gender roles, we would expect to see higher levels of domestic violence among Christians. The reverse is true (I found this by Googling just now). Either domestic violence isn’t the logical outcome after all, or there’s some other principle getting in the way of what would otherwise be logical consistency.

Comment #72: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  12:53 AM

Ellid;

That’s not actually a koan, and your interpretation is perfectly literal. Now if I said that the first cheek was the Law and the second was the Gospel, and that what Jesus meant was that when sin strikes against the Law, you must cease to face sin with the Law, but use the Gospel instead, THAT would be a non-literalist reading. (I just made that up; your literalist interpretation is the correct one.)

Comment #73: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  12:59 AM

If domestic violence is the logical conclusion to a Christian view of gender roles, we would expect to see higher levels of domestic violence among Christians. The reverse is true (I found this by Googling just now).

What you’re seeing there is lower REPORTED domestic violence. Because battered Christian women often don’t dare speak up.

Comment #74: Dolbia  on  02/04  at  01:00 AM

pepito;

So what empirical test would you propose instead?

Comment #75: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  01:14 AM

SIF, did you note this phrase: “A follow-up study identified three pathways
through which religious involvement may operate; namely, increasing levels of social
integration and social support, reducing the likelihood of alcohol or substance abuse,
and decreasing the risk of psychological problems (Ellison & Anderson, 2001).” Which tells me that they were not directly examining the type of religious affiliation or how those religious affiliations treated domestic violence. It mentions prior that studies have been mixed in proving this, in terms of patriarchal religions condoning domestic violence, but as mentioned, abuser self-report and survivor self-report can be inaccurate depending on how it is collected.
There are, in fact, other indicators. Domestic violence hotline calls. ER visits. Interviews that don’t say “are you abused?” with the spouse present. If the church is advertised as somewhere a woman can go “when the heat is up” then how often are women going there?

Comment #76: Tenya  on  02/04  at  01:52 AM

Tenya;

I did. I also read the next sentence: “However, even after considering such indirect effects of religion through the use of statistical controls, that study found that regular religious involvement still had a protective effect against the perpetration of domestic violence by both men and women
(Ellison & Anderson, 2001).” Did you?

To the extent that it does depend on the social network within the Church, this directly answers Amanda Marcotte’s claim that we are ideologically prevented from doing anything to stop domestic violence.

Comment #77: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  02:19 AM

I’ve noticed that when people talk about the Bible there’s almost always a dichotomy presented - “there’s this one way of thinking about the Bible, and then there’s this other way.”  That’s odd because if you take any random thing - say macaroni and cheese - there are a thousand ways of thinking about it.  You would think there would be more than two ways to think about an ancient text.

Comment #78: Ape Man  on  02/04  at  02:36 AM

Devils Advocate: I see you are a liberal Christian fellow-traveller. Sorry I cannot respect you. I can respect those fundies who actually argue their bullshit. Some will go so far as to do some modal logic shit in S4 or S5. I do not accept any rule of inference in modal logic beyond N and K.

Face facts. The God of the Bible hates fags. The God of the Bible disparages women. The doctrine of sin and redemption is either incoherent or unjust. The Bible encourages too much delight in the suffering of others. A little delight in the suffering of others is OK, but The Bible goes way too far.

Sorry DA, but if humans are to be free, Christians must become a marginalized minority. Free humans cannot persue their goals until Christians are a marginal minority. Prepare for the smackdown. We’re getting stronger every year.

Comment #79: Bacopa  on  02/04  at  02:59 AM

I read it, it just doesn’t make sense, just how did they statistically control for church attendance that doesn’t offer social support, stress reduction, substance abuse deterrence and psychological well-being? A church that makes you sit by yourself, feel terrible about yourself and encourages substance abuse? Really unlikely. I’m guessing that they identified that people reported these positive aspects of church attendance and weighted them against domestic violence occurrence, which doesn’t account for people who reaped these benefits without specifically identifying them. Besides which we’re not told how positive the effect was, nor as I mentioned prior if this was studied in churches that had positions on gender issues. Which would be a very relevant point to this thread.

I’m not really understanding your next part, by churches being social this somehow means they stop domestic violence with ideology? Which, let’s back up, Amanda’s assertion was that if you sign on to a women should be submissive because they are inferior doctrine, you’re endorsing domestic violence. Because domestic violence is centered around beliefs that, overwhelmingly, the woman needs to be controlled. Having this belief endorsed by the church, especially with an additional bonus that if she is being abused she just isn’t submissive enough, is going to encourage to domestic violence. Such as by Saddleback’s church. You’ve cited one study that found, vaguely, that religious attendance (not Christian church attendance) is negatively correlated with domestic violence, but with no explanation of study methods. Which frankly, isn’t good enough for me to prove that these churches aren’t causing women harm in the form of domestic violence.

Comment #80: Tenya  on  02/04  at  03:22 AM

I see you are a liberal Christian fellow-traveller. Sorry I cannot respect you.

Oh noes!

Sorry DA, but if humans are to be free, Christians must become a marginalized minority. Free humans cannot persue their goals until Christians are a marginal minority. Prepare for the smackdown. We’re getting stronger every year.

I’m sorry too; I just can’t take your views, or your predictions of doom, all that seriously. Good luck with your smack-down, etc.

Comment #81: Nil  on  02/04  at  07:20 AM

Great post, and I loved this week’s podcast.

However, I think the main reason the producers of Tool Academy don’t try to help the women leave isn’t entirely because they’re apologists for the men’s assholelichkeit (although there is that). It’s mainly because if the women up and leave, they have no show. If they thought a series about women dumping their abjectly dickish boyfriends would be more successful, that’s the program you’d see.

[A couple of minutes later] As I think on it, though, a reality show about helping women get the hell out of violent domestic situations might be doable. A camera captures them getting them and their kids out, getting them a place to stay, getting them legal help, getting them jobs (all with the production company’s help), interviews later with the family and the hubby.  Better than that wife-swapping show, I’ll bet.

(Late in the day to bring this up, but remember when the movie Juno came out and there were all those ideology-laden reviews about why this fictional teenager didn’t have an abortion? She didn’t have an abortion because if she did, there’d be no movie.  Same as above.)

Comment #82: Molly, NYC  on  02/04  at  07:48 AM

On a side note, it’s sad to me how many posters here are either victims of abuse or at least have a close friend or relative who is a victim of abuse.

Everybody is either a victim of abuse or has at least one close friend or relative who is. The only question is whether they know about it or not.

Comment #83: Dunc  on  02/04  at  09:15 AM

@ </b>Devil’s Advocate</b> and Ismone:

Having read the bible for myself, cover-to-cover, back when I was a Christian, there is one verse, Psalms 119:130 that should put a halt to your your mental gymnastics regarding this vile religion. In short, this verse tells us there is no need to vex ourselves wondering at the convoluted thoughts of an infinitely unknowable Supreme Being. The bible should be understandable even to retards.

Comment #84: BJ Survivor  on  02/04  at  01:45 PM

Yeah, Scary, I would assume that it would be in your best interests to deny the logical outcome of treating women like they’re inferior to men.  But that doesn’t mean I have to buy into your bullshit.  I’m just super glad that feminists have gained enough power that you feel that you have to make excuses for DV-coddling and pretend that “different” doesn’t mean “inferior”.  That we’ve pushed you that far makes me happy—-without feminism, you’d feel no need to fake either concern for the problem of wife battering or pretend that you think that forcing women into submission is some sort of equality, which is a tautological issue.

Comment #85: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  01:52 PM

I’m also amused whenever someone who believes in creationism suddenly pretends to be a fan of empiricism, because they know that their ability to guilt trip and conceal domestic violence will make it as easy to hide it from researchers as from the police.

Comment #86: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  01:58 PM

Augustine, De Trinitate 12.7.10:

“the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”

Comment #87: asdf  on  02/04  at  03:48 PM

Psalm 119:130 “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.”

Whatever verse you meant to cite, though, it’s not going to faze the liberal Christians. Anything they don’t like in the Bible is just “a record, only sometimes candid, of how our forebears viewed and related to God,” and the author of any vicious passage was just inserting their own flawed, sinful human outlook.

Only the good parts are divinely inspired.

Comment #88: asdf  on  02/04  at  04:04 PM

Oh, I got mixed up. You did mean Psalm 119:130. I just didn’t get your point.

Channeling my teenage apologist: “the words of God are simple to understand, but not everything in the Bible is the word of God. So there.”

This is actually a great excuse for a cop out. For anything contradictory in the Bible, you get to pick whichever answer makes the most sense to you and conforms most readily to your own predispositions or prejudices. Hallelujah.

Comment #89: asdf  on  02/04  at  04:11 PM

Only the good parts are divinely inspired.

Not even those, necessarily. I don’t know, nor claim to know, which parts (if any) are divinely inspired. What I think and what is true aren’t necessarily the same thing.

And the same holds for your own opinions, that smug (and unearned) sense of superiority notwithstanding.

For anything contradictory in the Bible, you get to pick whichever answer makes the most sense to you and conforms most readily to your own predispositions or prejudices. Hallelujah.

Whether you base some of your morals on the Bible or on the work of a secular philosopher or anything else, this holds true: private beliefs are built of picking and choosing. Not even the so-called literalists can escape it - or have you heard of anyone in the US stoning their disobedient children lately?

Comment #90: Nil  on  02/04  at  04:24 PM

What I think and what is true aren’t necessarily the same thing.

And the same holds for your own opinions, that smug (and unearned) sense of superiority notwithstanding.

Oh piffle. You’re reading a lot more into my words than I actually said.

Whether you base some of your morals on the Bible or on the work of a secular philosopher or anything else, this holds true: private beliefs are built of picking and choosing.

I agree with you. But what we’re agreeing on is that the Bible is thus useless.

Comment #91: asdf  on  02/04  at  04:39 PM

Tenya;

I read it, it just doesn’t make sense, just how did they statistically control for church attendance that doesn’t offer social support, stress reduction, substance abuse deterrence and psychological well-being? A church that makes you sit by yourself, feel terrible about yourself and encourages substance abuse? Really unlikely.

Simple, compare rates of domestic violence for non-churchgoers who are socially isolated compared to non-churchgoers with social support networks, and non-churchgoers who abuse drugs and alcohol to those who don’t, etc. This shows how much effect each factor has. I don’t think they described how they actually controlled for those factors in their paper, my point is simply that it can be done. I suppose the various factors might be working synergistically in a way they don’t for non-churchgoers, but that’s a good thing, if true.

I’m not really understanding your next part, by churches being social this somehow means they stop domestic violence with ideology?

No. Amanda Marcotte said that our ideology prevents us from doing anything to stop domestic violence. Encouraging women to form or get involved in a social network is something that stops domestic violence, ideology or no.

Because domestic violence is centered around beliefs that, overwhelmingly, the woman needs to be controlled. Having this belief endorsed by the church, especially with an additional bonus that if she is being abused she just isn’t submissive enough, is going to encourage to domestic violence. Such as by Saddleback’s church. You’ve cited one study that found, vaguely, that religious attendance (not Christian church attendance) is negatively correlated with domestic violence, but with no explanation of study methods. Which frankly, isn’t good enough for me to prove that these churches aren’t causing women harm in the form of domestic violence.

If evangelical doctrine were as bad as you say, a positive correlation should be so well-attested that I’d be squirming to come up with some less incriminating explanation. Instead you’re the one quibbling about other factors (all of which are actually positives; you’re reduced to clutching lesser positives to ward off greater ones) and arguing from the weakness of evidence proving the contrary rather than from any evidence proving your own position.

This reminds me of my favorite liberal and near-coreligionist Marilynne Robinson’s takedown of Lord Acton (and Max Weber): Acton accused Calvinism of being uniquely a theology of persecution, despite that fact that historical Calvinists have persecuted far less than their contemporaries. Apparently our tendency to do the opposite of our beliefs is so strong as to have world-historical consequences, yet instead of congratulating us for being better than our doctrines, you pick whichever of the two makes us look worse. Except that you’re not picking our actual doctrines, you’re picking a strawman.

Amanda Marcotte;

If the topic is our position, we’re against domestic violence. Which doesn’t leave any room to accuse us of anything, so you make the topic the effect religious teaching has in the lives of adherents. Fair enough, but when I bring up the findings of people who’ve actually looked, you object because it doesn’t match your guess at what the effect would be, with accusations apparently against me personally, and with statements that the findings are merely the result of abuse being covered up, as if non-religious abusers didn’t have just as much reason to cover up their crimes as religious ones.

Comment #92: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  06:01 PM

Props to asdf for getting chapter and verse for me. Boo to SIF who choses to ignore it (as though Google wasn’t right there, anyway).

DA, for what its worth (although you seem to be holding your own), I can’t approve of the beating your taking from some of the commenters. I’ve never understood the “I prefer wild-eyed fundies to moderates” mentality because I cannot get around the feeling that it’s rooted in a need to be morally superior to someone and, let’s face it, it’s easy to be morally superior to fundies.

After awakening from cultish fundie raising, I briefly considered going the moderate route but couldn’t for several reasons, not the least of which was lingering PTSD-style triggers I received from a lot of sections in the Bible. I have to say that I can’t understand why moderate Christians wouldn’t just find a nicer religion to describe their inner feelings, which is what I tried to do for myself, but I respect moderates like Robert Price who has managed to make it work for him. And I respect you for finding good in the Bible, even if I can’t.

Comment #93: Essie Elephant  on  02/04  at  06:42 PM

Amanda Marcotte said that our ideology prevents us from doing anything to stop domestic violence. Encouraging women to form or get involved in a social network is something that stops domestic violence, ideology or no.

Actually, Amanda explained exactly why so many church-based “social networks” don’t do any such thing. Like Saddleback, the “social networks” of many churches involve the assumption that you can move out for a while when the abuse is at its most violent and obvious, and then move back in because your abuser has changed. This reinforces abuse.

And if my “social network” is entirely people from my church who believe that divorce is wrong, that I should be obeying my husband and basically deserve what I get if I don’t, then how is that going to help me avoid domestic abuse at all? It’s going to make me more likely to accept it and less likely to identify as abused or talk about it if I do.

Comment #94: kristin  on  02/04  at  06:50 PM

No. Amanda Marcotte said that our ideology prevents us from doing anything to stop domestic violence. Encouraging women to form or get involved in a social network is something that stops domestic violence, ideology or no.

Wrong.

First, assuming the validity of your data, you may have correlation and causation mixed up. Being abused may discourage women from participating in social activities (it’s embarrassing to go around town with a black eye, knowing that people are judging you, either for not leaving your abuser, or for “asking for it”). Or the two correlated factors may both be caused by a third factor. Men of a certain disposition may be more likely to abuse women and more likely to skip church.

Even assuming the validity of your data and assuming you’ve got causation right, you’re speaking in the aggregate. You’re referring to long-term statistics of large populations, not useful advice for an individual in an immediate situation. When a woman is being abused, you can’t just tell her to go to church. You can’t take the chance that something so indirect is going to be sufficient to save her life. The reliable response is to file a police report, get out of the house, get out of the relationship, and apply for a restraining order. That’s how you take a woman’s safety seriously. All your blather about churches and social networks just proves that when a woman’s life is in danger you aren’t at all prepared to take that danger seriously; it seems you’ve never even thought about it.

If social networks reduce domestic violence, that’s not the same as stopping domestic violence. Does going to church end more abuse in relationships than walking away and ending the abusive relationship? Of course not, that’s plainly ridiculous. But it seems you’re a great fan of the ridiculous.

Comment #95: asdf  on  02/04  at  06:57 PM

Essie Elephant;

I missed it.

In any case, it does not show what you claim it does unless you take “the image of God” to mean having a soul, which is a possible meaning but not the only one.

“All things, however, are of God,” and about this there is no question; and in this phrase are included the body, soul, and spirit, both of the man and the woman. On the Soul and Its Origin, 1.27

Comment #96: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  07:08 PM

I’ve never understood the “I prefer wild-eyed fundies to moderates” mentality

In case there was any ambiguity, I scorn any suggestion that fundamentalist Christianity (a brand new religion born in 18th and 19th century America and Western Europe) is somehow more representative of “True Christianity” (an empty phrase that means everything and nothing, since religions are what religionists practice) than liberal Christianity (an earlier strain of the mind virus to which fundamentalism is in fact a reaction) or any of the earlier orthodoxies, heterodoxies, and heresies. They are all profoundly silly in their own special ways.

Comment #97: asdf  on  02/04  at  07:10 PM

kristin;

Actually, Amanda explained exactly why so many church-based “social networks” don’t do any such thing.

Except that they do.

asdf;

Men of a certain disposition may be more likely to abuse women and more likely to skip church.

Then the problem is their disposition and not the church they aren’t going to.

Even assuming the validity of your data and assuming you’ve got causation right, you’re speaking in the aggregate.

And so is everyone else in this conversation. You’re shifting the goalposts because all the original aggregate accusations against Christianity or religion generally are failing to hold up.

Comment #98: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  07:14 PM

In any case, it does not show what you claim it does unless you take “the image of God” to mean having a soul, which is a possible meaning but not the only one.

It depends on what Augustine means in the preceding sentences where he speaks of the nature of minds, as well as what relation minds have to souls in his metaphysics. Here I will defer; it is not my specialty and clearly not yours.

What it does show is the earlier assertion, that Christianity is an “essentially patriarchal cult,” as well as that Augustine is a misogynist.

Comment #99: asdf  on  02/04  at  07:19 PM

Men of a certain disposition may be more likely to abuse women and more likely to skip church.

Then the problem is their disposition and not the church they aren’t going to.

... again, assuming the validity of your data, and assuming that you’ve got correlation confused with a third cause. Assumptions that I have not endorsed or rejected. Don’t grasp so desperately. It matters not to me what you hope is behind door number three.

Even assuming the validity of your data and assuming you’ve got causation right, you’re speaking in the aggregate.

And so is everyone else in this conversation.

I’m speaking both in the specific, where the only responsible course of action is to tell an individual woman to leave her abuser and assist her in doing so, and in the aggregate, where women leaving abusive relationships are at less risk of further abuse than women who remain in abusive relationships, regardless of who goes to church.

Preserving people’s health, safety, and dignity is always the goalpost at Pandagon.

Comment #100: asdf  on  02/04  at  07:33 PM

asdf;

Don’t grasp so desperately.

I’m not the one cycling through every possible rationale for why my argument about must be fails to match observations of what is.

Comment #101: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  07:41 PM

I’m not the one cycling through every possible rationale for why my argument about must be fails to match observations of what is.

By failing to consider other rationales, you are clinging to a logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It’s the most basic part of intellectual responsibility to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, and to offer up alternatives including reversal of causation, joint effect, and the null hypothesis. If you don’t understand this then you have no business citing scientific studies in the first place, because you are wholly unequipped to discuss them.

Comment #102: asdf  on  02/04  at  08:05 PM

And therefore something, anything, is out there that means the observed reality is wrong and your guess at what has to be true is right after all, and that Christianity encourages something that churchgoers are observed to do less of than non-churchgoers, because maybe it isn’t actively preventing it.

Logical rigor.

Comment #103: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  08:20 PM

And therefore something, anything, is out there…

Strawman. My point is only that it’s necessary to list alternatives, and you are either too afraid or too uncreative to do so.

Now, to get back to the salient point:

Women who leave abusers are less likely to be killed, whether they go to church or not, than women who do not leave abusers, whether they go to church or not. Whatever effect church may or may not have, it’s insignificant in magnitude to the only reasonably safe response to abuse: leave.

And if your churches encourage women not to leave, then that is irresponsible and dangerous.

Comment #104: asdf  on  02/04  at  08:37 PM

Do try to keep up with the discussion. The argument presented by Amanda Marcotte is that evangelicalism encourages wife beating, to the extent that she said if I agree with evangelical views of gender roles (not that I would agree with her characterization of my views, but she’s simply putting a negative spin on what I do think), “you sign onto domestic violence”. But the only evidence bearing on her argument is that there is a discorrelation between evangelicalism and spouse abuse. Which means, whatever else may be the case, her view of the matter is false, regardless of how strongly she feels or you feel that it just has to be true. Most of the rest of the discussion has been about various desperate attempts at proving that the discorrelation isn’t good enough, getting further and further away from any defense of Marcotte’s original claim. You are now reduced to pointing out that the opposite claim has not been rigorously proven, which is true but not much of a defense for your position. Your “salient point” might have been a good argument, were it not for the fact that we already know that church involvement discorrelates with domestic violence.

Comment #105: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/04  at  09:19 PM

A good post, and good comments from the few i’ve read.  I may bookmark this one to read all the interesting biblical conversations going on here.

I’d like to see a bit about the abuse that doesn’t leave bruises: emotional abuse.  I had a boyfriend that controlled me with emotional abuse for 6 months.  He never laid a hand on me: I would abuse myself when he told me what a disappointment I was.  I imagine I went through the same cycle most abuse victims go through, though I try not to think about it for the most part.  It eventually took my mother dragging me back to California for me to break free of him, and afterwards, it took an entire year before I could stand to feel any affection for me.

Comment #106: Mrs. W  on  02/04  at  09:23 PM

It’s obvious that you’re lost, so I’ll hold your hand to get you through this. Yes, evangelicalism and fundamentalism does encourage wife beating. This is simple:

if you tell women to submit, ... you’re encouraging wife battering

because if a woman stays in an abusive relationship, there will be more abuse. It doesn’t matter if fewer churchgoers beat their wives. The churchgoers’ wives who do get beaten will get beaten more than other women, because they don’t leave.

You’ve consistently misunderstood the discussion, so I’ll spoonfeed it to you: Your only option to argue against this is to claim that abused women who stay with their abusers and go to church are less likely to experience further abuse than women who leave their abusers and do not go to church. That’s a patently moronic thing to say, but it’s your only option. Everything else is agreeing with Amanda.

Comment #107: asdf  on  02/04  at  09:34 PM

Retroactively change the subject, because no matter what you can’t let me be right.

Comment #108: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/05  at  12:57 AM

Scary-

Do try to keep up with the discussion. The argument presented by Amanda Marcotte is that evangelicalism encourages wife beating, to the extent that she said if I agree with evangelical views of gender roles (not that I would agree with her characterization of my views, but she’s simply putting a negative spin on what I do think), “you sign onto domestic violence”. But the only evidence bearing on her argument is that there is a discorrelation between evangelicalism and spouse abuse.  
(emphasis mine)

I’ll go slow.  Do try to keep up.  (Oh, and by the way, her argument as you describe it is of the “if… then…” variety.  It is not a “characterization” of your views- notwithstanding “negative spin,” it gives you benefit of the doubt because it implies, “if not, then not.”)

The study you cited is not “evidence bearing on her argument… that there is a discorrelation between evangelicalism and spouse abuse.”  Such evidence would contradict Amanda’s assertion that an ideology which insists that abused women must stay with their husbands and offers as its only solution an approach well-known to perpetuate abuse rather than stop it is actually a form of tolerance of abuse.
 
You presented a study that indicated a discorrelation between religion and reported spouse abuse.  Religion /= evangelicalism.  This has already been pointed out to you, but you ignored that.

As Tenya pointed out, the degree to which the social networks of a particular church may mitigate spousal abuse has nothing to do with whether or not a particular church’s ideology encourages it or not.

The study itself makes the same point.  Mostly, it examines religiousity in terms of ethnicity: it shows that the effect of lowered abuse rates among regular churchgoers is minimal among whites, substantial among Latinos, and most pronounced among African-Americans. 

It also points out the degree to which the latter two categories of churches are far more likely to be more involved in their communities generally and be more central to their members’ social lives.  Also, the same discrepencies between Latino/AA churches and white churches exist for other correlating factors for spouse abuse such as alcoholism, drug abuse, and unemployment.  The authors cite numerous previous studies to confirm that bit.  This supports the hypothesis that social support networks mitigates abuse and other things correlated to abuse. 

It does not, however, say anything at all about the question of church ideology on abuse rates.

And again, the study makes that particular point explicitly: (emphasis mine again)

“Finally, although religion may indeed be a protective factor in some circumstances, we do not mean to imply that religion’s only influence may be to constrain rather than cause domestic violence. We need research that examines the ways in which clergy, church teachings, and religious leaders have fostered attitudes that justify or even condone domestic violence.”

Which is precisely Amanda’s point in the first place.

If you could find a similar results from a study that looked specifically at rates of abuse among fundamentalist evangelical churches, then you’d have a point.  But you didn’t, so you don’t.

By the way, the study also suggests another clouding factor besides varying self-reporting rates.  I thought this was interesting:

“In addition, we need to know more about women who may be deeply religious but are unable to attend religious services because of a controlling partner who purposefully isolates the victim
from these networks of social and spiritual support.”

So, it’s possible that the social support networks available at some (but not all) churches may discourage the victims and their abusers from regular attendance in the first place, regardless of what their own particular beliefs may be.  Which would skew the results towards non-churchgoers or infrequent attenders.  And again, would say nothing about whether evangelical fundie churches like, say, Assemblies of God or hard-shell Baptists have higher or lower abuse rates than, say, Episcopalian, Catholic, or U-U churches.

All this study has to say about that question (comparing church ideology-abuse rates) is that previous studies have been inconclusive and (as always) more study is needed.

Comment #109: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  02/05  at  05:19 AM

Just out of curiosity, ScaryIntolerantFundie, since your name here implies that you’re a member of a fundie church, how exactly does your church deal with spouse abuse?  Are abused women in your church encouraged to leave or are they offered temporary shelter and then told to go back to their presumably apologetic husbands?  If the latter, do you think that’s effective in actually stopping abuse?

If you’re not actually a member of a fundie church, feel free to ignore these questions.

Comment #110: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  02/05  at  05:26 AM

Retroactively change the subject, because no matter what you can’t let me be right.

I’ve no doubt that you are intolerant, and I’m sure you want to be scary, but as intolerance is usually born of fear, you’re just a crybaby.

The subject of this thread always was:

if you tell women to submit, ... you’re encouraging wife battering. ... Saddleback “allows” abuse victims to sleep elsewhere when their husbands are in a beating mood, but demand that the women return as soon as things have cooled down, to try to make it work. ... Saddleback’s position is “typical evangelical fare on the subject of domestic abuse and domestic violence,” responds Andersen. Typical because, like other well-known and extremely influential evangelical leaders, Saddleback is pushing a message of “leave while the heat is on,” but only with the intention of returning to the marriage when the violence has cooled. ... “Everyone with a lick of sense knows that, in a violent marriage, the heat is never really off,” Andersen tells me. “Everything can be fine one minute, and the next minute you’re dead.” ... All they’re doing is encouraging the false belief that the honeymoon phase can be counted on, when in fact it’s just a prelude to more violence.  But we can’t expect the believers in the submission doctrine to be able to really oppose domestic violence in a substantive way, because they sympathize with the abuser’s objectification of his spouse.  For all that believers tell men that they must love their wives, the larger truth is they’re told to objectify their wives, see them as objects created by god specifically to serve them, much like you feel about your car.  Ideologically incapable of realistically understanding domestic violence, conservative evangelicals are pretty much stuck with supporting abuse, both by legitimizing the cycle, and in some cases, encouraging victims to blame themselves by not being submissive enough.

That’s from the very beginning. Amanda’s point from the very beginning was that women have to leave abusers to be safe, and if fundagelical churches discourage women from leaving, then those women are at greater risk of being beaten again, maybe killed. So I haven’t changed the subject; you’re just a crybaby and an intellectual lightweight who can’t keep up with the discussion.

You want to introduce evidence that involvement with a religious organization reduced domestic violence. Fine. I’ve never said that you can’t introduce that evidence. I offered alternative explanations, which you cried about, but for the sake of argument I’m allowing your evidence to mean what you think it means.

That still means that for your response to be an effective one, a serious one, that saves more lives than Amanda’s, individual women’s involvement with churches must be more likely to prevent further abuse than actually leaving their abusers.

So your only option to argue against this is to claim that abused women who stay with their abusers and go to church are less likely to experience further abuse than women who leave their abusers and do not go to church.

If you can’t, then you have to admit that the fundagelical response leads to further abuse more often than the secular feminist response. And it follows from that that secular feminists care more about a woman’s right to life than fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Which would surprise no one.

Comment #111: asdf  on  02/05  at  12:44 PM

Excellent summary, RobW.

You presented a study that indicated a discorrelation between religion and reported spouse abuse.  Religion /= evangelicalism.  This has already been pointed out to you, but you ignored that.

Does not compute. The only legitimate religion is evangelicalism. All other religions are faked by the devil.

Comment #112: asdf  on  02/05  at  12:55 PM

RobW;

(Oh, and by the way, her argument as you describe it is of the “if… then…” variety.  It is not a “characterization” of your views- notwithstanding “negative spin,” it gives you benefit of the doubt because it implies, “if not, then not.”)

She said, “As long as you believe, as you do, that women are inferior to men…” If you’re going to go slow and encourage me to try to keep up, you ought to have kept up yourself.

You presented a study that indicated a discorrelation between religion and reported spouse abuse.  Religion /= evangelicalism.

But see this, which finds that active conservative Protestant men are, of the groups considered, the least likely to abuse their wives, while inactive conservative Protestants are the most likely. I expect someone to argue that abusive men are taking their families to church less in order to hide the abuse. But this would also apply to mainline Protestant men, yet mainline Protestants show less difference between active and inactive; if the other arguments being made are valid—that evangelical churches would only tell the wives to stay and submit more and therefore actually encourage further abuse—then abusers would be less likely to avoid conservative Protestant churches than other churches, and we would expect the least active/inactive distinction, not the most. A similar argument answers the objection that this is based on self-reporting, because abusers of every religious affiliation have the same incentive to keep their abuse hidden.

It does not, however, say anything at all about the question of church ideology on abuse rates.

The stated position of every evangelical church I’ve ever heard of is against abuse. Abuse rates among evangelicals (who take their religion seriously enough to show up) are lower than they are for others. Which means that the question you are raising here is about a “church ideology” which is reflected by neither our stated position or our actual behavior. I’m hard pressed to see how it can be said to even exist, or where you might look to find it.

To answer your question, to my knowledge it hasn’t come up.

asdf;

No, you did change the subject, and have now misrepresented (or at least misread) the topic. Marcotte’s claim was that evangelicalism encourages abuse because it’s patriarchal, and backed that up by both saying that patriarchy objectifies women and encourages their “subjugation”, and also that because evangelicals cannot take domestic violence seriously (because we think women are inferior, etc), we do not adequately address cases of abuse. The overall picture presented has been falsified. You don’t get to extract one aspect, defend it, and then act as if the falsified claim has been revalidated. Even supposing that evangelicals do fail to deal with the (relatively few) cases that do exist among us, that must be integrated with other facts to get an accurate overall picture, which will be different from the one you’d like to see. To say, as you did, “It doesn’t matter if fewer churchgoers beat their wives,” only makes sense if the only thing that matters is getting the conclusion you want, accurate or not.

Comment #113: ScaryIntolerantFundy  on  02/05  at  04:57 PM

No, you did change the subject, and have now misrepresented (or at least misread) the topic.

Your inability to understand anything that anyone is saying is not evidence for your assertions.

Marcotte’s claim was that evangelicalism encourages abuse because it’s patriarchal,

Fact. It is patriarchal to tell women that they should not or can not leave abusive relationships or marriages.

That’s the whole discussion, remember? (No of course you don’t.) Evangelical churches which discourage women from leaving abusers place those women at higher risk of further abuse.

Again, your only option to argue against this is to claim that abused women who stay with their abusers and go to church are less likely to experience further abuse than women who leave their abusers and do not go to church.

When evangelical churches deal with abuse by telling women to stay with their abusers, and secular feminists tell women to get away from their abusers, secular feminists are saving more lives than evangelical Christians. Therefore, secular feminists take domestic violence more seriously than do evangelical Christians. Secular feminists take women’s right to life more seriously than do evangelical Christians.

To say, as you did, “It doesn’t matter if fewer churchgoers beat their wives,” only makes sense if the only thing that matters is getting the conclusion you want, accurate or not.

The conclusion I want to get is one where women who are abused are able to end the abuse. For any number of evangelical Christians women who are abused, the most reliable method of getting them out of abuse must be utilized. If that most reliable method is to get out of the relationship, and evangelical Christians are telling those women not to get out of the relationship, then evangelical Christians are morally responsible for the continuing abuse.
Again, your only option to argue against this is to claim that abused women who stay with their abusers and go to church are less likely to experience further abuse than women who leave their abusers and do not go to church. Your unwillingness to admit this is evidence of your profound and thorough dishonesty. Thou shalt not bear false witness, sinner.

Comment #114: asdf  on  02/05  at  05:41 PM

http://www.biblical-patriarchy.com/southern-baptist-scholar-links-spouse-abuse-to-wives-refusal-to-submit-to-their-husbands

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.

“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches,” Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.

In North Texas for a series of sermons at the church on “Biblical Manhood & Womanhood,” Ware described his “complementarian” view as what “Southern Seminary as a whole represents.”

Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve’s curse in the Garden of Eden meant “her desire will be to have her way” instead of her obeying her husband, “because she’s a sinner.”

Comment #115: asdf  on  02/05  at  06:05 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/418676.html

A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children.

Paddock—a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children—surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.

Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl’s books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock’s six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock’s spankings.

Sean’s 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean’s backside, too, doctors found.

Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.

The Pearls’ advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others—even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.

The Pearls offer shopping advice on their Web site, http://www.nogreaterjoy.org: “You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility will keep the kids in line.”

The Pearls’ first book, “To Train Up a Child,” has sold more than 400,000 copies since it was published in 1994, according to Mel Cohen, general manager of the Pearls’ business, No Greater Joy Ministries. After the book came out, so many readers wrote in with questions that the Pearls started a newsletter. Every two months, Cohen said, the Pleasantville, Tenn.-based ministry mails more than 60,000 newsletters to parents around the world.

The Pearls declined to be interviewed. “They feel the material speaks for itself,” Cohen said.

Christian evangelicals who, like the Pearls, teach the importance of corporal punishment have loyal followers. The results are tangible, said Dot Ehlers, executive director of a Smithfield nonprofit who teaches parenting skills to mothers and fathers referred to them by the Johnston County Department of Social Services. She said about a quarter of the 60 parents she instructs each week say their faith defends and encourages corporal punishment.

Comment #116: asdf  on  02/05  at  06:22 PM

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119475840/abstract

COUNSELING BATTERED WOMEN FROM FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCHES
*Based on a presentation at the 44th Annual American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Conference, Orlando, FL, October, 1986.
ABSTRACT

In addition to the emotional, physical, and economic issues that all abused women face, battered women from fundamentalist churches have religious issues that need to be addressed. While therapists usually leave discussion of such matters to the clergy, in the case of domestic violence, the fundamentalist clergy is likely to be unsupportive or to even unknowingly endanger battered women because of their legalistic attitudes about marriage and sex roles. It is, thus, imperative that the professional counselor understand these issues and be willing to discuss them.

This article explains five teachings of fundamentalist churches, explores how they help perpetuate violent relationships, and offers suggestions to therapists on how to speak with clients about these issues.

Comment #117: asdf  on  02/05  at  07:25 PM

This is an excellent article:

http://www.mendingthesoul.org/2007/04/clergy-responses-to-domestic-violence/

Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence
By Steven R. Tracy, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Ethics, Phoenix Seminary
Founder, Mending the Soul Ministries

Published in Priscilla Papers Vol. 21, No. 2, Spring 2007

Of all the social problems confronted by the church, domestic violence is surely one of the most misunderstood and mismanaged by church leaders. I still look back with deep embarrassment on the time when, as a young pastor, I was offended that our women’s ministry had invited a special speaker to address the topic of domestic violence at the midweek women’s Bible study. I was certain they were simply stirring up trouble where no real problem existed. After all, we were an evangelical church and abuse did not happen in our church. In my youthful naiveté (and chauvinism), little did I realize that abuse does happen in evangelical churches. In fact, at that very time, one of the church elders had been beating his wife for years and had put her in the hospital several times. I also did not realize that one of our pastors was about to be arrested for child abuse. Like most clergy, I had gone into the ministry with a deep and genuine desire to serve and help others, but because I was clueless regarding the reality and dynamics of domestic violence, I was unable to minister to abusers and their families. In fact, I made matters worse. ...

Clergy misunderstandings and mismanagement of domestic violence disclosures help us understand why surveys of victims of domestic violence reveal that victims often feel clergy were of little help. In spite of their desire to help abused parishioners, clergy often minimize the frequency and damage of domestic violence, are mistakenly optimistic about abusers, and often give harmful advice to victims. This helps us understand the mixed results of a study by Lee Bowker of one hundred forty-six battered wives. Bowker found that 40 percent of the women sought help from the clergy after they were abused, one-third of the women indicated the clergy had given them some help, and yet these abused women rated clergy as a group lower than almost all other categories of helpers. Some recent research is even more pessimistic regarding the ability of clergy to help victims of domestic violence. A recently survey of six hundred women in Maricopa County, Arizona, where I live, revealed that, among women presently in an abusive relationship, 62 percent practice their religion either strictly or moderately, 42 percent attend religious services weekly or almost weekly, and yet only 7 percent would confide in their clergy if they felt unsafe. The following clergy responses to abuse help explain why such a high percentage of women do not view clergy as a source of help for victims of domestic violence.

1. Clergy often tell abused women that they should be more submissive to their abusive husbands.

Some pastors simply emphasize that abused wives should stay and trust God. For instance, one well known megachurch pastor argues that the Bible unequivocally teaches wives to submit, even to abusive husbands. In the context of women fearing to submit because the husband might take advantage of her, he argues that godly women, like Sarah, should simply trust God: “If there was an abuse, they knew God would take care of the results.” ...

Other Christian leaders are even more explicit in telling abused wives they must submit to abuse. The daughter of a famous southern evangelist and minister states that Scripture commands wives to be submissive to abusive husbands, even to evil husbands who beat their children and force their wives to participate in group sex orgies. While these authors’ views may be more extreme than those of most clergy, it is common for pastors to tell abused wives that they must be more submissive. To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than five thousand Protestant ministers in the United States. A full 27 percent of the clergy who responded said that, if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honor her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).

2. Clergy rarely condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.

Just like ScaryIntolerantFundy’s church. I’ll bet a disturbing number of the women in that church are being beaten.

Comment #118: asdf  on  02/05  at  08:07 PM

While some clergy say very incorrect and harmful things in response to abuse, they are often silent about what does need to be said, namely, that God hates abuse and that domestic violence is sinful and unacceptable. This message is not only urgent for entire congregations, but it can be particularly empowering for abuse victims. In one study of battered Christian women, when asked what they most needed from the church, abused women indicated two primary needs. They said they needed (1) the church’s recognition that violence against women and children is a problem even in the church and (2) a straightforward condemnation of domestic violence from the pulpit. According to Rev. Al Miles, who interviewed one hundred fifty-eight clergy regarding domestic violence, all of them condemned domestic violence, and yet only twenty-five ministers specifically addressed it in their congregations. In my own informal polling of hundreds of seminary and college students regarding whether they have ever heard a sermon on domestic violence, I have never had more than 10 percent of the group indicate they had heard such a sermon. ...

3. Clergy often minimize the prevalence and gravity of domestic violence.

Various research studies reveal that physical and sexual abuse rates are not appreciably lower among the churched than the unchurched, but are shockingly high. For instance, in 1989, the Christian Reformed Church commissioned a research study to determine prevalence of abuse in its denomination. The findings were based on adults’ self-reports of previous abuse. Given what we know about abuse victims’ tendency to deny and minimize abuse, these prevalence findings are undoubtedly lower than actual abuse rates experienced. In this study, 12 percent of the respondents reported having experienced physical abuse or neglect; 13 percent reported having been sexually abused; 19 percent reported having been emotionally abused (seeking to control another person through words, threats, and fear); and 28 percent reported having experienced at least one of the three types of abuse. ... And yet clergy, especially conservative clergy, almost always assert that abuse rates are lower in Christian families than in society at large.

Just like ScaryIntolerantFundy.

For instance, in one study of Canadian clergy, the clergy estimated that one in four couples in Canada had experienced domestic violence (research in Canada reveals that 25-33 percent of Canadian couples had experienced domestic violence), and yet, they believed, with no supporting evidence, that only one in six couples in their own congregation had experienced domestic violence. Other studies of clergy, including Jewish and Muslim clergy, report very similar findings-clergy believe that domestic violence is a problem, but not in their religious group. Not only do clergy often minimize the prevalence of domestic violence, they often minimize its gravity. This is particularly true for male clergy, most of whom have no experiential understanding of the fear and helplessness that women feel from abusive male partners who are much more powerful physically and often socially. Sadly, I have heard clergy respond to reports of physical abuse by stating, “All couples have their arguments. What’s the big deal?”; “Many women exaggerate about their husbands’ anger”; “All he did was give her a little bruise”; etc. ...

4. Clergy are often so concerned to preserve marriage that they advise against separating, let alone divorcing from an abusive husband. This is largely the result of naiveté regarding the challenge of getting abusive men truly to change their behavior.

To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence, a questionnaire was sent to more than five thousand Protestant ministers in the United States. Four-fifths of the clergy who responded indicated that they had confronted domestic violence in their ministries and had counseled a wife abused by her husband. In spite of the fact that most of these clergy had some experience with wife abuse and had seen some of the damage it causes, 27 percent said that, if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honor her obedience, and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings); almost one-fifth indicated that no amount of violence from an abusive husband would justify a wife leaving, and only 2 percent of the pastors said they would support divorce due to domestic violence.

Comment #119: asdf  on  02/05  at  08:09 PM

To illustrate common clergy naiveté regarding abusive men and clergy insistence on the sanctity of marriage in spite of violence, one battered wife shared that, after her husband beat her: “I went to my minister then and his reaction was ‘What’s your husband’s favorite food?’ and I said ‘Pork chops and scallop potatoes.’ ‘What’s his favorite dress?’ I told him and he said ‘I want you to go home and put on that dress and make him pork chops and scallop potatoes and honor your marriage vows.’” Another battered woman said that when she told her pastor that her husband was beating her, he completely minimized the damage she was experiencing as well as her husband’s entrenched patterns of violence by patronizingly stating to her, “Let’s talk to him, we’ll get this straightened out because I want you two together, you’re such a lovely couple.” Similarly, another woman who attempted to report that her husband had been beating her severely was told by her minister: “Go home. He’s probably calmed down now. And come in for counseling . . . you married him, you made a commitment, so you have to work this out. Pray more. Submit more.” Unfortunately, while these women tried to follow the well-meaning but misguided advice of their ministers, the beatings continued.

5. Clergy often state or imply that the woman is partially responsible for the abuse.

For instance, one well-known Christian physician and author suggests that, in a “severely troubled marriage,” the wife is responsible to mollify an abusive husband: “You have to be perfect in your behavior toward your partner . . . and you must be very sensitive to avoid anything that will set your partner off.” In one study of one hundred eighty-seven battered women, one-hundred sixteen were found to be religious, and sixty-three of the women went to clergy for help. Ninety-six percent of these battered women had experienced one or more incidents of severe physical abuse at least once during the relationship, and 34 percent of the victims had attempted suicide. In spite of the extreme, even lifethreatening, damage these women had experienced from their abusive husbands, twenty-five of the religious victims who went to their ministers reported that the pastor focused on their behavior, and what they should change. The ministers said things such as “Wear him out with sex,” “Cook more appetizing meals,” “Try harder not to provoke him,” and “Don’t talk.” Another abused woman recounted what happened when she went to her pastor for help: He put the guilt on my shoulders. . . . He blamed me for not submitting to my husband and said that my husband would change because he had asked for forgiveness. But after counseling I realized he would never change; he was more abusive than ever. In a sense that pastor was on my husband’s side. I was showing little faith, he said. This minister even knew that my husband was making sexual advances to my daughter.” Research on domestic violence in fact reveals that the woman’s behavior actually has little bearing on the abuse. That is, abusive men ultimately do not abuse because of what their wives do or do not do; they abuse because of complex internal pathologies beyond the wife’s control or responsibility.

Comment #120: asdf  on  02/05  at  08:15 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.