Twisted Patriarchal Message Of The Day, July 22, 2011

As I was contemplating exactly which patriarchal distortion I was going to publish for today (and there are too many to count), I decided that I would go with an oldie, but certainly a goodie. But before I get on with that, I thought I'd give ya a quick re-cap on all the new and exciting things I have either learned, or have had reinforced, about my womanly self in the last couple of days. And before you go turning your gaze on those independent baptists or those wayward Mormons to blame them, I suggest you look right in your very own communities to the evangelical Christians, of which I belong to. Be prepared to be enlightened, as there are many things you will probably learn about yourself and your role on this earth in the next few moments. Fasten your seat belts, ladies (and any tag-along men), and away we go!


1) Women should not have careers and, if they do, they are more prone to cheating and necessarily competing with their husbands.
2) Women do not need post-secondary educations because many Christian men do not find education in a wife a necessity.
3) It is wrong for a woman to not marry.
4) Women who do not want children are deviant.
5) Women who lead either in the home, church, or in the social sphere, are evil, rebellious, and lead men astray like Eve did, creating all the trouble we see in the world today.
6) A woman’s very identity, purpose, and value are tied into her husband and she should sink her own desires, ambitions, and individuality into her husband’s wishes and desires.
7) Women who do not take care of themselves and who are not sexually available to their husbands in the way that the Song of Solomon is so frank about (this means being willing to engage in any sort of sexual activity that the husband desires), are at least partially responsible for their husband’s adulteries.
8) Men are referred to as girly-boys when they are vain, sissies, and cowards with a lack of character (of course, because women are vain, sissies, and cowards with a lack of character).
9) Women need their true desires dictated to them if they disagree with this ideology as they are too infantile to know their own desires and what would make them happy.
10) Little girls should be raised and trained to be homemakers only.
11) Fathers need not push their daughters to take risks, or challenge them to be more courageous, because girls only need to know they are unconditionally loved by men – first by their fathers, and eventually by their husbands.
12) Fathers must give their daughters to a man in marriage, and it is wrong for a woman, adult or not, single or not, to not be under the leadership of a man.
13) God thinks menarche is the most repulsive thing in the world – the only thing disgusting enough to compare our sins to. And finally...

14) Battered women must endure being smacked one night, and then she can get help...from the church.

This one isn’t new, but it is today’s...

"Twisted Patriarchal Message Of The Day" for this 22nd day of July, 2011.

And to which self-purported "leader and protector" of women do we owe today's honorary Distorted Patriarchal Message Of The Day? None other than John,Complementarian,Piper.

“she endures, perhaps, being smacked one night, and then she seeks help ."

Am I the only evangelical Christian who sees this statement as grossly wrong?
I realize there are several ways one might interpret this, and I don’t pretend to know the exact intent behind John Piper’s statement here, but he frames the sentence very curiously.
To start, he uses the word “being” in the sentence “she endures, perhaps, *being* smacked one night, and then she seeks help” (emphasis mine). Now I’ve listened to enough of John Piper’s messages, and read enough of his books to know that each word he uses is carefully weighed, calculated, and is intentionally selected in keeping with the purposed message he wants to communicate. In this case, he employs the present continuous suffix “being,” leaving the exact message dangerously vague...or is he?

“she endures, perhaps, being smacked one night, and then she seeks help. "


Is he saying she endures a smack one night, or is he saying she endures repeated smacks one night? It’s impossible to pin down his intended meaning based on this answer alone.
And let’s say in this case he is strictly referring to one single smack. Does he factor in how hard that smack is? Where the wife gets smacked? Whether or not there are children watching, children in her arms? What if it is an ongoing pattern of repeated isolated instances of her “being smacked one night” – how many times does the wife endure this “being smacked one night” before she can leave the marriage or call the police and have her husband charged?

Are you kidding?!? There isn’t anything the least bit practical about this comment...unless it was intended to be inclusive of all domestic abuse situations - and even then, it is a horrific thing to suggest!
I submit to you that John Piper knows that very well. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a dumb man. And, unfortunately, when read into the context of the message’s entirety, the picture starts to look even grimmer.

In this particular sentence, you find an ill-placed “perhaps” right smack in the middle of the sentence, which, regrettably, has the effect of making his directives for battered women even more ambiguous: “perhaps,” in this context, implies that this particular situation of “being smacked one night” (whatever he means by that) is but one situation out of multiple situations that would fall under the category of “simply hurting her” – in which cases the principle of ‘endure one night and then get help..*from the church’* would apply to each of them.

If we are to objectively consider all the data here, including context and usage of words employed by John Piper, one could easily surmise that he does not believe even a severe beating, or repeated smacks, should be treated any differently than a smack one night (if that is what he meant). It all falls under the“simply hurting her” category, and this highly intelligent man makes no other distinctions at all. I do not believe for one second that it was an oversight.

To give more weight to my understanding of Piper's pseudo-solution, he conveniently fails to address the situations in which there are beatings or repeated physical attacks as isolated issues that ought to be dealt with on their own terms – indeed, he doesn’t acknowledge these occurrences at all. That’s a funny thing to leave out when one is discussing domestic abuse.
Unless, of course, he did not leave it out, but instead intended for it to be included in his “simply hurting her” category, wherein she would “endure it one night and get help”…*from the church* - the same church that has a terrible track-record for protecting women in domestic abuse situations.

And that makes his answer to the question that much more disgusting.

And, also curious, is how he does not regard wife battery as a severe sin on par with the more “bizarre” and more “abusive” sins such as “group sex.” While group sex and "abusive" acts are not to be endured, getting smacked apparently is.
But no surprise – it’s just one more example of the bizarre (at best) priorities of so many evangelical Christians.
But more pointedly, his insertion of the word “simply” in the sentence “he is not requiring her to sin but is *simply* hurting her” (emphasis mine) has major problems all on its own.

Unfortunately for Piper, his wording here reveals a complete lack of respect for abuse as a serious and severe violation against a woman. Either that or he has a complete lack of respect for the women who are abused.
Furthermore, if the words of Jesus are any indication of John Piper’s heart toward women, then it would be reasonable to concern ourselves with his usage of the word “simply” before the two words “hurting her.” This effectively exposes his indifferent attitude towards women – or, at the very least, it exposes his indifference to the nature of the suffering battered women endure.

This is just another example of how a Complementarian undermines his own credibility by his own attitudes that, despite his best efforts to conceal them, inevitably make their way to the surface.

And lastly, I don’t quite understand why it is that instead of acknowledging that leaders like Piper are fallible men, and as such, sometimes get it wrong, evangelicals most often attack the person pointing these things out instead of attacking the problem. I think the Church would have a higher credibility if she were more dedicated to integrity than to self-preservation. When a leader makes public statements he should know that his statements will be publicly scrutinized and debated – and they should be – especially within the church. If he can’t handle it, he should step down. As the old saying goes, “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”
I for one am not like him that I would force someone to stay in the kitchen against their will.

And with that, I will leave you now with my only regret...

Forgive me, Lord, but I am having a terrible time here trying not to echo the sentiments of his fan club on YouTube:

"I'd love to see him endure being smacked for a season ."

Maybe just so that he can see what it's like and perhaps be a little more mindful of the women who are listening to his crap. Really.

Your “WOMAN” not every woman…

I found the choice of title for Antonia Zerbisias’ article quite interesting: “Tory legacy leaves little to attract women voters.” 
I would like to ask why it is she thinks she has a monopoly on the desires and aspirations of women. Right off the bat, I must say that I get quite annoyed with the SOW for doing this very thing. They aren’t interested in representing all women; they speak and advocate only for those particular women whose ideologies align with their own. Any women who disagree are ostracised, defamed, belittled, and have their motives impugned. Suddenly, being a woman matters very little to them.
The truth is, they do not speak for all women; they speak only for women like them. So why should the government fund their special interests?

I think the reason (at least in part) that women still trail behind their male counterparts economically is simply because working mothers usually can't climb the corporate ladder unless they are willing to sacrifice the time with their children for their jobs the way men so often do. Employers usually prefer people who can work late hours with no distractions, and, unfortunately, who will "be one of the guys." It has much to do with the fact that working mothers, statistically speaking, shoulder the brunt of the practical and emotional work associated with family life, as W.Bradford Wilcox notes in his book "Soft Patriarchs, New Men”: Though society has taken an egalitarian trajectory in the public worlds of law, education, work, politics, and the cultural understanding of gender, the private institution of the family has not changed as quickly, largely because men have failed to take on an equal portion of the responsibility for family life. Men’s behaviour in this regard has two important consequences: first, it contributes to gender inequality in public and private life as women’s domestic responsibilities limit their public opportunities; and second, it places tremendous practical and psychological pressure on women, especially mothers who work outside the home. Thus, as Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite have observed, the way to an egalitarian “new family” order “will lead through men.” 
Married men with children seem to be the primary obstacle to the complete triumph of the gender revolution, not a lack of daycare. I am not saying daycare isn’t important; I am just saying daycare will not change the male chauvinism that is standing in the way of an economic gender-equality, and you cannot honestly attribute a lack of daycare to this imbalance.
Something else worthy of noting is that owing to this pressure that has been put on mothers who work outside the home, there seems to be more of a trend among young Generation Y women who have watched their "superwoman" mothers struggle and would prefer themselves to stay home with their young children. Dual-parent, single income homes are on the rise. Several other working mothers would prefer to quit working to raise their young children, but they can't afford to. So it could be that the Tories are tapping into the desires of this quite notable group of women.


The private member bills invoked here that were purportedly "aimed at curtailing abortion rights" were:
1) a bill that would make it an offense to kill a woman's baby against her will.
Currently, you can kill a woman's unborn baby in Canada, leave the mother to bury her dead child, and then be charged not with murder, but merely with assault of the woman. The unborn child is a non-existent entity in this country. That means you can do whatever you want to that child throughout the duration of the nine months (with or without the mother's consent) and walk away unscathed; And
2) a bill that would make it an offense to coerce a woman into getting an abortion against her will.
Coerced abortion has been proven to be psychologically, spiritually, and mentally devastating for women.
These bills were both consistent with the “choices” of women; both very pro-woman. But it seems that because these particular women’s desires aren't compatible with the ideology held to by the SOW, they are not considered important Women’s issues.


I am a woman, and I don’t approve of the gun registry. In fact, the registry does very little to protect women from abusive spouses. Being shot with a registered gun makes very little difference when you have a bullet in your head.


Finally, the Maternal Health Initiative: How can you call abortion uniformly pro-woman? How many little girls are killed through abortions? In several developing and third-world countries (even in Canada!), there is a huge problem with sex-selective abortions: little girls are unwanted by virtue of their femaleness. The problem for women snowballs from there, as there is a marked ratio imbalance between men and women. Women and female children from neighbouring countries are later abducted to be brides, or trafficked into prostitution to meet the sexual appetites of a population of unmarried men. The reason there are these 70,000 women dying from illegal abortions every year (if this number is accurate), is because so many women in developing countries do not have access to antibiotics or adequate health care. It is not because illegal abortions are more dangerous. (In fact, even in countries like the US where abortion is legal, abortion clinics are private, unregulated, and their cleanliness often leaves much to be desired. The same doctors that perform illegal abortions are the ones performing legal ones.) The real problem is that abortions are known for causing severe infections and other events that require immediate surgery….not to mention the psychological risks associated with abortion often propels women into suicide. At first glance, you’d think providing safer abortion services would make be better for these women, but if you really think about it, bringing abortion into some of these countries (especially where women cannot easily travel to get to the doctor in the likely event something goes awry) would be extremely reckless. It is much safer to deliver a baby (which is a natural process), then to abort it (which requires an invasive and dangerous procedure that obstructs a natural process).
Furthermore, Harper’s initiative was a “Maternal Health Care” initiative; it was not a reproductive health care initiative. Therefore, it covered maternal health and not reproductive health.
The majority of these women would prefer not to have their children aborted, but the opportunity to carry them to term, deliver them safely, and be able to provide for their needs. (Why are his efforts to help impoverished women deliver safely not being applauded by these women's agencies - why do they advocate strictly for women who choose abortion?)
Offering abortion to impoverished women instead of working to make proper maternal health care accessible is a cop-out at best, and at worst, a deceptive strategy used to target the poor in a pursuit of population control.

Now the 500 missing Native women, I have a HUGE problem with. That said, I don’t see any other party real passionate about justice for aboriginal women….though I desperately wish they were. It actually took a woman Conservative MP (Joy Smith) to come up with a bill that would establish mandatory minimum sentencing for the sex trafficking of children. This is a real issue in the aboriginal population. Native women make up the majority of women who are sexually exploited through prostitution in this country….and most of those entered “the trade” in their early adolescence (average 13 years-old). It's the generational fall-out of the residential school systems that leaves these young girls vulenerable to trafficking. The theory of many aboriginal women's associations is that the sex-trafficking of aboriginal women in this country has something to do with the 500 missing aboriginal women.

My point is that we don’t need more Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP’s; we need more women in parliament.

Be Courageous, President Obama!