Fascinating Womanhood Review: The Rights of the Leader

by Samantha cross posted from her blog Defeating the Dragons

Helen really takes the cake in this chapter. Which, if you notice, she pulled a bit of a bait-and-switch on us. In the last chapter, she described one of the masculine roles as the “guide,” but if you notice above, this chapter is called “The Leader.” Which, honestly, I wasn’t too thrilled with “guide,” either, but it’s certainly a sight better than Leader. This chapter is quite long, so I’m going to break it down into at least two posts, maybe as many as three. But, let’s get started.

She opens her argument with several reasons why men are supposed to the leaders, and she starts off with this one:

The first commandment given to mankind was given to the woman: “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Evidently our Creator felt it so vitally important that the woman understand this, that He directed the instruction to her.

I’ve already mentioned (twice, now) that it is incredibly bad hermeneutics– almost obviously bad– to make the case that women are required to be subservient to their husbands based purely on the Curse. But, there’s another problem here, because Helen . . .  is lying. It would be generous to admit to some sort of genuine confusion or forgetfulness on her part, but that seems unlikely. Because the first command delivered to mankind? The very first one? It’s in chapter one, not three. And, interestingly enough, the command is given to both the man and the woman equally. There’s nothing in this command that separates the sexes: they are given the exact same responsibility.

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Genesis 1:28

Helen, 0,
The Facts, 1.

After this, she moves into the Ephesians passage. This is one of the Great Complementarian Clobber Verses. My experiences with the uses of this passage have been from those who take a straightforward approach to it– taking it at face value, and usually, quite literally. While I’m sure there are complementarians out there who have done sound research into the historical and cultural background to these verses, I’ve never been exposed to that research when being taught about “husband as the head of the home” (and, as always, if you’ve seen this, please point me in their direction or leave a comment explaining). I think that’s curious, especially since historical and cultural context reveals some interesting things that undermine the traditional complementarian argument.

After Bible-bashing us, she turns to “logic.” She says that since the family is a group of people, and groups of people always need leaders to “maintain order,” that the father should be the leader– and that it is illogical for a woman to lead, because, and this is hysterical, woman are “vacillating and indecisive. Women are just not capable of making decisions, and if we interfere with the decision-making process, the only thing that can result is “hours of deliberation,” and, ain’t nobody got time for that. Also, men make the money, and whoever makes the money should be in control.

That is probably why Mary Kassian wrote this pearl-clutching piece in response to the Pew Research survey that revealed that women are becoming the primary breadwinners in many homes. Oh, noes! If women earn more money, we’re going to become “resentful” and “critical,” and even worse, if a woman makes more money– she is going to become dominant and take over The Sex!

No, really. She said that.

Next, we move into the section Helen titles “Rights of the Leader.” Here, she gives us two primary rights: “To Determine Family Rules” and “To Make Decisions.” She’s deliberately clear about what this entails:

A family is not a democracy, where everyone casts his vote. The family is a theocracy, where the father’s word is law (italics hers).

From what I remember of Debi’s Created to be His Help Meet, she danced around this idea the entire book without explicitly saying this (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). She said everything but this, although this is really the idea it seems Debi was actually going for. Helen is a little bit bolder. She just comes right out and says it.

The family is a theocracy.

Meaning, “Rule of God.”

Just a quick note, in case we’re confused: no man, no father, no husband, is God. Debi got close to conflating husband and God as she wrote, mostly because she emphasizes the need for the wife to submit to her husband in obedience to God– women are to obey God indirectly, through submission to their husbands. This results in Debi occasionally implying that, for a wife, her husband represents God to her.

That’s not what Helen argues, though. Her husband is God.

This is one of those times where her LDS background is showing through, although I’m not familiar enough with LDS theology to really analyze it. Also, while I can understand how her theology is affecting her writing, it is problematic here because this book was, and is, not primarily read by Mormon women, but by Protestant women, and this conflation of God and husband is not a claim that Helen ever backs away from.

She also takes the “Right to Make Decisions” to an extreme that boggled me:

Should Jane take her umbrella and walk to school in the rain, or should her father take her? When the father makes the decision, matters are settled at once. And whether Jane gets her feet wet or not is as important as order in the household . . .

Some of these decisions are minor, such as whether to take the dog on a picnic or leave him home. But even though such a decision is small, it must be made, and often quickly. When the husband the wife don’t agree, someone must decide. The final say belongs to the father . . .

Sometimes a man may seek his wife’s support but is reluctant to explain his reasons. He may think she lacks the knowledge to understand. Or, he may be unable to justify his plans or explain his reasons . . . if this is the case, don’t probe too deeply.

Uhm.

Whoah.

Should Jane walk to school in the rain?

Should we take the dog on the picnic?

These are the kinds of decisions that the father must make in order to avoid “hours of deliberation” because of us vacillating, indecisive women? Really? I grew up watching my parents in a complementarian marriage, as well as observing many other complementarian marriages, and this portrayal is unfair, even to complementarian theology. I don’t even know what to do with this. It all seems to imply that women really aren’t capable of making any kind of decision whatsoever, no matter how ridiculously small. I’ve never met any woman that was this pathetic.

However, the last example is the most troublesome for me, and it is deeply personal.

John*, my ex-fiancé and rapist, and I were planning our wedding for December, exactly a week after I graduated. He would not be finished with college yet (interestingly enough, because he was indecisive and couldn’t settle on either a college to attend or a major to study for years). Because of that, we were planning for me to be the primary breadwinner while he finished his degree, which would be paid for by the work-assistance program he was in.

However, in August, he announced that he was quitting the work-assistance program because working through college was just too stressful. This was a problem, because when a student quit the work assistance program during a semester (which was his intention), he or she becomes completely ineligible to enroll in the program again. In short, if he quit, not only would I be paying for daily life, but his education as well (our school did not qualify for student aid, any kind of student loan, and he had no scholarships).

This resulted in the worst fight we ever had, because I had the audacity to insist that this was a very bad idea– unfeasible and impossible, really, given our circumstances. He broke our engagement a few weeks later, citing, hilariously, that I “was not submissive enough.”

However, if I had followed Helen’s teaching, I would have nodded my head like a “perfect follower” (pg 122), and gone along with all of his ideas and plans, even though he had no justification for them and they would have ended in financial disaster. This is not some hypothetical situation that women rarely ever face, as well. It happens all of the time.

Just because men are men does not make them inherently more qualified to make all decisions in isolation. It is not good for man to be alone, and I’m pretty sure God wasn’t just talking about sex.

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Comments open below

Read everything by Samantha!

Samantha grew up in the homeschool, patriarchy, quiverfull, and fundamentalist movements, and experienced first-hand the terror and manipulation of spiritual abuse. She is now married to an amazing, gentle man who doesn’t really get what happened to her but loves her anyway. With him by her side and the strength of God’s promises, she is slowly healing.

Samantha blogs at Defeating The Dragons and is a member of The Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

 

About Suzanne Calulu
  • stairway to heaven

    The link to Rachel Held Evans blog on submission is priceless. If you believe in the ”biblical” submission of women you should also believe masters should be out rustling up some slaves because it has similar standing in the scripture surrounding these beliefs.

  • Saraquill

    If women aren’t to be trusted to make decisions, then why are they deemed capable to raise hordes of children and educate them?

    I’m also annoyed that a woman who calls herself Christian is decidedly violating two of the big commandments.

  • SJ Reidhead

    There is one other false premise in the convoluted logic that Paul was discussing a Greco-Roman model of a household because it was the only known stable sociological model at the time. The reason behind this was that, according to Evans is because Paul was trying to protect Christian families from the constant threat of Roman persecution. I do get sick and tired of historical ignorance.

    1. There was no real Roman persecution of Christians at that time. In fact, the only person who appeared to really want to persecute and kill Christians was Paul, when he was Saul. Sure he was beheaded, but, I think, once we get to the bottom of the mystery, the reason will be because of Paul’s friendship with the Stoic, Seneca, and not because Paul was a Christian. There were scattered persecutions, but nothing like we’ve been led to believe, if my current research is correct.

    2. I don’t even know where to begin when it comes to the Greco-Roman family household model was the only one known at the time. Romans did not pattern their homes after the Greeks. There were certain classes in Judea who were, simply because the upper religious and learning classes of Jews were influenced by the Greek philosophers – many of whom found women to be absolutely disgusting. No so the Romans. Sure, society was not equal, but Roman women probably had the best lot in life (for women) since the ancient Egyptian women (who were truly equal). Roman women often controlled their own households. One of the reasons for the ‘new’ laws Augustus put in place was to rein in some of the more annoyingly liberated women, especially of his family. (Watch the mini-series Rome).

    Paul, while he was Jewish, was truly a Roman in every sense of the word. As a ‘provincial’ Roman he would be more reactionary, more conservative socially than would the Romans who lived in Italia. But – he was totally and completely Roman. To look at him as anything else is to well, turn what he said into a he-man-woman-hating-club. Nothing was farther from the truth. Take costume. Paul, in Timothy, was basically telling women to dress like a Roman woman. It had nothing to do with modesty and everything to do with doing what the Romans did. He was telling followers of Christ to blend in with society.

    The average conservative Roman male thought that women were out of control. When you put that into the perspective that they also thought their teenage sons were out of control and were a lost generation, it is easier to understand that his writing was sociological and not ‘religious’ when approaching the way women were to be treated. This was the era of Poppaea Augustea Sabina. No wonder men wanted women to be a little submissive and shut up already yet. Upper class Roman women were literally out of control, sexually, financially, and politically to the point where they are considered infamous, even today. They are not considered infamous because we look at them from a patriarchal point of view, but because they were truly almost evil. All anyone needs to do is look at the influence our First Ladies have on the way culture and society is looked upon today and we can understand what was going on in his mind.

    I am so sick of these people and their historical ignorance.

    SJR


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X