To Theocracy, or Not To Theocracy

So remember that post on Lori Alexander’s blog that I wrote about recently? About how husbands should go about requiring their wives to submit to them? After I wrote my response, I checked the comments on Lori Alexander’s post, and, wow. This exchange is revealing. 

Laurie: In the U.S., patriarchy can only work if the family is willing to be subordinate because there are no laws giving fathers/husbands authority over wives/children (beyond guardianship of minors). In fact, the idea of a patriarchy is diametrically opposed to the American ideals of individuality, democracy and freedom for all because a true patriarchy gives freedom to adult male heads-of-household and no one else. What I’m thinking is that for a Christian patriarchy to succeed in the long term, it needs to be upheld by a theocracy (the rule of God) rather than the rule of the people (democracy).

Em: Christian patriarchy is only possible when the family decides to practice it. If we were to enforce it by law, we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran. God does not force us to follow him. We are given the free will to do so.

 

The disagreement centers on whether wives should be required by law to obey and submit to their husbands. Laurie argues that in the absence of a legal requirement that the husband obey the wife, Christian patriarchy will fail, because it is antithetical to ideas like democracy and freedom. (This is a stunning admission.)

Another commenter, Em, responds that Christian patriarchy is something families need to “decide” to practice, in absence of the law, because if we required wives to submit “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” Am I the only one who feels like this statement may actually be rooted in racism? Her justification for not requiring women to obey their husbands is not that this is a bad idea or wouldn’t work, but rather that “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” If laws requiring women to obey weren’t associated with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, would Em still oppose them?

Laurie stating “patriarchy is diametrically opposed to ideas like freedom and democracy” and Em responding with “well, sure, but we don’t want to be like Saudi Arabia or Iran” is just plain weird. Look at Em’s comment again—she doesn’t push back against Laurie’s assertion that patriarchy is incompatible with freedom and democracy, at least not directly. Instead, she simply says that if we “enforce” patriarchy “by law” we’ll be “no better than” Saudi Arabia or Iran.

How does Laurie respond? Well.

Laurie: I think it boils down to being the woman’s choice, rather than the family’s, as to whether or not the family functions as a patriarchy. A man cannot force his wife to submit (at least not legally). Therefore the family structure is whatever the wife wants it to be. Either she chooses to be submissive or she chooses rebellion – either way the laws of the land support her.

Egads.

The idea that it is the woman who has the power in any relationship feels like it comes straight out of a men’s rights activists’ forum. Wives are the victims of domestic violence and abuse at a far higher rate than men. Women frequently find themselves stuck in relationships that are difficult to leave. Men earn more than women, and when one partner stays home to care for children, it is usually the woman. But it’s actually women who are calling all the shots? Really?!

Notice what “calling all the shots” actually means: it means wives can choose whether to obey or disobey their husbands. Imagine framing men’s options that way: that they can choose either to obey their wives or disobey their wives. Clearly, patriarchalists see men as entities with more agency than that!

Patriarchalists’ fundamental problem is an inability to see women as fully and completely human. Both men and women have ideas, propose plans, and share excitement over things they’ve been thinking about. Both men and women are human beings, and that makes them, on a basic level, fundamentally the same. Yes, there are differences between humans, and there are things that, on average, differ between men and women. But on an underlying, fundamental level, we are the same.

Patriarchalists don’t see it this way, of course. They see men as fundamentally actionary and women as fundamentally reactionary. Women can’t function on their own. They either obey and are cared for men, or they obey and are cared for the state. (No, really: while these particular comments don’t address this, supporters of Christian patriarchy argue that women who are not under the care and authority of a man simply substitute his care and authority for that of another—the state, a boss, etc.)

Okay, we’re almost done. One last commenter responds, making things only worse, if you can believe it.

KAK: Even if the laws of the land didn’t support her (by that I mean, if legislation was in place to support patriarchy) God doesn’t judge us on our outward actions. He judges us by our hearts. So a woman forced to submit to her husband can still be rebellious in her heart, and so therefore still be wrong in God’s eyes. We can ONLY serve the Lord when we CHOOSE to do it, because the only thing that matters is our heart.

KAK writes that, even if the law required wives to obey their husbands, and even if wives complied with these laws and obeyed their husbands, they could still be sinning in their hearts. Now yes, this means that KAK is saying women should not be forced to obey their husbands—that they have to voluntarily choose to obey their husbands or it does not count. But the addition of thought crime here actually feels like it makes everything worse. Wives can’t just obey, and have that be enough. They can’t even obey with a smile, and have that be enough. They have to obey with a smile inside. 

How is it 2020 and there are still Americans arguing over whether women should be required by force of law to obey their husbands?

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!