Will Christian Patriarchy return?

[antares]

The Thinking Housewife ponders this after noticing an Freethought Blogger talking about her:

thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/07/an-atheist-unable-to-cope-with-reality/

I hope not, oh dear god :cry:

[Lillybee]

I think that Patiarcrchy is alive and well. I just found this on the Daily Kos. Since Mike Huckalbee is now on Fox News, I think that it resonates.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/1 ... thard-cult

Not breaking the link because I know that The Daily Kos would like to share this info.

[crazyforkate]

Not if we can help it.

[nelliebelle1197]

Ponders what?

[fullmetalheart]

It's a scary thought, but I'm going to say yes. It's alive and well, and will likely spread. People will think "Oh, this is a wonderful idea" and latch onto it, not realizing it's slightly fucked up.

[Coconut Flan]

I had never noticed it was gone.

[antares]

I see ex-fundie blogs popping up a lot... So maybe it will grow but not overtake the mainstream.

[doggie]

I don't think so. we will see an increase in the fundy and evangelical worlds in a desperate attempt to keep the flock in line but people are leaving the churches in droves and education is a big part why I mean we are in a age of the lowest violent deaths in history because of education so things are changing.

[RosyDaisy]

I gathered from that link that the author was shocked that Huckabee was a Gothardite. I thought it was a well known fact for many years now.

[singsingsing]

There is a lot of resistance and blowback or backlash to patriarchy right now within the wider Christian community.

[fatcat]

No, I don't think Patriarchy, and certainly not Christian Patriarchy, is coming back (well, to the extent that we don't still live in a somewhat patriarchal society, I suppose). Even if it were to return in the US, there are still plenty of other countries who have almost no connection to fundamentalist Christianity, and I also think there are many Americans who would fight it tooth and nail. I do think, however, that there will always be a group of people to whom any kind of fundamentalist religion or other fundamentalist thought is very appealing, and their numbers could grow and they could gain more influence in government (even more than they have already).

I also think, from what I read online here and other places, and also from what I have experienced in real life, that there may be some kind of major 'men's rights movement' or a least some kind of major shift in how we think about gender roles in the near future. I don't know what direction this will take, though. It could have an overall liberalising influence (making gender roles more malleable than they are now), or it could make things more conservative or just more hostile (for example, trying to get rid of the 'feminist view' of gender relations completely and positioning men as the new oppressed class). I just feel like a lot of people are unhappy with the way things are now, and I don't necessarily blame them - things really are confusing now. I dunno, that's just my rambling thoughts, feelings and instincts. :shrug:

Or maybe in 50 years, we will all be living in a Christian theocracy, and will secretly be remembering the 'good old days' of freejinger. Ack!

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Christians believe the world will only get more wicked as the return of Jesus nears so the more progressive we become, the happier they should be.

[Childless]

No, I don't think Patriarchy, and certainly not Christian Patriarchy, is coming back (well, to the extent that we don't still live in a somewhat patriarchal society, I suppose). Even if it were to return in the US, there are still plenty of other countries who have almost no connection to fundamentalist Christianity, and I also think there are many Americans who would fight it tooth and nail. I do think, however, that there will always be a group of people to whom any kind of fundamentalist religion or other fundamentalist thought is very appealing, and their numbers could grow and they could gain more influence in government (even more than they have already).

I also think, from what I read online here and other places, and also from what I have experienced in real life, that there may be some kind of major 'men's rights movement' or a least some kind of major shift in how we think about gender roles in the near future. I don't know what direction this will take, though. It could have an overall liberalising influence (making gender roles more malleable than they are now), or it could make things more conservative or just more hostile (for example, trying to get rid of the 'feminist view' of gender relations completely and positioning men as the new oppressed class). I just feel like a lot of people are unhappy with the way things are now, and I don't necessarily blame them - things really are confusing now. I dunno, that's just my rambling thoughts, feelings and instincts. :shrug:

Or maybe in 50 years, we will all be living in a Christian theocracy, and will secretly be remembering the 'good old days' of freejinger. Ack!

I disagree. I don't think things are confusing at all. The world is changing. The world constantly changes. It's just that some people can't handle it. That doesn't mean that a majority of people are confused. Most people can handle change just fine.

It will be a cold day in hell before I live in a theocracy of any kind. I have no particular affinity for the U.S. I can pick and leave for another country and never look back. Hell, I feel like doing that now when I listen to the likes of Akin, Huckabee, and Santorum.

[RosyDaisy]

Christians believe the world will only get more wicked as the return of Jesus nears so the more progressive we become, the happier they should be.

Not all Christians. I certainly don't. Not all Christians equate being progressive with being wicked.

[Peas n carrots]

Despite their caterwauling, I don't think Christian Patriarchy is growing. However, I think their influence is as a lifestyle choice that is "OK". I think that is the point of internet forums like FJ...it brings up valid points on the dangers of the movement to people who may be indifferent or implicitly supportive of the movement.

I doubt most of the Maxwell or Duggar fans are even half as fundie as they are. I think a lot of people praise them for being "Godly" but don't necessarily want to live that lifestyle themselves. For example, a lot of us admire Peace Corp type folks who go to developing countries and help the locals build a better society. I admire them, support them but could never live that lifestyle myself.

That's my perspective...no scientific evidence to support it or anything :D

[tigerchild]

I'm with Peas n Carrots on this one.

I think most bloggers lie/misrepresent how happy they are/what they actually practice day to day. I also think that while it's well and good to loudly proclaim how you want rights taken away to harken back to the good old days (while safely and greatly enjoying our 'modern' freedom), the minute it actually starts to go that way people get cold feet. The tide is turning, and not towards looking at gay people as worth of death camps and women being denied the vote.

I have many relatives and some friends who name themselves patriarchal/christian "intolerant" conservative. They blabber on and on about it like these bloggers. However, most of them are also divorced/remarried, the women enjoy driving and voting and other nice things, they actually do not WANT the actual legal consequences of personhood at conception (and will admit this under duress). What they claim they are and whose books they like to buy is one thing. What they're willing to give up in comfort/getting up off their asses to make it happen? Zip.

I don't think we should be complacent, but by the same token I worry when I see people on "our" side even remotely looking like they're going to fall into the trap of a fear-based mindset, just like the people we criticize.

[Cleopatra7]

I don't think Christian patriarchy of the sort advocated by Bill Gothard or Vision Forum existed before the 1970s or so, because it's a direct reaction to events that have occurred in the United States in the last 40 or 50 years. Even in more conservative areas of the US, like the South, quiverfull and patriarchy are seen as fringe. You can bet people were staring at the Duggars when they were all dressed in frumpers and polos, and not just because of how many kids. In the year 2013, the vast majority of people, no matter how conservative they might be, don't see a need to have a family size that goes into double digits, especially when good jobs are scarce. The more direct threat to women's rights is mainstream conservatiism, the type that appears modern and stylish, while peddling the same garbage.

[TrueRebel1]

I don't think Christian patriarchy of the sort advocated by Bill Gothard or Vision Forum existed before the 1970s or so, because it's a direct reaction to events that have occurred in the United States in the last 40 or 50 years. Even in more conservative areas of the US, like the South, quiverfull and patriarchy are seen as fringe. You can bet people were staring at the Duggars when they were all dressed in frumpers and polos, and not just because of how many kids. In the year 2013, the vast majority of people, no matter how conservative they might be, don't see a need to have a family size that goes into double digits, especially when good jobs are scarce. The more direct threat to women's rights is mainstream conservatiism, the type that appears modern and stylish, while peddling the same garbage.

I agree with what you said; but at the same time, I think some form of patriarchy has always been around, and always will be. There's nothing new under the sun! It seems that these religious trends go in cycles. I think what we've seen is an up-cycle of Christian patriarchy. Soon there will be swing to the extreme opposite, and then eventually some sort of come-back of patriarchy. In the meanwhile, there's always going to be the uber-conservative, domineering brand of Christians. Prior to the 1970's, from what I know, there were churches and groups that believed close to what Gothard or Vision Forum teaches. These groups apparently were just smaller and lesser-known at the time.

Gothard and Doug Phillips succeeded in selling their lifestyle because our society was at an extreme opposite. Now that practically everyone has an acquaintance that home schools and has a large, sheltered family, it's not "new" and appealing. Being open-minded and a free-thinker is what's attractive. Give it a generation or two, and we'll be back at the same place we were in 1970 when Gothard sold his "principles", or in 1990 when Doug Phillips drew in the crowds with his "vision".

[Coconut Flan]

I agree with what you said; but at the same time, I think some form of patriarchy has always been around, and always will be. There's nothing new under the sun! It seems that these religious trends go in cycles. I think what we've seen is an up-cycle of Christian patriarchy. Soon there will be swing to the extreme opposite, and then eventually some sort of come-back of patriarchy. In the meanwhile, there's always going to be the uber-conservative, domineering brand of Christians. Prior to the 1970's, from what I know, there were churches and groups that believed close to what Gothard or Vision Forum teaches. These groups apparently were just smaller and lesser-known at the time.

I agree that patriarchy has always been around. Talking to my mother and grandmother there were people espousing and practicing it throughout their lives. I also see it ebb and flow and hopefully it will be on the downward slide soon or has already begun slipping.

[Cleopatra7]

I agree that patriarchy has always been around. Talking to my mother and grandmother there were people espousing and practicing it throughout their lives. I also see it ebb and flow and hopefully it will be on the downward slide soon or has already begun slipping.

I think there's a difference between the kind of self-conscious patriarchy that we see in ATI/VF and the ingrained sexism and chauvanism of the pre-feminist age. ATI/VF are reacting against specific social trends, and female spokeswomen for the movement like Michelle Duggar know they have to content with people who will claim that patriarchy is harmful to women. Therefore, they have to craft their arguments in such a way so that they can appear to be the ones who are really pro-woman. In the "Mad Men" era, for example, the majority men and women alike took it for granted that the man was the natural head of the home, that a woman should aspire to have a man take care of her, and that dresses were for females and pants for males. However, the militant fecundity of ATI/VF would have been considered weird in almost any era, if only because rougher diets meant that women were less fertile and the fact that many children died in infancy. The only thing that ensures that a Michelle Duggar can have dozens of pregnancies that result in living children is modern medicine and the modern food supply, even if she has a terrible diet.