Fundamentalist/Vision Forum Conflicting Views On Men

[debrand]

I have been thinking about starting a thread on this subject but it is such a broad one that I honestly didn't know how to approach it. We have touched on it in many threads but never had just one thread dedicated to how the fundie ideal of manhood contradicts how they actually treat men.

 

For instance, many fundies will write that men are more logical and less emotional. That is one reason that they provide for husbands and fathers leading the family. However, in practice they don't treat men as if they are more logical and less emotional than women.

 

We have discussed blog post after blog post where women report how hard they work to make their husbands feel extra special and don't dare contradict their men. Their reasoning is that men can't handle negativity from the women in their families. Contradicting a man-in some cases even your younger brother- will cause the man to be unable to function somehow. He just can't carry on his manly manly duties if his wife reminds him to pick up after himself or, FSM forbid, tell him that he is wrong.

 

So, while they say it is the man who is more logical, they act as if the woman is the less emotional sex.

 

Because they believe that men can't handle any criticism from his wife, she must manipulate him into doing what she wants him to do. This is considered more respectful than being blunt and having a discussion with him as if he is an adult person.

 

This contradiction is especially true of sex and temptation. Fundamentalist men can not view a woman's cleavage without somehow doing.. I am not certain what. Women have to protect men from noticing that boobies are nice. Men don't have to return the favor and protect women from noticing that they are sexually appealing also.

 

I am a visual person. When a man looks nice, I notice and might have an occasional fantasy. The difference is that I don't think my sexual desire had to be reciprocated by the man nor should he have to change his clothing or actions to protect me from thinking dirty thoughts. It is on me to treat him with respect and dignity because he is a human being. In fact, I would be alarmed and feel like I was being treated like a child if men felt like they should cover up to prevent me from lusting.

 

Fundie men are treated like children by their society and somehow confuse this with being 'real' men. When you actually consider all the ways that they confuse treating men like kids with being respectful, it makes your brain hurt.

[Rebelwife]

The thing that always gets me is how many fundies (I'm looking at you, Pearls) expect so much more from their children than their men. Babies are perfectly capable of being taught not to touch or approach forbidden things, but manly men have to be protected from their own lustful nature.

I have no interest in a man who needs me to childproof his life the way I had to childproof my house when I had toddlers.

[Palimpsest]

Debi Pearl's typology has permeated deep into the consciousness of many Fundies. Even the Duggar girls used the vocabulary when discussing courtship and what they were looking for in a future husband, and TLC used the footage.

According to Pearl, men are either Command/Kingly [abusive], Visionary [irresponsible], and Steady [the best of the bunch, but Fundie women think they are boring]. Men will never change type, should never be asked to change behaviors, and it is the woman's duty to adapt to the man their father sticks them with as best they can.

Women are Servant, Dreamer, and Go-to-Girl. Most Fundie women seem to want to flex these categories. Be that as it may, a woman married to an abusive Command man can only deal with the problem by submitting more and becoming a better Servant. Women like Esther Shrader married to Visionary John must become a better Dreamer and "enjoy the journey." The Go-to-Girl who has gumption but is seen as bossy, must learn to shut up and stop telling her man better ways of doing things. Teri Maxwell is a Go-to-Girl married to a Command man, although Steve Maxwell probably sees himself as Visionary.

Penis always wins in Patriarchal religions.

[CynicMom]

The sexual double standard is because there aren't degrees of sin. Sin is sin and having an erection is similar to murder. Since a teenage boy can look at a woman and get an erection she has caused him to be just like a murderer! The harlot!

[debrand]

The sexual double standard is because there aren't degrees of sin. Sin is sin and having an erection is similar to murder. Since a teenage boy can look at a woman and get an erection she has caused him to be just like a murderer! The harlot!

But shouldn't that lead fundamentalists to believe that women are the ones who should be in charge and men should let women lead them? Apparently, fundamentalists don't believe women are led by their vaginas because, much to my surprise, we don't think about sex. That makes females the stronger, more rational sex.

Sometimes I wonder why people who believe all sins are equal don't just say, "Hey, I get the same punishment for a small boring sin as for a big, fun one so why don't I just go whole hog and really enjoy earning hell? " If you are going to a place of eternal torture for just having an erection, you might as well have fun with that erection.

[docmom]

What amazes me is that they don't seem to see the contradictions. However, if you live your life as a great series of contradictions maybe it becomes the norm like: "Save the unborn children but cut food aid to needy post-utero children" "No abortion but yeah executions" "Children are blessings. You should beat the crap out of them starting in infancy"

[nolongerIFBx]

This contradiction is especially true of sex and temptation. Fundamentalist men can not view a woman's cleavage without somehow doing.. I am not certain what.

Lust. That is what we are supposed to protect them from. Frankly, I think that they don't understand there is a difference between attraction and lust. At least, I think there is. I mean, if I see someone with a Coach purse, I can admire it. When I treat her badly because she has one and I don't or start planning how to steal it from her or one like it at the store, I'm lusting. If a guy sees a Ferrari and decides he can't live without it and sells his house, leaving his wife and children nowhere to live, so he can buy the Ferrari, that's lust. Thinking "She has breasts" or even "She has toes" (some fundies outlaw toe cleavage), isn't lust. Obsessing over her boobs or her toes is lust. Now, I think there's a difference. Maybe for guys there isn't, but I really can't judge 'cause I'm not one.

[Nobodysdoormat]

I've thought this so often too! I would be mortified if my kid acted like some of these fundie grown-ups, men and women... And they think they are some sort of light to he world? If they want new s they really should keep their immature shenanigans deeper in e closet... Although, I'm glad they don't of course, snark, snark, snark!

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

The thing is, in real life, fundie marriages aren't really that creepy. At least all of the ones I know. I don't really read the crazy wife blogs that are talked about here, like SSM, Lori A, Kelly C, who else's? I do read the Maxwells, and my daughter and I shake our heads at them mostly, but can't stop reading there, they fascinate us. I write so incoherently...my point is I sometimes think that the blogs that preach all of this craziness about manipulating husbands into feeling superior, etc., are full of crap. Or maybe it's only the crazy wives that have blogs? I don't know. Our friends don't have relationships like that. The wives' opinions are highly regarded by the guys. We're a smart bunch of women, and they know it. They really do love us, and put us before themselves. I think we all consider ourselves submissive wives, but it doesn't play out the way y'all seem to think it does. It means we make real effort to please our husbands, we respect them , and love them. Like most healthy marriages, I would think. None of us are perfect. I like some of the husbands I know better than others, wives too for that matter. But if you were hanging out with us, you wouldn't see any of this ridiculous coddling-husbands-because-they-can't-handle -reality crap that is read somewhere and then talked about here. I feel like I need to figure out where all this info comes from. Are there actual books you can point me to, where this type of dysfunctionality in a marriage is advised? I'm being serious. I have read Debi Pearls's book, and I hated it. She blamed wives for every problem under the sun. I read parts to my husband, and he told me to quit reading it. My friends didn't like it either, and they are some well-known fundie ladies. Is there something else?

I am so horrible at expressing my thoughts.

[louisa05]

The thing is, in real life, fundie marriages aren't really that creepy. At least all of the ones I know. I don't really read the crazy wife blogs that are talked about here, like SSM, Lori A, Kelly C, who else's? I do read the Maxwells, and my daughter and I shake our heads at them mostly, but can't stop reading there, they fascinate us. I write so incoherently...my point is I sometimes think that the blogs that preach all of this craziness about manipulating husbands into feeling superior, etc., are full of crap. Or maybe it's only the crazy wives that have blogs? I don't know. Our friends don't have relationships like that. The wives' opinions are highly regarded by the guys. We're a smart bunch of women, and they know it. They really do love us, and put us before themselves. I think we all consider ourselves submissive wives, but it doesn't play out the way y'all seem to think it does. It means we make real effort to please our husbands, we respect them , and love them. Like most healthy marriages, I would think. None of us are perfect. I like some of the husbands I know better than others, wives too for that matter. But if you were hanging out with us, you wouldn't see any of this ridiculous coddling-husbands-because-they-can't-handle -reality crap that is read somewhere and then talked about here. I feel like I need to figure out where all this info comes from. Are there actual books you can point me to, where this type of dysfunctionality in a marriage is advised? I'm being serious. I have read Debi Pearls's book, and I hated it. She blamed wives for every problem under the sun. I read parts to my husband, and he told me to quit reading it. My friends didn't like it either, and they are some well-known fundie ladies. Is there something else?

I am so horrible at expressing my thoughts.

A couple I know was reprimanded by their charismatic evangelical pastor because it was reported that the wife had purchased items during a Target shopping trip that were not on her shopping list which was supposed to be pre-approved by her husband. Just because your church/group does not practice submission in its extremes does not mean that those extremes do not exist and are not being taught. And the doctrine is easily open to the interpretation that a wife is not submissive if she buys paper towels without her husband's approval. It is also open to the abuse of women and children. Debi Pearl would not sell enough copies of that book to keep it in print if everyone were putting it down in disgust.

[jjmennonite]

Sometimes I wonder why people who believe all sins are equal don't just say, "Hey, I get the same punishment for a small boring sin as for a big, fun one so why don't I just go whole hog and really enjoy earning hell? " If you are going to a place of eternal torture for just having an erection, you might as well have fun with that erection.

We do/we did. I could tell you endless accounts of me and my cousins and people I knew who did this or that, based on this principle. EG, one of my cousins "slept with the whole crew" until she realized that they were talking about her - but according to how we were raised, that is pretty much the same as having a beer.

I have read here and other places about how the 'saved' think we 'unsaved' have no moral compass - well, if you are brought up with such a skewed moral compass, you have to develop your own, as an adult, and you can, provided you are not too damaged by fundy upbringing and abuse.

[jjmennonite]

The thing that always gets me is how many fundies (I'm looking at you, Pearls) expect so much more from their children than their men. Babies are perfectly capable of being taught not to touch or approach forbidden things, but manly men have to be protected from their own lustful nature.

I have no interest in a man who needs me to childproof his life the way I had to childproof my house when I had toddlers.

This is AMAZINGLY profound, to me.

[debrand]

It means we make real effort to please our husbands, we respect them , and love them. Like most healthy marriages, I would think. None of us are perfect. I like some of the husbands I know better than others, wives too for that matter. But if you were hanging out with us, you wouldn't see any of this ridiculous coddling-husbands-because-they-can't-handle -reality crap that is read somewhere and then talked about here. I feel like I need to figure out where all this info comes from. Are there actual books you can point me to, where this type of dysfunctionality in a marriage is advised? I'm being serious. I have read Debi Pearls's book, and I hated it. She blamed wives for every problem under the sun. I read parts to my husband, and he told me to quit reading it. My friends didn't like it either, and they are some well-known fundie ladies. Is there something else?

I am so horrible at expressing my thoughts.

LOL I am not submissive and I respect and love my husband too. That is being a loving wife not submissive.

A book that I read was What? Me Obey Him? Seriously, crazy stuff. The woman was supposed to obey the husband even if he asked her to do something that was wrong because god would somehow preserve her from sin. It has been a long time since I read the book so my memory is fuzzy.

[formergothardite]

LOL I am not submissive and I respect and love my husband too. That is being a loving wife not submissive.

A book that I read was What? Me Obey Him? Seriously, crazy stuff. The woman was supposed to obey the husband even if he asked her to do something that was wrong because god would somehow preserve her from sin. It has been a long time since I read the book so my memory is fuzzy.

Exactly. I would think that most of the people in marriages that don't involve submission love and respect their husband and make a real effort to make him happy. That isn't submission.

My mom used to have What? Me Obey Him? I think I have always been a really bad fundie Christian because even in my teen years I struggled with the idea that I would have to submit to my husband just because.

[Firiel]

The thing is, in real life, fundie marriages aren't really that creepy. At least all of the ones I know. I don't really read the crazy wife blogs that are talked about here, like SSM, Lori A, Kelly C, who else's? I do read the Maxwells, and my daughter and I shake our heads at them mostly, but can't stop reading there, they fascinate us. I write so incoherently...my point is I sometimes think that the blogs that preach all of this craziness about manipulating husbands into feeling superior, etc., are full of crap. Or maybe it's only the crazy wives that have blogs? I don't know. Our friends don't have relationships like that. The wives' opinions are highly regarded by the guys. We're a smart bunch of women, and they know it. They really do love us, and put us before themselves. I think we all consider ourselves submissive wives, but it doesn't play out the way y'all seem to think it does. It means we make real effort to please our husbands, we respect them , and love them. Like most healthy marriages, I would think. None of us are perfect. I like some of the husbands I know better than others, wives too for that matter. But if you were hanging out with us, you wouldn't see any of this ridiculous coddling-husbands-because-they-can't-handle -reality crap that is read somewhere and then talked about here. I feel like I need to figure out where all this info comes from. Are there actual books you can point me to, where this type of dysfunctionality in a marriage is advised? I'm being serious. I have read Debi Pearls's book, and I hated it. She blamed wives for every problem under the sun. I read parts to my husband, and he told me to quit reading it. My friends didn't like it either, and they are some well-known fundie ladies. Is there something else?

I am so horrible at expressing my thoughts.

I have a theory about "mainstream" fundamentalists, fundie-lites, and conservative Christians. Keep in mind that this is observational only.

I know MANY couples who would claim that men should lead their households (and who would also oppose the things Lori and Debi Pearl) teach. I think that many of couples who agree with male leadership and are happy actually approach their marriages in an egalitarian way. For instance, my sister and her husband would probably verbally agree with male headship. BUT. She is in charge of the finances. Sure, she and her husband work together, but she tends to take the reigns, while being very considerate of things he really wants (a nice TV, for instance, when she couldn't care less). She is better with money than he is, and he recognizes that. Same for certain other elements of a relationship. If you asked her about it, she would say, "Yeah, because I'm more gifted in that area." And if you asked how her husband is the leader, she would list of some things that HE is good at-- in other words, each of them takes charge where their talents lie and allows the other to take charge in the other areas. These are ultimately egalitarian marriages but one of them gets a title because that's what they've been taught and they've never had a reason to think otherwise.

I mean, this is problematic too because they are teaching (even passively) male headship when they aren't practicing it, but that's my theory for what is happening... not necessarily a defense of it.

[TurtleBelly]

Fundie men are treated like children by their society and somehow confuse this with being 'real' men. When you actually consider all the ways that they confuse treating men like kids with being respectful, it makes your brain hurt.

I've been thinking a lot about this as well. My wondering is about how young fundy men will ever get enough life experience while living under their fathers' thumbs to actually learn to be the leaders their religion commands them to be. It seems like they are very sheltered from, or even outright denied the chance to interact with many non believers. The SOTDRT may be quite limited. So many family wage jobs or careers require college or more advanced degrees, yet they're discouraged from going to college often times. Others have commented that there are only so many customers to support small family businesses and only so many places where one can easily afford to buy a home debt free. Many of the patriarchs we read about seem to control or meddle with their adult sons' lives. And if you're under your father's 200 year plan, how do you get to have a plan of your own? How do young men learn to make decisions for themselves in this atmosphere? And if you're blanket trained into submission as a baby boy, how do you get back your manly urges to explore or take dominion? If boys grow up with moms and sisters basically lying to them, making them feel a false sense of strength or protectiveness or confidence or whatever, what will they do when actually confronted by a real challenge? I think it's telling that they've had to form ALERT and BRADRICK! and Hazardous Journeys in order to sustain or foster manliness... Since other than the patriarchs, they're apparently they're not getting to act all that manly in their everyday life. Others have pointed out these contradictions more eloquently than I... these things just make me wonder.

[Benk]

I've been thinking a lot about this as well. My wondering is about how young fundy men will ever get enough life experience while living under their fathers' thumbs to actually learn to be the leaders their religion commands them to be. It seems like they are very sheltered from, or even outright denied the chance to interact with many non believers. The SOTDRT may be quite limited. So many family wage jobs or careers require college or more advanced degrees, yet they're discouraged from going to college often times. Others have commented that there are only so many customers to support small family businesses and only so many places where one can easily afford to buy a home debt free. Many of the patriarchs we read about seem to control or meddle with their adult sons' lives. And if you're under your father's 200 year plan, how do you get to have a plan of your own? How do young men learn to make decisions for themselves in this atmosphere? And if you're blanket trained into submission as a baby boy, how do you get back your manly urges to explore or take dominion? If boys grow up with moms and sisters basically lying to them, making them feel a false sense of strength or protectiveness or confidence or whatever, what will they do when actually confronted by a real challenge? I think it's telling that they've had to form ALERT and BRADRICK! and Hazardous Journeys in order to sustain or foster manliness... Since other than the patriarchs, they're apparently they're not getting to act all that manly in their everyday life. Others have pointed out these contradictions more eloquently than I... these things just make me wonder.

This is something I've been thinking about lately too. Fundie girls get some actual practice in the skills they will need to be fundie wives: submitting to a headship, cooking, cleaning, homeschooling and child-rearing. Fundie boys however go straight from blanket-trained submission to their fathers to being a headship themselves. Having had rather less than the usual amount of practice making decisions for themselves, they now have to make them all for themselves and someone else. And, assuming they believe the headship nonsense, this is really high stakes decision making. They could lead their wives (and kids) into errors with eternal negative consequences. If the boy is remotely self-aware and responsible, that has to be a terrifying burden to take up.

I feel sorry for at least some of them. Fundie-dom does terrible things to it's girl children, but it does terrible things to it's boy-children too.

[2xx1xy1JD]

One thing that always gets me is how the idea of "respect" for a husband gets completely turned around.

Blogging, especially when you post identifying information like real names or photos, about how you became the perfect Ephesians 5/Titus 2 wife by giving up any expectations that your husband would ever act like a decent husband and father, obeying him even when he demands unreasonable stuff, and forgiving him for being unfaithful/violent/just a jerk, and smiling even when you think that he's leading the family to ruin, while secretly praying for God to change him and viewing your submission as heaping coals on the enemy's head, is how some of fundie women define respect.

My husband would be mortified if I ever did anything like that. I'm more interested in helping him, by pointing out what I respect about him, stepping in before bad things happen, and being honest about my feelings. I also keep any criticism between us, and just share the good stuff with others, because I don't want to deliberately embarrass him.

[fatcat]

Yeah, it always struck me how my fundie friend would never, ever criticise men for anything, everything was women's fault, but men were also really weak and need to be constantly told how great they are. Like, it just doesn't fit. :?

However, I think the Vision Forum people (like my friends' family) are kind of outliers, even for conservative Christians. I think there are some very twisted people involved in it, some very insecure men, and some very crazy women. Same thing with people like SSM and the 'manosphere'. In many of these marriages the wife seems to be the stronger person (definitely in my friend's family), so maybe they have gone crazy trying to overcompensate. For most of the Christians I know, I wouldn't notice anything strange about their marriage dynamic. Take my grandparents. My grandfather would probably say he was in charge (I never heard them discuss it), but my grandmother doesn't hesitate to criticise him (to put it mildly). They don't have the best marriage, but I don't feel like one of them has any less power in the relationship. Same thing with a few younger conservative Christian couples I have known. And these are people who all have the standard religious right social and political beliefs.

My vision forum-affiliated friends were VERY different from all the other Christians I have known, in terms of behaviour and in terms of what they talked about when they discussed their faith. I stayed with them for three days once, and while they are 'nice' people, there is something very, very off about them and their family dynamic. I don't agree with any of these people, but yeah... they are something else. I could go on and on about the things I saw in that house, but let's just say the image of 'perfection' that Vision Forum tried to project, and that this family said they had when I first met them- complete bullshit. I remember I was fascinated with them when I first met them, because I had never met anyone like them, and they had an almost magnetic appeal for me. Now, my friend's older sister and her mother literally give me the creeps when I am in their presence, and I almost never find people creepy. They hate other women so, so much. I mean, you've got to wonder where that comes from.

Bear in mind I am speaking from my limited experiences, but those have been my observations.