Patriarchy and testosterone

[Hane]

(Foreword: Back in the '70s, Alan Alda wrote an amusing essay for Ms. magazine regarding "testosterone poisoning," which he used as a trope to explain the characteristics of "male chauvinists." The essay had its flaws, but its merits outnumbered them.)

Our fundie patriarchs seem to share certain characteristics: They have to be in charge of EVERYTHING, and they see sexual temptation EVERYWHERE. As I genteelly like to put it, their dicks are on a hair-trigger, and the slightest hint of cleavage will cause them to ejaculate spontaneously, go on a raping spree, or plunge into the depths of guilt (possibly all three at once).

Is it possible that these guys have higher than normal testosterone levels, but lack any constructive outlet for them?

For most of these jamokes, strenuous sports are out--as is dancing, music that is actually fun, or genuine artistic expression. Getting to know girls and women as actual human beings JUST LIKE THEM? Fuggeddaboudit!

Their lives are just Jesus™, Jesus™, Bible™, all distilled into a version that lets them follow the narrowest possible path of patriarchy and dominionism.

Among our fundies, we see many families, though, in which it's obvious that going full-tilt fundie was the wife's idea, and the husband seems to just be going along for the ride, afraid to rock the boat. (Erica Shupe's husband comes immediately to mind.) I don't see any evidence so far of easy-going men morphing into True Christian Patriarchs[tm][/tm] of their own free will. Devoted Christians, perhaps, and devoted husbands/fathers, usually, but not a Michael Pearl or Steve Maxwell among them.

Any thoughts?

[gustava]

Fundie men don't have testosterone. That's why they demand patriarchy.

[Marian the Librarian]

Interesting theory! (And yes, I am old enough to remember Alan Alda's essay when it first appeard in Ms. Magazine! :pink-shock: ) I don't know if this has anything to do with testosterone poisoning, really, but I've also been musing lately about something, and maybe it ties in somehow:

I've been wondering about the fundie families we know and love who have unmarried adult offspring still living at home - the Botkin and Reins sisters, the Maxwell daughters, the Pennington adult spawn, for example. They've all been "sheltered" from the outside world. They have no marketable employment skills, aside from appearances at conferences, marketing their CDs and other crap, music-making, sewing modest clothing - all preaching to the same like-minded choir. Hell, the Pennington kids don't even have the standard documentation to prove they exist, much less get jobs in the real world, travel, or be able to count on a secure retirement.

HOW does this benefit the parents, to have "kids" in their twenties, thirties and forties still living at home?? I think patriarchs like Geoff Botkin and Steve Maxwell certainly suffer from some mix of serious crazy - testosterone mixed with their twisted version of religion mixed with extreme control freakishness - but AFAIK, their wives are totally on board with the program, so I don't know where that leaves us testosterone-wise.

Maybe it has something to do with simultaneous fear and denial of death. I think Geoff and Steve (even for all Steve's "Do you know where you'll go when you die?" BS), and parents like the Penningtons, genuinely think they're going to live forever. Special snowflakes that they are, they're not ever going to die - so why should their kids have to worry about being fully-functioning members of society? Dad and Mom are going to be around forever, calling the shots!

OK, I'm rambling - off my soapbox now!

[Hane]

Found it!

[salex]

What I see is more a lack of testoterone than an over abundance. The people named earlier in the thread have these big dreams of having thousands of descendants, but don't marry their kids off well enough to accomplish it. They talk about being leaders of movements, but if their kids left the house, would they have any real followers? Sure, people have read a book or two, but have any of them really changed the world?

They seem more to be people who want to be big fish, but have neither the ability or the emotional wherewithal to draw followers other than the children they brainwashed from an early age. Many of them worked in the "real world" but apparently washed out or couldn't compete or function there, so they hide in these tiny fifedoms they have created, pretending to be masters of the universe.

[Marian the Librarian]

What I see is more a lack of testoterone than an over abundance. The people named earlier in the thread have these big dreams of having thousands of descendants, but don't marry their kids off well enough to accomplish it. They talk about being leaders of movements, but if their kids left the house, would they have any real followers? Sure, people have read a book or two, but have any of them really changed the world?

They seem more to be people who want to be big fish, but have neither the ability or the emotional wherewithal to draw followers other than the children they brainwashed from an early age. Many of them worked in the "real world" but apparently washed out or couldn't compete or function there, so they hide in these tiny fifedoms they have created, pretending to be masters of the universe.

[ghost]

What I see is more a lack of testoterone than an over abundance. The people named earlier in the thread have these big dreams of having thousands of descendants, but don't marry their kids off well enough to accomplish it. They talk about being leaders of movements, but if their kids left the house, would they have any real followers? Sure, people have read a book or two, but have any of them really changed the world?

They seem more to be people who want to be big fish, but have neither the ability or the emotional wherewithal to draw followers other than the children they brainwashed from an early age. Many of them worked in the "real world" but apparently washed out or couldn't compete or function there, so they hide in these tiny fifedoms they have created, pretending to be masters of the universe.

You nailed it. I am humbled by your presence. :worship: :worship:

[Johanna25]

I think a dynamic that operates where the woman is the driver into patriarchy is a detached husband and father. Many wives feel over-whelmed and lacking in support from their husbands in raising their kids. They latch on to the idea of wifely submission as a solution. If they put their husband in charge he'll be forced to become involved and make decisions. She may be relieved to surrender autonomy for his help and involvement. Many become adept at "feminine" manipulation of the husband. For a kind of passive aggressive woman it is indeed a happier life.

[IrishCarrie]

I think a dynamic that operates where the woman is the driver into patriarchy is a detached husband and father. Many wives feel over-whelmed and lacking in support from their husbands in raising their kids. They latch on to the idea of wifely submission as a solution. If they put their husband in charge he'll be forced to become involved and make decisions. She may be relieved to surrender autonomy for his help and involvement. Many become adept at "feminine" manipulation of the husband. For a kind of passive aggressive woman it is indeed a happier life.

I'm couldn't agree more - as soon as I read your words I pictured Erica's beaming smile and Bob's total disinterest.

*beams* :wink-kitty:

[FloraKitty35]

:clap:

[elizasc]

Totally agree