Negative effects of the patriarchy on males

[Mrsaztx]

This is pulled over from the thread regarding purity culture and it's negative effects on girls, and I wanted to discuss it further without derailing that topic too much, so here goes:

There's tons of discussion here about how biblical patriarchy and purity culture is highly detrimental to women and girls and you don't find nearly as much thought given to the males that are raised in that environment and the effect that them. Some thoughts

-I have a friend who was extremely alpha and was intending to marry a man who was extremely submissive, however I would see on Pinterest that several times a week she would pin Christian blogs on "How to pray your husband into being a leader". This made me feel terrible for both of them because this guy isn't, and will never be, a leader, he simply isn't cut out for it. The young men raised in this culture who are not leaders are being continually told they must be and if they aren't, if they are equals with their wife or, God forbid, submissive to their wife, their family arrangement is actually going against God. 

-The young men are often receiving the bare minimum in the way of schooling, what becomes of them psychologically when their meager earnings are quickly outpaced by a particularly fertile wife that will not/can not work when he has a boatload of kids to feed? Is his wife going to work and consequently sending the kids to school seen as a massive failing on his part?

-Children (girls especially) are raised valuing purity above all else, typically leading to deep psychological scars when it comes to sex. This causes anxiety, depression and dysfunction regarding the act itself. Obviously it's deeply troubling for a compassionate man to have a wife with such issues (and he may, himself, as well)

I hope some guys may come out of the woodwork to weigh in, anyone that's sitting around with their husbands, ask them to weigh in. I am interested in a different take on all of this

[Jingerbread]

QF sets boys up to fail and snap.  Affording kids is hard, but when a barely-educated person is expected to somehow many enough money to support a dozen kids, and how well he can proves to others that he's in favor with God, he's set up with the cards against him. A gentle man is forced to be someone he doesn't want to be.  Everyone's hurt here.

[FundieFarmer]

This is a great topic we don't explore much. We see a lot of men here who really aren't great at leading their families- David R comes first to mind. I've seen this firsthand having come from a conservative religious background where it's expected. I can't answer in depth right now, but I like the topic, and I think Jingerbread has a great point about setting up some to fail.

[August]

I think it's an awful amount of pressure to put on a person. They can't rely on their spouse for anything, it has to be them and only them making all the decisions, earning all the money. 

At the end of the day it's probably worse for the women, but it's definitely also bad for men.

[Mrsaztx]

Part of what got me thinking of this was an episode of "snapped" that was on yesterday that focused on an Indian couple who were arranged and after a year the wife was able to come to the husband in the US. It turned out that his family had money but he didn't and was so distraught at the idea that he wasn't able to provide for his wife in the way she was expecting that he enlisted her help to start him on fire as the most horrible suicide ever. And she complied and is now in jail, because a good wife does as her husband asks. A large part of her defense was a sociologist familiar with patriarchal Hinduism testifying that her story of the events (he orchestrated it as an assisted suicide) was completely plausible in their culture. The whole thing was very jarring, to say the least

[guitar_villain]

Speaking as a guy, I find the whole "Nike" thing highly offensive.  I work at a college and I'm surrounded by very attractive young women who are often dressed in skimpy clothes, especially at the gym.  Do I notice them?  Of course: I'm a guy- the day I stop appreciating attractive women is the day you can bury me.

But am I so consumed with lust that I turn into some sort of raving sex crazed lunatic?  Of course not- I'm perfectly capable of controlling myself and dealing with them as people rather than sex objects.  So can most guys- it's called self control and most of us learn it as teenagers.  I'm not sure why religious zealots seem to think we can't, unless it's for the same reason they worry about gays converting people- they have problems dealing with their impulses so they think all of us do.  

Hint- we don't, and I find it really offensive that you think I have that little self control

[19 cats and counting]

Josh Duggar is a good example of someone who is not fit for the patriarchal lifestyle.  Even before all his scandals, you could see cracks in him and his marriage (such as the M kids being slowly more and more spaced out, and the look on his face when they announced Anna's pregnancy with Meredith).  Meanwhile Anna is drowning in the ATI Kool Aid (the Kellers are more ATI than the Duggars) and probably wants M5 right away.  

(As much as I hate to say this because I hate defending the pig) Josh Duggar is probably one of the smarter (older) J kids.  He could have succeeded in law or politics had he had the proper education (or even the opportunity to receive it).  He would have done well going AWAY to a 4 year school, living away from the compound in a frat house, partying, drinking beer, hooking up, watching porn, etc.  

Or he could have pursued politics instead of getting married right before a major election.  (In another world, he and Bristol Palin would have been good for each other).  As a political staffer, I've hired several young people (youngest was 19) and many have gone on to do great things.  I'm very clearly on the opposite side of the political fence as the Duggars and Josh, but with the right education, he'd be a formidable staffer for the right candidate.

[Inky]

And who knows, maybe if he'd been raised outside of patriarchy, Josh might have developed a bit of a work ethic, since he'd have had peers who were go-getters, as well as the expectation that the world doesn't owe him a living because he's a Christian.

[Catey]

Any time that you stick with rigid gender roles there are no winners. Patriarchy IS negative, for woman, for men and for society as a whole. There is no upside to people being shoved into boxes and forced to live in roles that lack individual flexibility.

 

[salsa]

18 minutes ago, Catey said:

Any time that you stick with rigid gender roles there are no winners. Patriarchy IS negative, for woman, for men and for society as a whole. There is no upside to people being shoved into boxes and forced to live in roles that lack individual flexibility.

 

It's all those sermons about how "women are this way" and "men are that way." If you hear it enough, you'll end up trying to mold yourself into either "this way" or "that way," accordingly. The reality is that those lines are not so distinct, and that's sad for the (I dare say) majority who don't fit into the sermon model.

Of course those sermons sound scientific and all, but they're not; they just read into the Bible what they think is true and then expect everyone to conform.

eta: where is it written in Scripture, for example, that men are turned on by the visual? pure conjecture based on some reading-into some biblical stories

[Dandruff]

By the time one of these boys can make real decisions, his life has pretty much been determined already.  His parents chose how he'd be homeschooled and what skills or interests he'd be allowed to develop, and they approved his wife.  He needs to be fluent in the bible to lead his family, isn't supposed to limit family size, and has to support them with whatever skills he does have.  It must be extremely hard to find the time, money, and energy to become more educated, especially if his previous education was deficient.  Male authorities can still put their two cents in if they don't approve of what he's doing.  He's pretty much stuck...though he's supposedly in a better position than his wife and children.

I'd bet quite a few of them decide to go on missions for the illusion of starting over, in addition to Jesus (of course).  Even so, they're beholden to whatever organizations provide the $$s.

[Criscat]

I think that if you look at the notable QF/ATI families, what separates the duggers from some of the others is the TLC money. If not for that, they'd be struggling to survive. None of the kidults save maybe John-David has a real job. It's not sustainable especially since none of the boys have any skills or education to be able to provide for their family and that's the tragedy of QF/ATI/fundamentalism.

[Grimalkin]

.           Between the enormous pressure to provide for a million mouths and lack of education and skills it has to be really demeaning when they get out in the real world and see how poorly prepared they are. It's not shocking that so many say "fuck it" and become fake missionaries. Because they are not even qualified to volunteer. 

         Who knows what Josh would be like had he gone to school had friends, played organized sports, rode his bike around his neighborhood, played pick up  football at the park with a bunch of random kids, and hung out at the local convenient store/ bowling alley/pizza place. 

[THERetroGamerNY]

Thanks for starting this topic, because yeah: It kinda gets forgotten a lot.

You guys already hit on some of the major issues here, namely leadership and money.

And it was set up to fail for me in a way for me that is deeply personal: I have a disease that is slowly sapping me to an earlier grave... You want to rationalize how I was supposed to be a father of a large family, fully support it, and now be terminally ill? This was God's plan?

I'm on disability nowadays, and my childhood friend that I was supposedly to be my "help meet" is indeed fertile: 10 kids so far.

No matter how you try and paint that picture, with me in it instead of her: It is not a good situation.

I was a very strong-willed child, and also well-read. The only time I even read the Bible was when I was forced to... There was just every other book out there that called to me. I didn't care to read, and be lectured, about how to be a "Godly father" - I wanted to read the Last Unicorn, damn it! lol

Somebody had told me, as a child, "You are many years beyond your own age... An old soul. You see things at your age that most 20-somethings barely see."

Those were very perceptive words indeed: When I was about to be railroaded into a courtship, at age 18, with my childhood sweetheart: I saw my future, and it literally have me a full-blown panic attack.

Sure, she is a sweet girl and all: But she was wholly sheltered; not intellectual; barely educated; and only ever read Christian books!

My future would be a prison! And a wholly unsustainable one! 

To this day I remember her own mother telling her once that "you don't need higher education. You're just going to be married and making babies, so let's just focus on getting you ready for that."

That is anti-intellectualism.

I want, and have now married, an equal in my life. We can relate to how pain has shaped us. Forced Patriarchy for me, and nasty Purity crap for her. We both read, study, explore... We are getting therapy still to overcome our past, but it is a journey that we are on the same footing with.

And, yeah: If you have the abundant wealth to make such a QF family work... Best of luck. But I still don't buy it. The Duggars have the resources, but are still repressive.

It is, at best, a damaging family model for women. At worst it is a poverty-ridden abuse.

[TurtleBelly]

One thing I don't find easy to understand are the 200 year plans the men of VF were making. If your father makes one, you as a son are just a part of it, but when do you become a patriarch in your own right? When are you old enough-when your father dies?

[Vex]

I'm really glad this discussion is happening.

The pressure on both sides is overwhelming and needs to be discussed. I think sometimes it's easy to overlook how damaged boys and men are by this kind of patriarchal society because so many of the men we discuss are massive assholes like Ken or PP and not really deserving of sympathy.

The amount of expectation set upon the shoulders of young men in the fundie world is incredible. As others have mentioned, they are set up to fail. How can you be expected to adequately provide for a family of 10+ when you're not allowed to have a proper education, vocational or otherwise? Just like the women, they're forced to accept a certain role in life that they might be diametrically opposed to deep down, but have no choice but to adopt.

It's true men have more freedom than women in fundie culture in many ways, but that doesn't mean their lives aren't just as fucked up by it.

Thanks for your story, @THERetroGamerNY
I'm so glad that you weren't forced into that lifestyle permanently.

[elliha]

8 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

Josh Duggar is a good example of someone who is not fit for the patriarchal lifestyle.  Even before all his scandals, you could see cracks in him and his marriage (such as the M kids being slowly more and more spaced out, and the look on his face when they announced Anna's pregnancy with Meredith).  Meanwhile Anna is drowning in the ATI Kool Aid (the Kellers are more ATI than the Duggars) and probably wants M5 right away.  

(As much as I hate to say this because I hate defending the pig) Josh Duggar is probably one of the smarter (older) J kids.  He could have succeeded in law or politics had he had the proper education (or even the opportunity to receive it).  He would have done well going AWAY to a 4 year school, living away from the compound in a frat house, partying, drinking beer, hooking up, watching porn, etc.  

Or he could have pursued politics instead of getting married right before a major election.  (In another world, he and Bristol Palin would have been good for each other).  As a political staffer, I've hired several young people (youngest was 19) and many have gone on to do great things.  I'm very clearly on the opposite side of the political fence as the Duggars and Josh, but with the right education, he'd be a formidable staffer for the right candidate.

As much as I hate the idea that a woman should save a man I think Josh is a prime example of when this could have been possible. A strong, no bullshit woman who would rightfully praise his good sides, encourage him to develop his weaker sides and who he would know would not allow him to do something extremely stupid would probably have allowed him to stay enough in line and to not explode into the person he is today. A meek and soft wife like Anna was so wrong for Josh and I honestly also think that a stronger woman would have been a better match for him. I think he is a very confused man who would like someone else to help him point out a reasonable direction and give him boundaries but still be able to point to what is good and unique about him. I very much doubt that his parents has any idea of who he truly is and someone helping him see who he is would be what he would have wanted. 

[Peas n carrots]

Josh Duggar is a good example of someone who is not fit for the patriarchal lifestyle.  Even before all his scandals, you could see cracks in him and his marriage (such as the M kids being slowly more and more spaced out, and the look on his face when they announced Anna's pregnancy with Meredith).  Meanwhile Anna is drowning in the ATI Kool Aid (the Kellers are more ATI than the Duggars) and probably wants M5 right away.  

(As much as I hate to say this because I hate defending the pig) Josh Duggar is probably one of the smarter (older) J kids.  He could have succeeded in law or politics had he had the proper education (or even the opportunity to receive it).  He would have done well going AWAY to a 4 year school, living away from the compound in a frat house, partying, drinking beer, hooking up, watching porn, etc.  

Or he could have pursued politics instead of getting married right before a major election.  (In another world, he and Bristol Palin would have been good for each other).  As a political staffer, I've hired several young people (youngest was 19) and many have gone on to do great things.  I'm very clearly on the opposite side of the political fence as the Duggars and Josh, but with the right education, he'd be a formidable staffer for the right candidate.

As much as I hate the idea that a woman should save a man I think Josh is a prime example of when this could have been possible. A strong, no bullshit woman who would rightfully praise his good sides, encourage him to develop his weaker sides and who he would know would not allow him to do something extremely stupid would probably have allowed him to stay enough in line and to not explode into the person he is today. A meek and soft wife like Anna was so wrong for Josh and I honestly also think that a stronger woman would have been a better match for him. I think he is a very confused man who would like someone else to help him point out a reasonable direction and give him boundaries but still be able to point to what is good and unique about him. I very much doubt that his parents has any idea of who he truly is and someone helping him see who he is would be what he would have wanted. 

You are 100% right - IIRC his Ashley Madison profile indicated he was looking for a confident, strong woman for a relationship.

I think Josh will eventually walk away, but not anytime soon. As much as I think he is a sleazy jerkoff I also think he is a victim of his parent's idiocy as the rest of the J'kids are.

[kpmom]

Patriarchy was created by men.  It benefits men.  The day it stops benefiting men, it will end.

That's not to say no boys/men are harmed by it.  But, the male still has the ability to live his life the way he sees fit, and the female does not. 

If patriarchy harmed the majority of men it would not exist.  Period.

[polecat]

In a patriarchy, men have a choice. That's more than women have, and so generally speaking, patriarchy is less harmful to men than women. But it is still harmful -- just in a different way.

Boys are expected to stick to strict gender roles just as girls are. In my fundy school, there was actually a rule against boys wearing pink or purple shirts. The uniform policy was khaki or navy pants (skirts for girls) and solid-colored polos or collared shirts, but boys could not wear "girl" colors. ETA: there were also strict hair rules requiring it to be cut off the collar and over the ears. Basically -- crew cuts. In fact, one of my sons wants long hair (not shaggy -- actually long like mine), and even though I know there's nothing whatsoever wrong with this, I have a mental block that keeps saying "NO, NO, HE IS A BOY!" But it's not my hair and my mental block is irrational and due to years of conditioning, so if he wants long hair, he can have it.

Boys are taught purity culture -- but in a different way. A girl who has "given herself away" has no worth. She can continue to be used for that purpose without affecting the boy (and if caught, it becomes solely her fault and he was the innocent victim of a vixen). But he can only marry a "pure" girl. This sets him up to see women as literally nothing more than whores or Madonnas. A woman can either be married -- or she can be used. 

Boys who like "girl" things are punished. A toddler boy who picks up his big sister's doll will almost certainly be spanked for it. Playing in a play kitchen? Absolutely not. They are kept in strict gender roles almost from birth -- and they are taught that they are superior almost from birth. I've seen boys who were considered to be "over" their mothers simply by virtue of their malehood. We even see this in the secular press sometimes, like when a young boy protects his mother from an intruder. Those stories actually make me queasy because I cannot imagine any situation in which I'd expect (or even want) my young sons stepping between me and a bad guy.

Boys are not allowed to enjoy children. The girls and women do the childcare duties -- this is not for boys. If a boy enjoys being around kids, he is looked at askance. He is either assumed gay or believed to be a predator. There are no in-betweens. And when he grows up, he is the disciplinarian. There are no "fun times with dad" for men. 

Boys are taught to be narcissistic. They are the supreme beings, they are made in the image of God, they are the final authority. This can be a positive for some men (Donald Trump, I'm looking at you, you orange-fluff covered assface), but it can also be quite lonely, and they may never feel fulfilled in any of their relationships. They also become quite entitled and then bitter when they aren't given the things they have been told they deserve (virgin, submissive wife, perfect children, a high-paying job, etc.). 

Boys are visible. I'm not sure how to explain this one. This isn't harmful to all boys, but I do think it is to some if not many. By visible, I mean, they are expected to be out there. They are the ones who must pray in public, they are the ones who must participate in preaching competitions (or even preach in church), they are the ones who must go soul-winning (so do girls, but there are ways to get out of it -- like volunteering to babysit). The boys are forced to participate in the public part of the church in a way that girls almost never are. So a boy who doesn't fully buy into the religion is going to have to do an awful lot of faking, and that lying, imo is one of the most destructive things a person can do. When you cannot be your authentic self and are living a lie, you are damaging the core of your being. In my opinion.

The patriarchy is kept in place not necessarily by all men but by those who benefit the most from it (like some pastors are the lords of their own little fiefdoms). It is also kept in place by women (slut-shaming and victim-blaming are prime examples of this). It empowers certain people at the expense of all of us -- in my opinion. 

 

Disclaimer: These are all just my own personal observations as a person who grew up IFB and may not apply to society or fundydom at large.

 

 

 

 

[Mrsaztx]

Thanks, @polecat you articulated a lot of the thoughts I was having. This patriarchal culture is good for the ones who I would basically describe as natural leaders. But "good for them" doesn't necessarily mean it creates a good life for them, it still sets them up to be overwhelmed (10+ kids are hard on a household) and runs a heavy chance of them becoming horrible, insufferable blowhards (jimbob) when in a normal upbringing they could've simply excelled at work with their leadership skills (similar to the josh discussion up thread). Then there are all the men who aren't natural leaders, I really think Bin falls into this category. He isn't a leader, probably never will be, but he thinks he is because he has been told his whole life that he is, so he's trying to step into that role and we all see what a mess that is. After that you have the men who aren't leaders and don't want to be and who might even be ok with *gasp!* being submissive to a wife. They can either be married to a little church mouse (Anna) and they will just go in meek little circles, not really accomplishing anything because no one steps up to be in charge, or they can marry the alpha female (like my friend) who spends her days trying to bully her husband into "being a man". She picks fights with people hoping her husband will stand up for her, she acts out trying to get him to stand up to her, etc.                

 I have little sympathy for the heads of households that get into this, first generation . They are the men with God complexes trying to "out holy" one another and they are disgusting, but the subsequent generations have it rough. I was reading an article the other day about Syrians in Raqqa that have joined ISIS. They said they don't believe in what they're doing but they don't have the means to flee and if they are with ISIS they aren't as much a target of ISIS. You would hear the same thing of Nazi soldiers in Germany, they didn't believe all the Jews should be exterminated, but joining up was protection for them. I think a lot of these kids, even if they have their doubts, simply can't leave because the cult has ensured that through not educating them, indoctrination, saddling them with multiple kids early, etc. they maybe don't believe and don't think it's right but they're too hopeless and poorly prepared to get out so they just ride the wave and hope to not drown.

[FundieFarmer]

8 hours ago, TurtleBelly said:

One thing I don't find easy to understand are the 200 year plans the men of VF were making. If your father makes one, you as a son are just a part of it, but when do you become a patriarch in your own right? When are you old enough-when your father dies?

In my experience, yes. And it usually goes to the favored son, who is set up for the assumption of power because he is given knowledge about family affairs that others are not. This may or may not be the oldest son, of the oldest son has fucked up.

[nokidsmom]

12 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

.           Between the enormous pressure to provide for a million mouths and lack of education and skills it has to be really demeaning when they get out in the real world and see how poorly prepared they are. It's not shocking that so many say "fuck it" and become fake missionaries. Because they are not even qualified to volunteer. 

         Who knows what Josh would be like had he gone to school had friends, played organized sports, rode his bike around his neighborhood, played pick up  football at the park with a bunch of random kids, and hung out at the local convenient store/ bowling alley/pizza place. 

While I personally think Joshley is a total douchebag, it's clear that he does not fit into the fundie lifestyle, doesn't like it and probably never liked it, even if he did enjoy being the Golden Child in his family.   I agree that if he had a more normal upbringing, he might not be the who he is today.  He's a good example, actually, of how patriarchy fails men.  

[justoneoftwo]

We talk about how so many of the men are horrible people, but for the second generation its possible that the culture turns little boys into horrible people.  They are not supposed to sympathize with others, they are not supposed to help their sisters and so on.  Then add the pressure and I'm not surprised they snap.  Some of them may be unsympathetic anyway, but many of them are the product of their environment.  It also may be harder to leave, because the outside world sees you as the opressor, so there isn't as much help.  This is particularly true once you have kids.  It's a bit like men in the regular world who wish to report being raped by women, there is no where they can go with that, because there are no support groups.  

[Cleopatra7]

Patriarchy types love to talk about how feminism "emasculates" men, but Christian patriarchy seems to be full of emasculated man-boys. The thing with patriarchy is that there can only be one patriarch in any given family. Just think about how the Bible mentions a patriarch and then lists all his sons like they are only a step above his goats or his cattle. A strong, outspoken, dynamic child of either sex must be crushed to fit into the patriarch's plan. While we focus a lot on females under patriarchy, a look at the second generation males indicates that they have weak personalities (the Maxwell sons and the Ardnt "boys" come to mind) or are outright deviants like Josh Duggar. None of them really seem like "leaders" because any nascent dynamism was probably beaten out of them as little boys so they wouldn't rebel against their fathers. The only way a would-be patriarch can have a "multigenerational plan" is by crushing the egos and wills of his children so they do his bidding. This lifestyle creates lifelong followers, as evidenced by how Josh is still hiding behind mommy and daddy to clean up his messes.