Mental Gymnastics of Complementarians-If Push Comes to Shove

[Austin]

I came across a post by Libby Ann at Love, Joy, Feminism that I thought would be interesting to discuss.

lovejoyfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/09/complementarian-responds.html

Having grown up fundie-lite, I am well-aquainted with the complementarian point of view. My own marriage has never reflected this dynamic, but nonetheless, this POV was one of the main reasons that I finally, after many years of angst and disenfranchisement, jettisoned the whole evangelical church thing. In a typical evangelical church, even though a couple may believe and conduct themselves in an egalitarian way, the church finds ways to oppress women who live in freedom at home and silence their views - if push comes to shove. If anything, they become pretty invested in silencing those women because they don't want the "godly women" influenced by them.

I emphasized the words "if push comes to shove" because in all those years as part of the church body, it seemed to me that's what complementarians tried to boil the husband/wife dynamic down to. In other words, men would claim that they viewed their wives as equals, but if an issue arose on which they could not agree (again, "if push comes to shove"), then God empowers husbands in those situations to make that decision in the way he sees fit, not the wife. I've heard many-a-complementarian-wife proclaim, "Oh, our marriage is completely equal. The only time this even comes up is when we can't agree [when push comes to shove], and that doesn't happen that very often".

And from the time I was a teenager, I would sit there and think, "Whaaaa. . .aaat? If your opinion only matters when your husband agrees with it, then your opinion doesn't really matter at all." It just struck me that instead of committing themselves to working things out, no matter how much effort that takes, to a mutually agreeable conclusion, they instead would view this as a complementarian "moment" where the wife needs to subordinate her will to that of her husband (because push came to shove). No matter how much influence a woman thinks or says she has over her husband, or how they claim it's just about "roles", there's no way in my mind that this belief can be viewed as equality within a marriage. Or between men and women in the church.

But I held my tongue and tried to tame my mind and heart to accept this. Tried and failed miserably over the years, I might add. And by the time I was closing in on my forties, even though this had never, ever remotely been an issue in our home - just the opposite, as my husband and I made fun of these people privately - I could no longer take the blatant sexism in the church, no matter how they packaged it up or what pretty bow they put on it. And so I stopped going to church and withdrew myself from this belief system. It caused(s) me a great deal of pain because I lost so many friends, as our social life was very wrapped up in church/church life, although thankfully not totally as in the case with some people.

But I continue to puzzle over the issue of women buying into the patriarchy-lite (complementarian) POV. I knew so many women, over the years - smart women, otherwise-accomplished women - who seemed to accept this marital dynamic as their lot AND work very hard at convincing other women that they, too, could experience the "joy" :roll: of complementarianism, too.

Thoughts?

[slickcat79]

This comment from the patriarch complementarian is especially irritating:

That being the case, the Bible is clear that there is a chain of command. The husband is to lead. There can be no democracy in a home where there are two people, each of whom have a single vote, and both vote for their own position on an issue. The frame of your writing indicates that, perhaps through proper communication techniques, an agreement should ALWAYS be able to be made. This is, of course, idealistic...a mere fairy tale. These types of situations will arise, even if they are not often.

This being the case, it would seem that your position would be that if no agreement could be struck, then no decision would be made. The issue would just fade away. This is impossible. NOT taking any definite action on an issue is just as much a decision and has consequences just the same as taking some form of action.

A home is not a government. You shouldn't be adversaries, squared-off against each other, each of you screaming for your own way at the top of your lungs. No one would argue that that's a good way to conduct a relationship. Nor did I see any place where LA is arguing that you should just ignore the situation and not make a decision.

I think her response is excellent. The commenters make some good points too. There may be times in a relationship where each person "submits" to the other, but it doesn't have to be one-sided or domineering. If you are secure enough in yourself and your relationship, you can recognize areas where the other person's knowledge helps them make a better decision, or that they should have more of a say because the situation affects them more. There's no good argument for a healthy relationship where one person makes all the decisions, all the time.

[Austin]

I reject the notion, put forth by the complementarian, that issues that are not dealt with will just "fade away" if the husband doesn't take the reins and make a decision in the context of the "chain of command". If it's an important issue in an otherwise healthy marriage, it will not fade away. And sometimes things we initially *think* are issues are not much of anything at all, and it is appropriate for them to "fade away" from the marital consciousness.

[maybeizfundie]

There may be times in a relationship where each person "submits" to the other, but it doesn't have to be one-sided or domineering. If you are secure enough in yourself and your relationship, you can recognize areas where the other person's knowledge helps them make a better decision, or that they should have more of a say because the situation affects them more. There's no good argument for a healthy relationship where one person makes all the decisions, all the time.

I totally agree with this, and this is how complementarianism ends up working for us. Because my husband takes the man's part of that Scripture seriously, and it *requires* him to lay down his opinion/right/whatever out of love for me. And that's just the one verse, not to mention the rest of the NT which requires each of us to consider the other first, deal with each other with grace, eschew domineering attitudes, etc etc. Men who fail to do this are not living up to their claim of "Biblical living", no matter how much they trumpet that they are. It is definitely not one sided, nor is the concept of "submission" female-only, Scripturally, even though that word is used particularly in that one verse.

'Course, maybe this makes us not strictly complementarian then? IDK.

[Austin]

I would just echo a favorite question of complementarians, maybeiz: what happens if you can't agree? Who makes the decision? Who is ultimately responsible?

[debrand]

I mean, Brian goes so far as to endorse a "chain of command" and say that "there can be no democracy in the home." Where's the equality in that? It's all a smoke screen. No matter how they say it, it always amounts to the same thing: men are to be in charge and women are to follow. These roles are NOT equal. Brian simply proves my point.

I agree with this. I think that much of this type of complmentarianism is just smoke and mirror. You either have equality or you don't.

It might seem overly obvious to point out that humans are individuals but by claiming that men should always have the last word and women should be the ones to submit, it makes humans seem like interchangeable cogs, all with the same strengths and weaknesses. Women are made to submit and men to lead..why? For most marriages, if one person has too much power, it would be disastrous.

In over twenty years of marriage, my husband and I have been able to jointly come to decisions together. Sometimes one gives in to the other or we compromise but it seems to work out evenly.

[maybeizfundie]

If we can't agree, we look for compromise, and failing that we each look for a way to fulfill that particular calling to us--me to "submit", him to love by laying his life down. Essentially the same thing, perhaps speaking to our differences as male and female, more than two different concepts.

I don't even know how to explain it, to be honest. The focus is not on each other, making the other do right. I would say, technically, that if there's a "leader" it's him if we have to label stuff, but what is required of him makes it not look anything like the militaristic "leadership" certain groups advocate. Compromise when we differ is the norm. Each of us has stepped back in favor of the other on both major and minor issues, at times and that has been based on our understanding of what God calls us to individually. (And I should add, each of us has also failed miserably at times, lol. Part of keeping us balanced is recognizing that we are totally imperfect.) We have grown towards this place over the years of marriage--ultimately I think because it seems sad and not at all representative of Christ and the Church if we cannot learn to work together and consider each other in our marriage, and certainly the man demanding and domineering is no representation of Christ. I cannot see that as unitive, and the goal is to "be one". I don't like governmental comparisons to marriage. So, maybe marriage isn't a democracy ('cause it isn't a government but an extremely close human relationship), but it also cannot be a monarchy or a dictatorship or whatever.

Depending on the person looking at us from the outside, we could probably be viewed as either negative extreme, lol. Someone looking at me from a feminist perspective might be horrified and view me as entirely too submissive, but someone looking at dh from the patriarchy side might view him as namby pamby and me as entirely too forthright.

[liltwinstar]

Sometimes I think that the whole "what to do if you can't agree" debates could be somewhat prevented if people knew each other better before they married. It seems that for fundamentalists and evangelicals alike, there is so much focus on sex and shared religious values that people don't really stop to think about basic compatibility in terms of money, lifestyle, planning for the future, etc etc. I think part of the reason that my husband and I don't really worry about who has the "tie breaker vote" is because we dated for a long time and got to know each other really, really well. So I learned things about how he handles money, how his family functions (or doesn't), stuff like that. And he learned things about me. If we'd married after dating for six months or one year, I wouldn't know those things. Since I did know about his spending habits, plans for the future, etc - I knew if I could be on the same page as those goals.

Also, I knew myself. I knew that I could not marry someone who was in the military or who was a clergymember or a police officer or a politician. There is nothing wrong with men who work in those professions; I just knew I couldn't be a good partner to someone in those lines of work. A lot of the rhetoric fundie and evangelical women are subjected to revolves around submitting to God's will - even if that goes against everything they want to do. We see this with one of the Botkin girls who said her biggest desire was to have a private, quiet life. Yet she is told that she has to have a public life, that she has to prepare herself to be everything from a dentist's wife to First Lady. Women aren't allowed to know themselves and to be true to their own preferences, and that would cause a lot of conflict in a relationship.

Finally, I care about my husband and I want him to be happy! And he wants the same for me - so that means "submitting" to each other on some level, although I don't think of it that way. I don't want to see him pushed beyond what he can handle; he doesn't want that for me. So if he wanted to have, say, five kids but saw that I was spent running after three, he wouldn't push for more - because he loves me wants me to be happy/healthy. It's not that difficult.

[Austin]

I just have to agree with the blogger and Debrand that complementarianism is just smoke and mirrors.

Even if just practiced "technically".

From the blogger:

. . .The man submits by lovingly leading and the woman submits by lovingly submitting. No wait. That doesn't make any sense at all. This is the same exact line of reasoning I got as a child. Men and women are equal. They just have different roles. Men are to lead and women are to submit. I mean, Brian goes so far as to endorse a "chain of command" and say that "there can be no democracy in the home." Where's the equality in that? It's all a smoke screen. No matter how they say it, it always amounts to the same thing: men are to be in charge and women are to follow. These roles are NOT equal.

I've been puzzling for years over why women would sign on to this sort of belief system. After all, I was *in it* for years, but never of it, never bought it, never could be convinced. But then I found an earlier post from this same blogger:

http://lovejoyfeminism.blogspot.com/201 ... -that.html

So let me summarize. We have six reasons:

They're raised into it.

They have a lot to lose if they question/leave.

It gives them status within the community.

It provides simple answers in a complicated world.

They believe everything outside is evil and dangerous.

They really truly believe it's what God wants.

I guess that's pretty much it.

[childerowland]

And from the time I was a teenager, I would sit there and think, "Whaaaa. . .aaat? If your opinion only matters when your husband agrees with it, then your opinion doesn't really matter at all." It just struck me that instead of committing themselves to working things out, no matter how much effort that takes, to a mutually agreeable conclusion, they instead would view this as a complementarian "moment" where the wife needs to subordinate her will to that of her husband (because push came to shove). No matter how much influence a woman thinks or says she has over her husband, or how they claim it's just about "roles", there's no way in my mind that this belief can be viewed as equality within a marriage. Or between men and women in the church.

I agree - it's not equality at all.

I wish they could come out and admit that they believe that women are inferior to men rather than hide behind the nonsensical phrase 'men and women are equal but different', where 'different' means 'men have superior decision-making faculties and women should always be sweetly subordinate.'

The idea that one partner HAS to be in charge is ridiculous. If there is a decision that you can't agree on, the person who is going to be the most affected by the outcome of the decision and/or who is most knowledgeable about the area in question should have 'the final word' (if after much discussion there is still no agreement or compromise). If there genuinely is a situation in which a couple cannot agree and they will both be equally affected and there is no possibility of a compromise etc. etc., why not just throw a die?!

I think a lot of women who go along with complementarianism are very conflict averse and would prefer to abdicate responsibility for decision-making rather than risk having an argument.

[titus2_4u]

I think a lot of women who go along with complementarianism are very conflict averse and would prefer to abdicate responsibility for decision-making rather than risk having an argument.

Somewhat. I see more people merely playing lip service to the concept and using the "if push comes to shove" rhetoric to try to prove that there still is a male in charge. They just seem to claim that push often doesn't come to shove.

Although this could be my fundie-lite background showing. It's probably different for hardcore fundies.

[MamaJunebug]

I actually heard this first from my Mormon friend (with whom I've lost touch completely).

She described her marriage as "I'm a vice-president, but he's the CEO."

[MamaJunebug]

I actually heard this first from my Mormon friend (with whom I've lost touch completely).

She described her marriage as "I'm a vice-president, but he's the CEO."

ETA (only because I hit "submit" too quickly. Anything Freudian there? :D )

I've mentioned that my The Spousal Unit and I have only recently come to a place where we're really enjoying most of our time together.

I take credit for a large part of this as I ruminated about the verses - all the verses - in Ephesians 5. When something is not a big deal for me, and we disagree, I cede the decision to him.

When something is a big deal for us, and we disagree, I make my thoughts known as plainly as possible. If no compromise seems possible, and if I am mentally prepared, I cede the decision to him.

Here's the payoff: So far, he has not made any decisions that affected me, or us, negatively.

This is not because he has the male organs and therefore superior reasoning skills.

I really think it's because finally, at his advanced and mellowed age, he sees that it makes most sense to keep us both happy.

Could he have done this in our earlier, tumultuous years, if I had been willing to hand him my proxy vote, as it were? Well, I'll never know.

I only tell my experience to say that this is my big question for those patriarchal complementarians who rule out democracy, like that odious Brian does: What do you do to train and prepare young men to make decisions that truly benefit his wife and children as much as, or more than, they benefit himself??