Cringeworthy post about wifely submission -Visionary Woman

[Witsec1]

Kim Doebler ( The author of the character training book that recommends pinching toddlers hard to get them to listen) has a post about wifely submission up at Visionary Womanhood. If any of you have been lulled into thinking that patriarchy maybe isn't so bad, read it.

 

Quote

Satan is working his same deception with us today, under the disguise of wisdom and being spiritual. Here is a debate I can hear him bringing into many of our homes:

 

*

“Did your husband really say, ‘You must not ever educate your children’?â€

The woman says back to the serpent, “I may help my children with their school, but my husband did say, ‘you must not homeschool, or even read about it, or you will be dishonoring me.â€

“You will not dishonor him,†the deceiver says, “for he knows that when you homeschool you will become knowledgeable and able to lead like him. You will be like him.â€

When the woman saw how good homeschooling was and how beautiful the children turned out, she sent in the disenrollment papers to their local school.

 

If that one doesn’t hit home, how about this:

 

* “Does your husband really want you to dress like a super model?â€

The woman says back to the serpent, “I may wear anything that is fashionable, but my husband did say, ‘you must not wear a jean jumper, or even own anything frumpy, or you will be disrespecting me.â€

“You will not disrespect him,†the deceiver says, “for he knows that when you dress modestly you will become spiritual and able to lead like him. You will be like him.â€

When the woman saw how spiritual wearing a dress was and how it brought attention to her, she closed her closet doors and only wore dresses from then on.

 

One more just to make the point clear:

 

* “Does your husband really not want you to cook healthy food?’

The woman says back to the serpent, “I may cook whatever I want, but my husband did say, ‘you must not use nuts or whole wheat noodles, or even have them in the house, because I won’t eat them.â€

“He’s just trying to control you,†the deceiver says, “for he knows that when you use nuts and whole wheat noodles you will be strong and healthy like him. You will be like him.â€

When the woman saw how healthy nuts and whole wheat noodles were and how they could strengthen her body, she put in a bulk order that afternoon.

 

Now I am not trying to pick on any particular group. Each of the above examples could easily go the other way too. The husband could be asking the wife to homeschool and she says, “I can’t do that, leave it to the professionals.†He may want his wife to wear modest dresses and she says, “I love the mall, clothes are my creative outlet.†Or perhaps he desires for his wife to only buy organic and she says, “That is way too expensive, bring on the Hamburger Helper.â€

 

My point is: are we in love with an idea or with the Creator? Do we want the tool or the Carpenter? Are our efforts toward an image or the One True God?

 

visionarywomanhood.com/finding-unity-in-submission/

 

So basically, any opinion you have that differs from your husband's, is Satan-inspired will to power on your part. And god forbid that your children be exposed to the horror of two adults practicing conflict resolution!

If you have well-honed skills in passive aggression, as most Christian women do, and if one's husband is, like many men, content to go along with his wife's preferences in domestic matters, the consequences of following this advice might not be horrendously, obviously bad. If you are married to a control freak who wants to dictate what you wear and schedule every minute of your time, this advice is very, very bad. A woman could find her identity nearly erased, and herself and her children opened up to horrific abuse. And it gives her no way out, no way to connect to her inner wisdom, only more reason to doubt herself.

 

This is why we fight patriarchy.

[emmiedahl]

I was wondering when they were going to address the fact that many husbands don't want their wives in frumpers!!!

My husband thinks I have an awesome figure and should show it more. But I, alas, am not submissive enough to do so on a regular basis.

[pfamilygal]

My husband said that if the girls and I started wearing matching frumpers he was getting a vasectomy. Given that we have 6 kids, I clearly do not own frumpers.

[Shirley MacLaine]

I think my boyfriend prefers more of an androgynous look but I like my hair and clothes so he can suck a dick :P

[celestial]

Her post is so messed up in so many ways. To the point of being dangerous. And wtf is up with her imitating Genesis? Who does she think she is?

[amie]

..........

[doe]

I thinks she's referring to the wives who long to be the typical fundie: homeschoolin', frumper wearin', and lacto fermentin'. Their husbands may not be down with that so they might make it out to be 'OMG my husband won't let me teach our children anything and he wants me to dress like a whore and only serve potato chips for dinner.'

Obviously, that is grossly exaggerated, but she is telling the wives that they still have to follow their husband's lead even if they think their way is more holy. It reminds me of the women I have seen online who want to wear a headcovering to honor their headship, but their headship tells them they don't want them to wear a headcovering. They would be told true submission is to not wear the covering even if you think the covering is the more Christian thing to do.

[Bella99]

Of course you don't get it because you probably wouldn't substitute somebody else's judgement for your own! The problem is she values obedience over her own ability to reason.

And what Doe said.

[amie]

..........

[Bella99]

Yep! He has the penis-hood, and since your chromosomes read xx instead of xy he gets to make all decisions.

[doe]

Ah, okay. I didn't understand because her examples are things most fundies tout as Biblical mandates. So she's positing, essentially, that even if it's a Biblical mandate, if your husband disagrees, you're obligated to follow his lead rather than His lead?

Yep, I'm pretty sure that is what she is saying. I think that situation comes up a lot when a woman is drawn toward QF/fundamentalism/Patriarchy, but her husband isn't as into all that stuff. A woman will read the blogs and see all the similar fundies and think that is how her life should be. But when she finds out her husband doesn't want her to cover, homeschool, wear ugly overly modest clothes, etc, she finds herself torn between what she considers submission to God and submission to her husband. And she's being told submit to her husband on those issues.

ETA: The mentality is she ultimately submitting to God by way of submitting to her husband. Cuz he's her headship.

[Corntree]

Yes, this is the really sick part of patriarchy. I'm reminded of a blog post I read a few years back (I'd link to it, but it doesn't exist anymore). It was by Crystal Paine, on the now defunct http://www.biblicalwomanhood.com, in case you've heard of it or her. Crystal had just had a baby, and in her birth story, she shared how during labor her husband decided she should have an epidural (or something like that... I wish I could remember what it was exactly, argh.) Not her, not even her and her husband together. No, they prayed about it and her husband told her what to do. I can't imagine having so little control over my own body. I can't imagine my husband basically telling me how to give birth. I've had three kids and the thought makes me sick.

Another thing that makes me barf is how you can NEVER get divorced. Like, not even if your husband beats you or molests the kids. From http://we-would-see-jesus.blogspot.com/2008/06/covenant-with-unfaithful-men-letter-to.html: "It would still be your duty to love him the best you knew how. Your love might include putting some physical distance between you and the children for safety, but your love should hope on for healing and restoration. There would be no justification for giving up and kicking him to the scrap heap, deciding to start over. Hopefully, your response would be to weep and pray and intercede on his behalf that he would be reconciled to God, to be made a new creation, to be the husband and father that he ought to be." (You should read the whole link. It's fun.)

[pimpom]

.

Another thing that makes me barf is how you can NEVER get divorced. Like, not even if your husband beats you or molests the kids. From http://we-would-see-jesus.blogspot.com/2008/06/covenant-with-unfaithful-men-letter-to.html: "It would still be your duty to love him the best you knew how. Your love might include putting some physical distance between you and the children for safety, but your love should hope on for healing and restoration. There would be no justification for giving up and kicking him to the scrap heap, deciding to start over. Hopefully, your response would be to weep and pray and intercede on his behalf that he would be reconciled to God, to be made a new creation, to be the husband and father that he ought to be." (You should read the whole link. It's fun.)

WOW, just wow. I have been reading this kind of stuff for years now, but this one (I read the whole letter) just made me sick...How much of a martyr CAN you be!

[alsio]

They often say that to be a helpmeet and submissive to your husband doesn't mean to be a doormat.

But if there really was a line, this clearly is far over it.

How much more of a doormat could you get? This is dangerous and invites abuse.

[JesusFightClub]

Yes, this is the really sick part of patriarchy. I'm reminded of a blog post I read a few years back (I'd link to it, but it doesn't exist anymore). It was by Crystal Paine, on the now defunct http://www.biblicalwomanhood.com, in case you've heard of it or her. Crystal had just had a baby, and in her birth story, she shared how during labor her husband decided she should have an epidural (or something like that... I wish I could remember what it was exactly, argh.) Not her, not even her and her husband together. No, they prayed about it and her husband told her what to do. I can't imagine having so little control over my own body. I can't imagine my husband basically telling me how to give birth. I've had three kids and the thought makes me sick.

Another thing that makes me barf is how you can NEVER get divorced. Like, not even if your husband beats you or molests the kids. From http://we-would-see-jesus.blogspot.com/2008/06/covenant-with-unfaithful-men-letter-to.html: "It would still be your duty to love him the best you knew how. Your love might include putting some physical distance between you and the children for safety, but your love should hope on for healing and restoration. There would be no justification for giving up and kicking him to the scrap heap, deciding to start over. Hopefully, your response would be to weep and pray and intercede on his behalf that he would be reconciled to God, to be made a new creation, to be the husband and father that he ought to be." (You should read the whole link. It's fun.)

I hate this idea so much. I know a woman who stayed with her abuser because love fixes everything. In fact, I know loads, and finally they got away. One didn't. One died. Horribly.

And I wish sincerely with all of my heart that stupid women like the one who wrote that post were forced to see what that looks like. Maybe at the autopsy, when they counted her injuries.

I am crying writing this post. I hate the things these patriarchy blinded people talk themselves into. And others.

[Childless]

Patriarchy is down right stupid. I love my husband with my whole heart. However, I won't (and in some cases can't) do everything he wants me to do. For example, he likes women with tattoos. Tons of tattoos (i.e. full sleeves, etc.). He also likes women who dress skanky (yeah, I don't understand it either). I can neither have full sleeve tattoos or dress like a hooker because I have a job in a professional atmosphere. My job sustains our existence, so I cannot risk getting fired over my appearance. He understands this (he's not stupid), but if I were to truly submit to what he wanted, I'd end up looking like a whacked out prostitute. Furthermore, I do like dressing sexy sometimes, but the whole whore look is not my style nor are full body tattoos. I am who I am and I should not have to change because a man (any man) wants me to change.

[Olivia]

Ha, my fundie-side family has always been after me for the way I dress - I like to show a bit of cleavage, I like shorter skirts/shorts and tight jeans. Among other things, my uncle likes to shake his head and say, "Don't advertise what's not for sale."

Now that I'm married, I rock the wifely submission thing when they bring up the way I dress. "Mr. Oliver likes me to dress this way. I'm just honoring him with this mini-dress."

I think wifely submission is a completely ridiculous concept -- something that should never even come up in a healthy relationship where two people can actually talk to each other and work out conflict - but I do enjoy parroting it for my own nefarious purposes.

[MamaJunebug]

Ah, okay. I didn't understand because her examples are things most fundies tout as Biblical mandates. So she's positing, essentially, that even if it's a Biblical mandate, if your husband disagrees, you're obligated to follow his lead rather than His lead?

Yep. It was years after the fact, but when I joined a biblical [sic] women's board in an attempt to figure out how to make things work with my The Spousal Unit, the subject of working outside the home came up (for the eleventy-eth time). I posted that years before, I had really wanted to stay home when my Juniors were young, but that my TSU wouldn't hear of it, so off to work I went.

The responses were uniformly complimentary! "Your husband told you to WOHM so you did. Good for you!"

But, I didn't get to raise my own children! I replied. I had to leave little babies with people I didn't really know! Unlike many of the WOHMs I interacted with, *I*, Mama June Bug, didn't want a career. (And it's all about freedom of choice, right?)

The responses continued unabated. "No, no. You did the right tihng. And for heavenssakes, your children didn't die, so what's the deal with you even talking about this now? You obeyed your husband. Huzzah, you!!!"

This was almost a decade ago but it still leaves me shaking my head. NOT that WOHM or SAHM is better, one than the other. It's that here I was, a mom who dearly wished to raise her own kids, her husband thundered "no!" and "biblical" women praised me for leaving my kids with somebody else because I was "obeying" my husband!

They would have reamed out a woman who insisted she go back to work, if her husband wanted her to stay home.

Whatever hus-band wants, hus-band gets (to the tune of "Lola") .... :cry:

ETA: Of course this blew up in all their faces. Because I never quit work, i was able to retire very very early, even though my TSU didn't want me to. And based in good part upon the "biblical" women's nattering, I really worked to make things better with my TSU and today we enjoy an egalitarian marriage .... again, in large part because we each are independent of the other, financially. Ha!!

[snarkykitty]

Ah, okay. I didn't understand because her examples are things most fundies tout as Biblical mandates. So she's positing, essentially, that even if it's a Biblical mandate, if your husband disagrees, you're obligated to follow his lead rather than His lead?

I didn't get it at first, either, so I was trying to think of something equally as ridiculous and contradictory.

"My husband wants me to steal bread from the store because he'd rather read the Bible all day than get a job to pay for groceries. But he won't let me get a job, because then I would be usurping his manhood. He won't let me accept a gift of bread from my parents, because then I would be in their debt. I shouldn't even be complaining about this, because I'm questioning his authority. What should I do?"

:roll:

[Confused_by_religion]

Yep! He has the penis-hood, and since your chromosomes read xx instead of xy he gets to make all decisions.

...and we know how much the possession of a penis enhances one's ability to think clearly and make good decisions. :-)

[Aurora]

Yep. It was years after the fact, but when I joined a biblical [sic] women's board in an attempt to figure out how to make things work with my The Spousal Unit, the subject of working outside the home came up (for the eleventy-eth time). I posted that years before, I had really wanted to stay home when my Juniors were young, but that my TSU wouldn't hear of it, so off to work I went.

The responses were uniformly complimentary! "Your husband told you to WOHM so you did. Good for you!"

But, I didn't get to raise my own children! I replied. I had to leave little babies with people I didn't really know! Unlike many of the WOHMs I interacted with, *I*, Mama June Bug, didn't want a career. (And it's all about freedom of choice, right?)

The responses continued unabated. "No, no. You did the right tihng. And for heavenssakes, your children didn't die, so what's the deal with you even talking about this now? You obeyed your husband. Huzzah, you!!!"

This was almost a decade ago but it still leaves me shaking my head. NOT that WOHM or SAHM is better, one than the other. It's that here I was, a mom who dearly wished to raise her own kids, her husband thundered "no!" and "biblical" women praised me for leaving my kids with somebody else because I was "obeying" my husband!

They would have reamed out a woman who insisted she go back to work, if her husband wanted her to stay home.

Whatever hus-band wants, hus-band gets (to the tune of "Lola") .... :cry:

ETA: Of course this blew up in all their faces. Because I never quit work, i was able to retire very very early, even though my TSU didn't want me to. And based in good part upon the "biblical" women's nattering, I really worked to make things better with my TSU and today we enjoy an egalitarian marriage .... again, in large part because we each are independent of the other, financially. Ha!!

Well, they were consistent, according to their understanding of the Bible. Whether that's right or not is of course another discussion! :)

[Brainsample]

Ah, okay. I didn't understand because her examples are things most fundies tout as Biblical mandates. So she's positing, essentially, that even if it's a Biblical mandate, if your husband disagrees, you're obligated to follow his lead rather than His lead?

(Dr.) Dorothy Patterson, homemaker, wife of Paige Patterson who is the president of SW Baptist Theological Seminary, told Christianity Today in an interview a couple of years ago that often times, she would believe it right to do a certain thing, but her husband would want her to do something else, even though she thought it was wrong and unwise. She said that she is required to submit to what he wants, and she is exonerated from wrongdoing because submission to her husband's wishes is more important.

My response to that as a Christian is, "When did your husband live a sinless life and die on a cross for you to pay for your sins?" This is believed by many Baptists and well educated ones. When I spoke at a seminary on patriarchy a couple of years ago, afterward, I was surrounded by a group of young men who asked me -- seriously -- who would answer for the sins of their wife at the judgement. I was floored. I said that every person answers for the wrong that they do personally, and they would certainly answer for how they treated their wives and were accountable for their actions. And then I said that their wives would be morally responsible before God for their own actions. Men did not stand before God to atone for their wives in Christianity and they do not make intercession for anyone. Men cannot even intercede for themselves when it comes to sin. We need a sinless mediator who is Jesus, God who came and became fully man to pay the price for all men. But these young students in their 20s or so were really in shock that I'd claimed that they would not stand before God to make intercession before God for the sins of their wives, like mini-saviors. It was the sickest thing I'd ever heard, especially coming from a denomination that I then found to be basically conservative in doctrine.

This stuff comes out of the idea that women are ontologically less than men, or of lesser essence. They say that women are the indirect and derivative image of God and that only men are directly made in the image of God. (How they get around the idea that all men are born of women and share half of mom's DNA and remain uncorrupted is beyond me.) Anyway, women are once removed from God in essence, and if they are, they don't really possess the power and recourse to communicate with God because she is a lesser creature. The logical conclusion to that is that women need men to intercede with them before God, because if they are of different essence, their salvation is different also.

This thinking is the logical conclusion of their messed up theology, even though most of these patriarchy people would deny that they believe it. You really can't get around believing it.

[koolmom]

And HOW many women are sitting in jail because they listened to their patriarchally-infused husbands and partners?

[FemaleScientist]

Did she just compare the husband in her post to god? That's creepy. Patriarchy as a whole is downright creepy. I really do feel horrible for girls and women who are raised to believe that their sole existence is to be some man's helpmeet, while men have more choices to follow their dreams.

[GenerationCedarchip]

That post just makes no sense. As I read it, the author is basically saying that even if your husband is telling you to do something sinful, you do it because submission to him is more important. I swear it sounds like the Nuremberg defense ("Oh, I was only following orders.")

From a theological perspective, it sounds really screwed up, too. From everything I've ever read in Scripture, loving and obeying God is most important. This logic just puts the husband in the place of God.