Fundamentalism and Gender Preference

[Soldier of the One]

In the really interesting 'India's Secret' thread, there is a discussion about female infanticide/abortions in India due to strong cultural/patriarchal preference for males.

Now, although the large majority of American fundamentalists disavow and condemn abortion, I do wonder whether the SAHD movement/Patriarchy/Biblical Womanhood could lead to such a devaluation of women that fundamentalists might adopt similar social norms as in India.

In short: do Christian fundamentalist families regret having baby girls? Are baby boys much more preferred? Or is there a realization that a 'Biblical', patriarchal family/society needs both sexes, even if the women are to be submissive.

Thoughts?

[liltwinstar]

Having grown up fundie (and on the fringes of the QF movement), I didn't see a marked gender preference. Babies were babies, and all were considered "blessings" and such. I didn't hear anyone say that boys were better or whatever.

Of course, there was a ton of gender stereotyping and whatnot, but that usually happened a bit later - not at the time of birth.

It also seemed to me (in my observation, not anything scientific) that there were more QF/fundie families with lots of girls than there were large boy-majority families and it made me wonder - was there something about being parents of mostly girls that made the parents more afraid of the world and thus more susceptible to QF/Fundie theology and lifestyle? Something about keeping the girls as pure as possible or being afraid about boyfriends and all that? Are families with boys more laid-back and less afraid of the "big bad world" because boys are expected to be tough and make messes and because male purity is not such a big deal?? Makes me wonder.

[Rosa]

I think the lack of dowries and the value of girls as home labor means even if they did embrace abortion, American Christians wouldn't do gender selection. In American history we don't see preferential abandonment/neglect of girl children.

Fundie boys are a lot more work - they have to be educated at least enough to get a job, they have to be waited on, they are more likely to grow up to challenge the patriarch.

If we got a Republic of Gilead style fundie uprising, I can see girl babies dying of neglect differentially to boys, and of course dying early in childbirth, because the long-term costs of supporting them would actually be higher than for boys. But I don't think the fundies we follow are actually looking at the long-term - they aren't expecting ANYONE to support these poor unmarried uneducated SAHDs when they are elderly.

[puddle]

I also grew up in the fundie world and ditto everything liltwinstar said. Including the part about knowing a lot more QF families with lots of girls than lots of boys. I wonder too about parents of girls tending to be more wary of "things of the world" perhaps... but the strange thing is, I think most of the families I know were pretty set in their ways before they had more than a kid or two so I don't think having lots of girls *resulted* in those ideas.

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's patriarchy, but different patriarchy, if that makes any sense.

There's a large practical/economic component. Marrying girls off costs the family money, while boys will gain a dowry payment. It's also traditional for the husband to stay with his family, and for the wife to leave her own family.

A surprising amount of the violence against women comes from the mother-in-law, who gets to rule the roost and bully her daughter-in-law. So, the woman who has been oppressed during her life finally becomes a mother-in-law and gets someone else to be her slave. That daughter-in-law, in turn, knows that having sons will bring her some respect but that having a daughter may bring abuse, so she may do sex-selection abortion or abandon a baby at birth. Each one's self-interest comes before gender solidarity.

[Stickers]

The dowry concept/tradition is a big part of why girls are so unwanted in India. If you have a girl it means when she gets married you will being giving up money, precious items, and her, because when girls get married they're part of their husbands family. That's where her duty is after.

American fundies don't have that set up. When girls marry they do get new 'headship' but they're still expected to honor their parents (right? unless they renounce fundieism) and it doesn't hurt the families when they marry off a daughter financially. Fundie weddings are cheap (debt free!) and marrying off a girl means one less mouth to feed. And I agree, they do seem to understand that both sexes are needed.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - really interesting.

Do you think some of the 'Queen of the Home' rhetoric in Christian fundamentalism helps to give women in that movement a modicum of respect?

[Kitty]

The dowry concept/tradition is a big part of why girls are so unwanted in India. If you have a girl it means when she gets married you will being giving up money, precious items, and her, because when girls get married they're part of their husbands family. That's where her duty is after.

American fundies don't have that set up. When girls marry they do get new 'headship' but they're still expected to honor their parents (right? unless they renounce fundieism) and it doesn't hurt the families when they marry off a daughter financially. Fundie weddings are cheap (debt free!) and marrying off a girl means one less mouth to feed. And I agree, they do seem to understand that both sexes are needed.

I think American patriarchy is the inverse of Chinese/Indian patriarchy in that regard: American fundies have to put a lot of time and money into sons. Men have to support women, and women go from being supported by their parents to being supported by their husbands. So why would fundie families really want boys? The girls are much cheaper! But American fundies will take anything, which actually produces a problem: Families won't have that much money to spend for boys' businesses and education, so the opposite might happen: fundies will start selecting for girls. Then there will be a shortage of boys, and heeelllooooooo polygamy!

[Soldier of the One]

Interesting theory. Do you think there's a chance that certain fundamentalists embrace polygamy?

Oy... now that's another whole can of worms...

[Kitty]

Interesting theory. Do you think there's a chance that certain fundamentalists embrace polygamy?

Oy... now that's another whole can of worms...

Well, as it is, fundamentalism is unsustainable. It'll result in a lot of guys who aren't marriageable, since they can't support a family. So I don't think it will be polygamy "officially," it'll just be a lot of fundie men taking in extra women who "are just helping around the house." The FLDS has no problem with it, but it'll be hard for the other fundies to really be open about it. It would be easy to hide a Handmaid's pregnancy too, just don't let her leave the house, and deliver the baby at home.

[JenniferJuniper]

Interesting theory. Do you think there's a chance that certain fundamentalists embrace polygamy?

Oy... now that's another whole can of worms...

Some already do. "Fundamentalism" is a big tent.

I don't see them turning to abortion to select girls over boys. And boys can be useful, especially in more rural areas.

[debrand]

Although it would be logical, I don't think that most fundies would embrace polyandry. American fundies don't have the self awareness to realize how our culture has influenced their religious views. Polygamy is not the norm in America so I don't see fundies adopting it.

It would be logical for a woman who wants several children and remain home to have more than one husband. Her husbands could work and bring in money, while she took care of the kids. It would even help with lowering the population because no matter how many husbands that she has, she can only have so many children. Most women aren't Michelle Duggar, after all.

[Kitty]

Some already do. "Fundamentalism" is a big tent.

I don't see them turning to abortion to select girls over boys. And boys can be useful, especially in more rural areas.

Stay-At-Home-Sons? :think:

[Soldier of the One]

Oh dear God... I googled 'Christian Polygamy'.

For your edification, ladies and gentlemen, I present you:

- Christian polygyny: christianpoly.org

- More of the same: christian-polygamy.com

- And yet more: christianpolygamy.info

- A wacky site claiming to be a Christian poly organization: truthbearer.org

- Another wacky site: christianpolygamy.com

- Find your Christian poly mate! lovenotforce.com

And an 'academic' paper on the topic from a Bible Seminary:

faculty.bbc.edu/kgardoski/SubPages/ChristianPolygamyMovement.pdf

There you go! Have fun! :mrgreen:

[liltwinstar]

I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if polygamy was practiced among fundamentalists. After all, Abraham and Isaac and the other patriarchs had multiple wives. In the Reconstructionist/Dominionist crowd, there is already the belief that slavery isn't wrong because it's ok in the OT, so I don't really see polygamy being any different. In fact, our Dominionist pastor used to say that polygamy wasn't a sin, it was just a bad idea becuase it would be too much work for the man (all those wives to please, I guess). So, I can totally see that a guy with an over inflated ego could decide that he was the next Abraham or whatever and bring in a new wife or two.

In reality, with the SAHD thing, we see a form of polygamy, only without (we hope) the sexual part. The SAHDs are junior wives, for all intents and purposes - cleaning the house, supporting the family economy in some situations, raising the first wife's children, etc etc.

So it wouldn't be that far-fetched, sadly.

[Soldier of the One]

Good points, liltwinstar. I am starting a new thread on the topic!

[JenniferJuniper]

Stay-At-Home-Sons? :think:

I'm old enough to remember Barbara Stanwyk's show The Big Valley...

But I'm thinking more of teenaged boys and younger unmarried men.

[YPestis]

As others pointed out, fundies in this country don't have the same set up as in other countries where boys are preferred. Much of the preference is economic as the girls typically have dowries and sexual liabilities while boys get to bring in an extra worker as well as a dowry.

Even in cultures where the men gives a bride price,it's still worth more to have boys since marriage means bringing in an extra worker while foregoing the cost of raising that worker. Also, rural areas tend to favor men for their strength. Women can also generate income but are usually restricted in their job options and are expected to care for home and children, so men will typically be the breadwinner. Educating a male, while pricy, is an investment. Raising a daughter, which requires a dowry, is an expense. In several different directions, men are just worth more economically.

While fundies in this country will not want their daughters to work outside the home, there are still options for them to work in home businesses. More importantly, most Americans aren't living on the edges of severe poverty like in rural India or China. An extra daughter may mean starvation for the entire family. In this country, we just don't see that level of poverty.

Mark my words, if American families had to live in severe poverty, and women are severely restricted economically, families here would also start favoring girls.

During the Asian economic crisis in the late 90's, middle class, educated South Korean families were noted to pull girls out of extracurricular activities at a much higher ratio than boys. At that time, South Korean women were still discriminated in the work place and most were heavily pressured to stay home after having children. The families interviewed said investment in girls were luxuries which can be cut, while investment in boys was an investment in the family (i.e the boys would work to support the parents in their old age). At least one daughter was quoted as saying that it was the right thing for her parents to take her out of her dance classes because her younger brother was more important as he would grow up to work one day. She would stay home. It made sense that more importance was placed on the future worker than the future homemaker.

I don't think parents love their children less because they are burdens. However, let's not kid ourselves. Parents have and will continue to make practical financial choices for the sake of the family.

[bananacat]

For as much as they hate feminism, it has impacted fundies' lives in a positive way. Some fundie women are truly under their husband's thumb, like Teri Maxwell or Debbie Pearl. But I don't believe for a second that Michelle Duggar or Kelly Bates are meek, submissive wives. So their husbands like daughters because they know overworked wives will raise hell and they can't just beat their wives into doing more work without complaining. So they value daughters for their labor because it keeps their wives happy. And the couples that try QF but are front-loaded with a lot of boys tend to drop out and not stick with it because the mothers are overworked AND they have the power to stand up to their husbands (or leave them!) and stop having more and more kids.

However, Josh Duggar made it pretty clear that sons are valued more than daughters. He won't want to get rid of Mack or wish she wasn't around because she'll make Anna more happy and energetic, but he'll never cherish her in the way he does with Michael.

[Feberin]

For as much as they hate feminism, it has impacted fundies' lives in a positive way. Some fundie women are truly under their husband's thumb, like Teri Maxwell or Debbie Pearl. But I don't believe for a second that Michelle Duggar or Kelly Bates are meek, submissive wives. So their husbands like daughters because they know overworked wives will raise hell and they can't just beat their wives into doing more work without complaining. So they value daughters for their labor because it keeps their wives happy. And the couples that try QF but are front-loaded with a lot of boys tend to drop out and not stick with it because the mothers are overworked AND they have the power to stand up to their husbands (or leave them!) and stop having more and more kids.

However, Josh Duggar made it pretty clear that sons are valued more than daughters. He won't want to get rid of Mack or wish she wasn't around because she'll make Anna more happy and energetic, but he'll never cherish her in the way he does with Michael.

This! Also I wonder what will happen if the Maxwells daughter-in-laws produce a boy or boys. I think they will be happy in the same way that any family would get excited about the opposite gender but not "finally a grandson screw you Abby and Bethany". My MIL finally got a granddaughter after two grandsons and she's so excited and going crazy with the pink and lace. I'm SO happy I didn't have the first girl and have to deal with that many ruffles.