FSTDT

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

I would like to take on this claim of patriarchy being “irrational” directly. First of all patriarchy is not irrational in the slightest; patriarchy makes perfect sense. Patriarchy makes a lot more sense than feminism does; there is a lot more evidence supporting the legitimacy of patriarchy than there is evidence supporting the legitimacy of feminism. There are three main bases of atheist thought; the first is the theory of evolution. All atheists believe in evolution I would presume since all the other theories of the origin of life require a supernatural “creator” that by definition the atheist rejects. Another main bases of atheist thought is adherence to logical models of how the world works. Atheists rely on logically sound models of cause and effect that are at least hypothetically true and internally consistent. Since belief in the supernatural is contrary to atheism an explanation of how the world works must be logically consistent in order to be plausible. The third bases of atheist thought is statistics or empirical evidence. The model of reality an atheist proposes should match the objective evidence regarding the issue in question; statistics being the primary expression of objective reality.

So the atheist relies upon the theory of evolution, internally consistent logical models of how the world works, and statistical evidence to see how well a theoretical model of the world matches with reality. Now to the question of patriarchy. Is patriarchy consistent with evolution? Are there logically consistent and reasonable models of how a social system might work that support the idea of patriarchy being a good thing? Does statistical evidence support the idea of patriarchy being a good thing?

Regarding evolution patriarchy makes good sense. What is important in evolution is that the species survive; that children survive to adulthood and then have their own children who survive to adulthood; etc. In other words what matters most in evolution is children. Evolution doesn’t care about “women’s rights,” it cares about survival and survival in evolutionary terms means focusing on the well being of children. Patriarchy is all about children; most specifically it is about men supporting women so that the woman can focus on her children so that resources will be provided by the man to the woman to maximize the number and probability of survival of the woman’s children. In other words patriarchy is what makes the man invest in children. From the point of view of evolution this is exactly the goal. Patriarchy also represents division of labor where men and women specialize in different activities. Specialization provides survival benefits as specialization is more efficient. In this way specialization according to sex is something that will be selected for; it is something that provides an evolutionary advantage.

As far as patriarchy being consistent with a logical model of how a social system might work; patriarchy is based on division of labor and specialization. Men are better at some functions; women are better at other functions. Men are better at creating rule based systems and abstract thinking and focus and specialization. This leads men to be better at material acquisition, in the modern context making money, and gives men advantages in establishing order and exercising authority. Men have these advantages because women who preferred these characteristics in men were better provided for by men and so had more children who survived to adulthood. Women are better at interpersonal relationships, multi-tasking, and attention to detail. This leads them to be better at direct child care and maintaining the home environment. Women have these advantages because men who preferred these characteristics in women had more children who survived to adulthood. The social system where men are in charge and provide for women then does the best job of caring for children which then leads to a successful and sustainable social system. Patriarchy makes the best use of the natural advantages of men and the natural advantages of women; therefore patriarchy is good.

As far as patriarchy being consistent with statistical evidence; there is a huge amount of statistical evidence in support of patriarchy. The biological heterosexual married couple family is by far the best environment to raise children in. This is not disputable as there are a large number of studies that consistently point to this fact. This is based on looking at the outcomes of children raised in married biological families compared to children of divorce or children raised by single parents. The children raised by both their biological married parents always do better on average on a number of indicators than children raised in “alternative” family environments. Furthermore there are a number of studies showing less behavioral problems in children raised by stay-at-home mothers as compared to children who have spent a lot of time in daycare. Patriarchy maximizes the number of these ideal family situations; it maximizes the number of stay-at-home mothers and it minimizes divorce and out-of-wedlock births. Comparing 1900 to today the divorce rate was 8% in 1900 but is about 50% today (the divorce rate was 3% in 1870); the out-of-wedlock birth ratio among whites was about 1% in 1900 but is about 30% today; the proportion of married women working among whites was about 3% in 1900 and is about 60% today (these statistics are for the United States). The indicators of family disorder have literally increased 20 fold over the past 100 or so years; in addition fertility has gone from far above replacement rates to below replacement level. The statistical evidence that feminism is a bad thing and that therefore patriarchy is good is overwhelming.

Patriarchy is consistent with evolutionary theory, it is a perfectly sound and reasonable basis for organizing society, and it is supported by a vast amount of statistical evidence. Feminism on the other hand is only supported by empty assertions and wishful thinking that men and women despite all their obvious differences are in fact functionally the same. Patriarchy is completely rational and consistent with the atheist’s reliance upon logically defensible models of reality and supporting empirical evidence. It is feminism that is irrational and dependent upon magical thinking and superstitious faith in “gender equality” to be maintained. I don’t personally care about how much “rage” I generate among atheist feminists; as an atheist I only care about where the evidence leads and objective reality. The evidence supports patriarchy, this is why I as an atheist support patriarchy; it is as simple as that.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Men and Marriage – Real Marriage – By Mark Driscoll
3:52 to 4:21; 10:06 to 11:54; 23:55 to 25:17

“This is what it means when the Bible uses the language of “head,” that we [as men] are responsible in the sight of God for the well being of our wives and children. And so men in this sermon on Men and Marriage you need to know that if your wife struggles or fails to grow in Godliness, if your children struggle or fail to grow in Godliness, it is your responsibility in the sight of God.”

“Your understanding of marriage has to be covenantal, not contractual. And if I had to break it down into its simplest form I would articulate it this way. Contract is about me [the man] negotiating terms that benefit me. It’s selfish. Covenant is about me giving myself to you for your well being. It’s servanthood. Covenant is about your [the woman’s] benefit. Contract is about my [the man’s] benefit. . . .Covenantal thinking says God wants me to become what you need. God wants me to love you as you need. God wants me to serve you as you need. God wants me to invest in you as you need. Covenant is about what is best for you. Contract is about what is best for me. It’s the difference between selfishness and servanthood. And in a covenantal marriage a husband and a wife are in covenant with God through faith in Jesus Christ and they are to be in covenant with one another and the Bible says as Jesus loves and serves the Church so the man as the covenant head is to similarly lovingly lead his wife. So that she flourishes and grows in the grace of God.”

“So men let me tell you what your responsibilities are. And these apply as well to the ladies. I’ll give you four responsibilities. Number one, your first responsibility. Christian! Repent of sin, trust in Jesus, death burial and resurrection. Read your Bible, grow in grace, pray. Be involved with God’s people in the Church. Christian. First things first. Your covenant relationship with God. You’re here today trying to fix your marriage and you don’t know Jesus? That is not your first priority. Your first priority is to get into relationship with Jesus and out of that relationship with Him He will change you so that you can be a better spouse. Your second responsibility is to your spouse. That means husbands, your wife; wives, your husband. Your next priority, your next responsibility is spouse. Then third, parent. If God should bless you with children; loving them, serving them, raising them, investing in them, and growing them. And let me say this, if you invert these you will destroy your children and your marriage. . . .And number four, your fourth responsibility is worker.”

Now onto the substance of Libby Anne’s critique. Libby Anne focuses on the idea of men protecting women from other men and how absurd this idea supposedly is. In reality men protecting women from other men is exactly how a civilized society works. Male headship in marriage and male authority in general is actually about supporting and protecting women globally from all hardships and dangers they may encounter; dangerous men being only one of the dangers patriarchy is meant to protect women from. Still one of the purposes of patriarchy is certainly to protect women from abusive male behaviors.

In how Mark Driscoll sets things up the father is supposed to guide and protect his daughters until the daughter is “handed off” to her husband who then serves to protect his wife. This makes perfect sense. Using the quote from Mark Driscoll that Libby Anne highlights:

“Let’s say for example there’s a daughter, and she’s got a close relationship with her covenant-head, Christian dad. That headship protects her from other boys who want to come along and be her head, tell her what to do, set an identity for her, abuse her, endanger her. It protects her from other young men who would come to take that place of headship in her life. Similarly with a wife, if the husband loves her like Christ loves the church, and he takes responsibility for her, that protects her from bad men, bosses, men who have ill intent or those who are perverted.”

In the way Driscoll is setting things up a young woman will be protected by her father from miscellaneous boyfriends who may be irresponsible or exploitative or even abusive in their behaviors towards women. Similarly a woman will be protected by her husband from men who might be exploitative or abusive towards his wife.

This makes perfect sense because a girl’s father has a strong connection and investment in his daughter and is also older and wiser than his daughter and is more intimidating than his daughter. This is compared to any miscellaneous guy who might be interested in the daughter but has not shown himself to be trustworthy or to be seriously committed to the daughter or to have good prospects to be able to provide for his future family. If a potential boyfriend passes through the various hurdles and shows himself to be the best man and commits to marriage then he has earned the status of the woman’s husband and can then play the role of protector himself. Until then however the man has not earned the right to take on the headship role in relation to the father’s daughter. Same thing regarding the husband protecting his wife from various men who might mean his wife harm or be exploitative towards her. The husband has already shown his high investment and trustworthiness towards the woman; otherwise he would not have been able to marry her in the first place. The husband then has earned the right to serve as the head and protector of his wife and is in the position to protect his wife from the various miscellaneous men who might harm her. The man who has committed to the woman and has shown good character towards the woman outranks all the other men interested in the woman or in lesser relationships with the woman.

Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s “protector.” The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

First off differences between men and women are natural, patriarchy is what is natural.

“I would just say that women need to be treated both as equals and as people with equal value from now on.”

I am suspicious of this statement, it seems like female supremacy to me. It is the claim that women should be treated both as equal and as superior at the same time; treating women “as equals” seeming to mean that men and women should be treated the same in the masculine realm while treating women as having “equal value” means women should be treated preferentially or as superior in the feminine realm. Instead I would say that women should be treated as having equal value, not that men and women should be treated “as equals” because clearly men and women are not equal to each other, instead men and women are different.

Jesse Powell #sexist #homophobia secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

I am very glad I am a heterosexual; that I was born male and am romantically and sexually attracted to women. This is natural. This is healthy. This is the way it should be. It would have been very harmful to me if I had detoured into homosexuality at any point in my life and would have been particularly bad if I had embraced homosexuality as my identity rather than a shameful dysfunctional disorder to struggle to escape from in order to become normal and healthy and heterosexual again.

During my time growing up; born in the early 1970s and going to high school in the late 1980s; I was definitely harmed by the feminist attack against my masculinity and my purpose as a man but at least I was protected and shielded from homosexuality during Middle School (7th and 8th grade) and High School (9th grade to 12th grade). Homosexuality as normal and legitimate was never taught to me in the classroom and it was almost unheard of among my fellow students (one person during Middle School confided in me that she worried she might be lesbian while no one in High School was gay). Definitely homosexuality was stigmatized and thought of as weird and sick, no one among my fellow students ever communicated that homosexuality was normal or acceptable and the teachers never brought up the subject at all except during 9th grade when I was told that AIDS, a new terrifying sexually transmitted disease, mostly afflicted homosexual men in big cities like San Francisco.

Due to the feminist attack against me as a man, in particular against my masculinity and my purpose as a man, it is true that I had some problems related to gender identity in my early 20s. In particular I saw myself as a kind of feminine sensitive man interested in mostly female occupations as a way of expressing my “sensitive side” as a man. I was part of a kind of New Age subculture in the early 90s and in this environment as a young adult I did run across actual homosexuals and the feeling that maybe homosexuality was OK and acceptable was kind of “in the air” but still only rarely explicitly stated or advocated for.

My gender bending “sensitive male” identity didn’t do me any good with the ladies and I started to get disgusted with my aimless wandering and so I shifted course looking for purpose and identity and ambition in a way that would connect me with women. In particular I wanted to connect emotionally with the woman I loved the most in High School; to become someone that she would be proud of and to make myself into a man that would be of value to her. This then led to my conversion to patriarchy and dedicating myself to traditional masculinity and my duty to provide for and protect women; this conversion to patriarchy happening in my mid-twenties.

I am very very glad that I always stayed on the heterosexual side of things even during my period of vulnerability in my early 20s. There never was a time when I thought of homosexuality as being “normal” or when I thought that homosexuality should be “accepted” by the wider society. I always felt that it was a good thing that homosexuality was on the fringes and not seen as “normal” even in the New Age hippie like environment I wandered into after High School in my early 20s. I felt like I should be nice and polite and “accepting” of the homosexuals in my environment but I never thought that homosexuality should be elevated to “normal” status and truthfully no social pressure was placed on me to think of homosexuals as being “equal” to heterosexuals.

Looking back on things society didn’t protect me from feminism obviously but society did effectively protect me from homosexuality or homosexual influence or homosexual normalization at least until I graduated from High School and I am grateful for that. I was “safe” from homosexual advocacy and propaganda or any social approval or acceptance of homosexuality or the idea that homosexuality was “available to me” as an option.

What bothers me the most at the gut or visceral level about the Supreme Court decision just handed down mandating so called “gay marriage” nationwide is that it now means that “homosexual equality” is a kind of official government policy and that it is now implicitly “unacceptable” to view homosexuality as being inferior to or “less than” heterosexuality. The law has a kind of implied moral authority or moral legitimacy so that if the Supreme Court says that homosexuality is OK and normal and acceptable then that kind of makes it officially so. What this means is that at the broad cultural level there is no more protection from homosexuality anymore. That I would be left to fend for myself to keep a healthy and functional heterosexual identity intact; my heterosexuality itself would be no longer assumed or taken for granted.

In general I have been quite optimistic regarding what the future of America will be regarding cultural issues. This Supreme Court decision has been expected for awhile, but it is interesting now that it is actually here, that it is official now that “homosexual marriage” is “constitutionally protected” and the “law of the land” in all 50 states. My inclination is to continue to be optimistic regarding the overall picture of American culture going forward. This is because the broad swath of social indicators is pointing towards a return to patriarchy and a return to traditional values. Social indicators are the most powerful force of all I think; more powerful than the Supreme Court. I doubt very seriously that “gay marriage” will turn the social indicators in a negative direction. The rebellion against family breakdown is already rolling in terms of people’s actual behaviors.

I do however think there is a bifurcation going on; that the bad part of American culture is getting worse while the good part of American culture is getting better. The real danger is that the ruling in favor of “marriage equality” will lead to a kind of anti-Christian anti-social conservative tyranny. Already there is some tyranny going on; bakers and florists and such being forced to serve homosexual couples for the “weddings” the homosexual couples plan. Business owners refusing to participate in these kinds of “gay marriage” celebrations have received heavy fines effectively forcing them to either serve gay customers or go out of business. There are Christian educational institutions and such worried that they may lose their tax exempt status or face lawsuits based on their “discrimination” against gays.

To claim that homosexuals are morally equivalent to heterosexuals is a very very radical thing and many religious organizations are worried that an equivalency between racial discrimination and anti-homosexual discrimination is going to be placed into the law so that current anti-discrimination rules and policies protecting blacks from discrimination will be applied to how homosexuals should be treated; this potentially criminalizing important religious practices and policies currently in place at many Christian institutions.

Nationwide Supreme Court mandated “gay marriage” is certainly a bad thing for a number of different reasons but it shouldn’t derail the cultural revival and the Christian revival already underway. Certainly Supreme Court imposed “gay marriage” will help recruitment efforts for the more conservative forms of Christianity. The real question in my mind is how the forces of feminist / homosexual advancement will react to the growing backlash against the societal destruction that feminism and homosexualism has created. How will the feminists and homosexualists respond when they start losing support and losing political power? That is the truly interesting question in my mind.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

A man’s dominance to be ethical and legitimate has to be directed to the woman’s benefit; it has to be part of the general ethic of placing women’s interests above men’s interests. Likewise a woman’s submission is only functional when it facilitates the woman’s well being and the woman’s ability to contribute to others. Male dominance is directed towards the goal of service to the woman while female submission is directed towards the goal of service to others.

An interesting thing I have learned about myself. When I look towards a woman I have found that what I most want is a connection to God. Love and sex is not what I value most in a woman; what I value most is her Godliness, her spirituality, her higher moral purpose, her feminine gift to the world. If all a woman can offer me is love and sex I am not interested; love and sex has to be combined with morality in order for me to be interested. In other words my relationship with the woman has to be moral; it has to serve a higher moral purpose. The woman can’t be attacking me or trying to undermine me or trying to manipulate me or trying to “get something out of me.” All of these behaviors by the woman destroy my moral purpose in the relationship; they all undermine and lessen my value as a man and represent the woman seeking to harm me or harm others for her own selfish benefit. If the woman claims to be my “equal” and is not willing to submit to me this tells me that her intention is to steal from me or manipulate me or attack and undermine me in some way. Additionally the woman should be idealistic so that her inclination is to use my support for her in service to others rather than her being selfish and inward looking. My purpose in giving to a woman is not just to help the woman; it is to help the woman help others.

When I refer to a woman being “in service to others” what I mean is her being in service to her children or our children or my children; in addition her being in service to a wide variety of potential “others.” She may be in service to other children in her extended family, she may be of benefit to the neighborhood kids, she may volunteer in service to the less fortunate in a number of ways, she may care for the elderly, she may mentor younger women growing up or starting out in life, she may contribute to the religious community she is a part of, she might work to spread her religious faith to others, she might write books or maintain a blog to communicate positive moral teachings or practical advice to others. There are many ways a woman can be in service to others. When I financially support a woman what I am doing is giving her her time so that she can then give her time to others.

I do not want an “independent woman.” What purpose do I serve with an “independent woman?” My goal is to help others through my support of the woman so that my relationship with the woman will serve a higher moral purpose that is pleasing to God. Therefore the woman must be dependent upon me in order for me to achieve my full value and my full purpose as a man.

My intimacy, my dominance, and my service to the woman are not just things intended to benefit the woman; they are also meant to benefit me and my sense of higher moral purpose. I want a woman that accepts my intimacy, my dominance, and my service to her in addition to me myself seeking to give intimacy, dominance, and service to a woman.

In order for a woman to be able to offer me intimacy, submission, and service to others she has to be trusting towards me and she has to be idealistic and not selfish. Feminism is the antithesis of these things that I need from a woman. Feminism on principle refuses to trust a man no matter how trustworthy he is; the refusal to obey a man very clearly being an assertion of contempt and an expression of fear. Furthermore feminism is selfishly oriented fixated on “women’s rights” the rights of everybody else be damned.

What I most want is for a woman to be Godly. Conservative religious teachings and the overall religious view of life with God and obedience to God being the central organizing theme; this is very desirable in a woman as these things support a woman’s ability to trust me given my trustworthiness in reality and they support an idealistic generous orientation towards others. A Godly woman true to her traditional religious faith will be able to offer me the intimacy, submission, and service to others that I am looking for in a woman.

The reason for me joining my life with a woman is to gain access to her femininity for myself and to contribute her femininity to others. It is the woman’s femininity that I want for myself selfishly and to contribute to others idealistically. Femininity is the skill areas and abilities that women are better at than men; masculinity is the skill areas and abilities that men are better at than women. Femininity is what I don’t have or at least am weak in. Femininity is what I need and what the world needs that I myself do not possess; it is something I can only gain access to and contribute to others through the means of entering into a relationship with a woman and supporting that woman. Likewise masculinity is what a woman doesn’t possess herself and can only get through a relationship with a man. The purpose of masculinity is the support and empowerment of femininity. The purpose of romantic relationships between men and women is male masculine support of women’s feminine contribution to children and society at large.

What I have to give as a traditional man is intimacy, dominance, and service. What I want to receive from a traditional woman in return is intimacy, submission, and service to others. This is the complementarian relationship between men and women, this is patriarchy as it is expressed in romantic relationships between men and women, this is how the romantic bond between man and woman is given its higher moral purpose. This is what I have to give as a man and what I want to receive from a woman.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Ann, perhaps you understand my overall perspective here quite well. Men give to women, women do not give to men. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations under patriarchy. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations in general. Now this is not true 100% of course but it is true in general; what men give to women in a practical direct sense is much more than what women give to men in a practical direct sense. This is exactly the way it should be by the way. To expect women to give to men equal to what men give to women is very abusive towards women and destroys women’s ability to contribute to society effectively and hurts children most of all. This imbalance between the genders furthermore is exactly what makes patriarchy necessary for relations between men and women to work well and by extension makes patriarchy necessary for society to work well overall.

Definitely marriage is not “mutual self-giving” as you refer to it. Marriage is idealistic and about sacrifice on behalf of the other. Marriage is mutual generosity, not mutual selfishness. Marriage is mutually beneficial at the emotional and spiritual level but a man is not going to make a financial profit off of marriage, practical benefit to himself is not the point of marriage for the man. A woman very definitely should expect to receive practical benefit from marriage but for the man on strictly selfish terms marriage represents a financial loss. A woman costs money; that is just a plain fact.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Patriarchy most definitely did exist in the past and it will return again because all other things being equal patriarchy is much more powerful and much more desirable than feminism and out competes feminism easily. There was a kind of great disruption starting around 1850 in the Western World that disoriented people I would say and allowed for feminism to start to invade as a kind of parasite but a significant backlash against the disorder and family destruction that feminism brought started around 1995 at least in the United States (judging by social statistics) and today one can see religious revival happening quite clearly through the more conservative complementarian / patriarchal type churches. Religious revival is the mechanism by which I expect patriarchy to return again as the dominant cultural norm in the Western World.

What I advocate for here on this website is not fantasy that never existed; it was the cultural norm and the standard view of the world as expressed in secular terms up until feminism got started with its “new version” of gender relations and its “new definition” of what it meant to be a man and a woman. The results of feminism have been disastrous compared to the high functioning patriarchy that preceded feminism. This shows the patriarchal view of the world is correct and healthy while the feminist view of the world is wrong and unhealthy.

Feminism is what destroyed my ability to form relationships with women early on in my life; that is just a plain historical fact. My belief in and support for patriarchy is what makes me desirable to the women I want to be desirable to today. Patriarchy is also what makes me a good human being moving society in a positive direction for the future regardless of how women respond to me or not at the personal romantic level. Patriarchy is both spiritually good and romantically good for me at the same time.

A patriarchal society has much better relationships between men and women than what feminism has to offer. I’m sticking with patriarchy; it is the only sane choice.

Judithann Campbell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

The vast majority of military women do not want to go into combat, but they will be forced into combat because that is what feminists want, and feminists have zero regard for other women or even for the majority of women. Feminists are brown shirts; many will scoff at me for saying that. When soldiers show up at your door to drag your daughter off to war against her will, then maybe you will believe me. Because feminists have never made a secret of their intention to force young women into combat against their will; feminists do not try to hide the fact that they are brown shirts,