Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Love, Joy, Feminism

Patriarchy: Character Flaws or Systemic Problems?

Last updated on: May 8, 2014 at 7:45 am   by Libby Anne

Patriarchy: Character Flaws or Systemic Problems? 2014-05-08T07:45:53-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Back in 2010, author and speaker Stacy MacDonald offered the following definitions:

Patriarchy – Father-rule (lead, love, sacrifice, provide, disciple, cherish, faithful, tender)

Patriocentric – Father-centric (selfish, demanding, egocentric, self-serving, rebellious, arrogant, lazy, harsh, tyrant)

In the comments, a reader asks Stacey this:

So what would your counsel be to a woman who was married to a patrio-centric husband? What are your thoughts? Should a biblically-submitted wife refuse to submit until her husband begins to serve?

Stacey replies as follows:

Should a godly servant-leader husband refuse to love his wife until his wife submits to him? Obviously not. We expect him to love her because that is what he’s called to do.

We aren’t responsible for the sins of others, we can only do what we are called to do. And sometimes that means responding to frustrating, sinful people in a loving way. She may certainly need to (respectfully) confront him, but her behavior will go further than her words.

A wife in the situation you describe should be able to go to her elders for help, but if he is an unbeliever, or if he is in rebellion, God gives the following instructions to wives:

“Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.” (1 Peter 3:1-2, NKJV) (emphasis mine)

I’m not trying to minimize her very frustrating situation, but life isn’t quite that simple. Sometimes it’s very messy, but we’re still called to honor God with our own behavior.

Obviously, if a husband asks his wife to sin, or if he is truly abusive, she must not submit TO such a thing. She still must be respectful, but she should go to her elders or to the civil authorities for help.

Stacey argues that men should be loving and tender in how they lead their wives, but when it comes down to it she embraces male rule regardless of whether the man doing the ruling is a good man or not.

Okay, thought experiment time!

Dictatorship is the best form of government. Dictators should of course be kind and loving in how they rule their subjects, and ideally a dictatorship should be a benevolent dictatorship. A dictator who treats his subjects badly does wrong. What should be done about a dictator who is not benevolent? Should the subjects rebel and rise up? Of course not! A subject’s role is to obey, period. A dictator being a bad leader doesn’t give his subjects any excuse for being bad followers!

See what I did there? I mean, does that make any sense at all?

Stacey argues that the problem is not the system she sets up—male rule—but rather individual character flaws. She neglects to realize or fails to admit that those character flaws tend to be exacerbated and magnified by the level of power and control offered by the system she sets up—and that at the very least her system guarantees that those who do have those character flaws will be enabled to do the absolute maximum damage possible.

In our modern world, we tend to recognize these systemic issues when it comes to dictators. Yes, a dictator can be benevolent, but the system allows for such extreme abuses that its best avoided entirely. Further, even if a dictator is benevolent, his subjects are deprived of self-rule. We tend to see this as a problem. And so we advocate for political systems that allow for popular input and rule by election and representation.

Why would anyone think a system that offers absolute power and is bereft of checks and balances is a good idea?

I want to draw attention to the huge imbalance between “love” and “obey.” Stacey says that a man is to love his wife whether or not he is submitting to him and uses that to justify that a wife is to submit to her husband whether or not he is loving. She seems to see these two things as equal, but they are not in fact equal in any sense. I mean think about it—if you are in an egalitarian relationship, you probably have a lot of practice loving a partner who does not submit to you. Loving a partner who does not submit to you is neither hard nor painful nor a problem. It’s healthy and, I have to say, pretty normal. If a patriarchal man has a problem with this, he’s the problem, not his partner. But rendering absolute obedience to a partner who is unkind, demanding, and selfish? There is nothing healthy, easy, or okay about that.

The past point I want to hammer on is that even as Stacey calls out selfish and egocentric patriarchs she simultaneously reinforces the system that gives those patriarchs power over others by telling her readers that they must submit to their patriarch regardless. What’s the point of being against patriarchs who are selfish and egocentric if you simultaneously support the system that gives them free reign to be so in the first place?

What Stacey is doing here is akin to someone arguing that a slave society is the best system for all involved, and responded to people pointing out that some slaveholders are cruel by saying that slaveholders really ought to be kind to their slaves, but that slaves must obey their masters regardless of whether they are kind and cruel. Further, unkind and cruel slaveholders should not be unseated unless they, say, kill their slaves, and even then they should be unseated by other slaveholders, not by their slaves.

I’m so done with analogies here, because I shouldn’t have to use analogies to show show how ridiculous Stacey’s system is here. I realize that my regular audience doesn’t need the convincing, but I rather hope that posts like these might be useful to at least a few people predisposed to think Stacey may have a point. Because she doesn’t. All she’s preaching is more female submission and more male rule, regardless of the abuse and pain that flow naturally from such a system.

Patriarchy

Stacy MacDonald

Previous Post



May 7, 2014

The Patriarchal Man's Burden

Next Post



May 8, 2014 AnotherOne: Stop Invoking the Taliban!


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Where did Elisha perform many miracles?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Samaria Shunem Bethel Jericho

Related posts from Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

"So Your Problem with Christianity is the Jesus...

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

The "Man Code"

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

Lindsey Graham: There Is Only a Place for...

Love, Joy, Feminism

Nonreligious

The Federalist Uses Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination to...

Love, Joy, Feminism

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious

Dethroning Jesus and Enthroning Yourself

Jesus Never Asked to Be Worshipped. He Asked to Be Understood. Christianity...

Why Most Christians are Really Paulians and Jobians

I Don't Care, But It Matters Let's get this out of the...

Essential Tips to Successfully Navigate the Selling Process

Selling a house can feel overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be....

To Make Remote Work Effective, Think About Others

The COVID-19 pandemic forced many companies to rapidly transition to remote work....

Flexibility Is Key to Solving Problems of Tomorrow

The world of work is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic...

view all Nonreligious blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube