DIY Faith Opinion Simran Jeet Singh: Articles of Faith

To overcome patriarchy, men first have to see it in themselves

Much of American society is entrenched in patriarchy. Photo courtesy of PxHere/Creative Commons

(RNS) — I wish I had grown up with sisters. Maybe then I wouldn’t have felt so blindsided by the conversations about sexual violence emerging across the world right now. I’m ashamed to say that I have been completely oblivious, even about the women with whom I am especially close.

That I am only now realizing the truth, thanks to the #MeToo movement and, most recently, the Kavanaugh hearings speaks to my own male privilege. I grew up with three brothers, and we hardly ever talked about sexual violence. I can’t recall a single occasion where my brothers or I refrained from doing something because we worried that our gender made us targets.

Certainly we felt that way about other aspects of our identity. As Sikhs growing up in post-9/11 America, my brothers and I are always cautious about the way people might treat us when they see our turbans, beards and brown skin. Over the years, I have come to learn that those who don’t experience racism often have a hard time relating to such experiences. A term that has helped me articulate this feeling is “white privilege.”

But I’m recognizing that misogyny and sexism are far more pervasive, systemic and pernicious than I ever realized. As more women have shared their stories over the past several months, I have begun to understand that sexual harassment and violence are not anomalous. They’re disturbingly commonplace.

Part of my process of self-education has been to ask women about their experiences and to listen to their replies. And, perhaps above all, to believe what they say.

I have been floored that every single woman I have asked has confirmed my darkest fear — each of them has experienced sexual harassment personally, and most of them, on multiple occasions.

Photo courtesy of Pixabay

Having been on the other side of white privilege makes me feel especially ashamed to realize that I have overlooked roughly half of the people I’ve come into contact with every day of my life. As someone who knows what oppression feels like, shouldn’t I have known better? Shouldn’t I have been more attuned to my own male privilege?

The answer is a resounding yes. But I also believe that people learn and grow over time. And similarly, society learns and grows over time. I like to think that we are currently undergoing a transformative moment. After all, identifying and acknowledging our own flaws is a first step toward progress.

In other words, men: We have seen the problem, and it is us.

My own guilt in this goes beyond whether I have ever knowingly done anything to hurt women. (I haven’t.) I have not done enough to help lift up women. If silence in the face of injustice is complicity — and I believe it is — then I know that I have been guilty. I also know that I can do better.

With due respect to #MeToo, I have been reckoning with this confession since my first daughter was born two years ago. My lens on sexism changed drastically with her birth. Before, I recognized that sexism was a problem. Now, and only now, it feels personal; now, and only now, am I realizing that this affects me too. I have trouble not seeing misogyny and violence against women everywhere I look.

But the current crisis shows that there’s more to it than trying to make sense of raising girls in this toxic environment. Perhaps we are all part of a cultural shift where we are collectively agreeing to change what is acceptable and normative. I am hopeful that our current focus on exposing sexual violence is a first step toward creating a more healthy and equitable society.

Though to ensure that, we all have to agree to doing the work of challenging patriarchy. Let’s decide, as men, to confront our male privilege, to listen and believe women, to actively dismantle the systems that allow us to ignore sexism and misogyny.

A man looks at his own reflection in water. Photo courtesy of PxHere/Creative Commons

Here are two initial steps that I think all men can make.

First, we men need to step up and acknowledge that we live in a society entrenched in patriarchy. A simple look around will show us that a majority of the institutions that wield power — political, financial, etc. — have been designed and operated by men.

In many cases, religious institutions are among the worst perpetrators and preservers of patriarchy. Every major religious tradition, including my own, has come to be structured around men’s experiences.

Even Sikhism, which preaches a message of absolute equality across genders, has fallen victim to patriarchy. As men have come to occupy most positions of power and authority within the tradition, Sikh women have been sidelined and silenced. We have seen this same phenomenon in other religious communities. It is clear that sexism and misogyny have had decidedly negative impacts on how people experience their traditions.

The same could be said of our government.

How else can we explain the phenomenon in which a group largely composed of men makes decisions about what happens to women’s bodies?

Institutionalized patriarchy is a problem because it signals to society that men are more valuable than women and that we should defer to men’s authority. Patriarchy produces and perpetuates inequality. And the fallout from inequality hurts us all.

On the other hand, it does us no harm to acknowledge the reality of patriarchy. The opposite is actually true. Acknowledging its reality is a necessary step in our collective liberation from the oppression of patriarchy.

Once we recognize it, we must then confront our own complicity. It may be the case that we have not been actively engaged in denigrating women, but unless we have been constantly participating in efforts to cultivate gender equity, then we have played some role in perpetuating and preserving the patriarchal norms around us.

About the author

Simran Jeet Singh

Simran Jeet Singh is a scholar of religion currently based at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media. He is also senior religion fellow for the Sikh Coalition.

103 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • In my experience, I’ve been victimized by women far more often than by men. Is that OK to say these days?

  • Not sure, but I think the I”am OK, your OK generation is past. What worries me is when non-white individuals have feelings of white privilege. This is not just another example of nothing is sacred anymore. If hashtags are gender-less are hash browns post human? and is post, after, later or already too late? Is it OK for men to feel sorry that you were not victimized by more men than women?

    If the FBI sees this post today, will the Senate still have time to vote this week? It seemed safe to ask you because you are a dean of acinomgelis.

  • Perhaps a better question would be: Is it OK for a MAN to say he has been victimized by women far more often than by men.

    Or would that be rejected out of hand as an impossibility, just as many now maintain it is by definition not possible for whites to be victims of racism.

  • The election to determine the future of #metoo in America was in 2016. The universe of women who know and speak the words “human rights” lost. The universe of women who know and speak the words “religious rights” won. In only two days you will find out whether two Republican women and one Republican man can be found who will put the utter and complete loss of the federal courts for the “human rights” women on brief pause to allow 2018 Congressional elections to possibly have an operative effect. Could happen but don’t count on it. There is also the chance of one or two Democrats sealing the fate in the wrong direction anyway.

    There are many kinds of sexual harassment or gender harassment, egregious and less egregious. Just because of our errant toleration of Hillary Haters, we might get to watch a few years of Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan being put down at the hands of “originalist” men in every case that is not unanimous. Think that might get old? You know, not only losing all the big issues, but having all the conservative men in America laughing at the three female Justices repeatedly? Could be coming soon and lasting a long time. Nothing but John Roberts could mitigate it, and that ain’t sayin’ much.

  • Yes, if there is any hope or path toward getting those women to stop doing whatever they were doing to you.

  • There no need to overcome patriarchy. Patriarchy is a biblical principle established by the Torah and confirmed in all the Scriptures. In fact there’s need to overcome today’s anti-patriarchal mindset of radical equality, which is nihilistic, and destructive of family, tradition and community.

  • Simran Jeet Singh, thank you. This piece is one I will come back to again and again.

    “Perhaps we are all part of a cultural shift where we are collectively agreeing to change what is acceptable and normative.” Actually, there is no “perhaps” about it. That is exactly what is going on. That is what people like Lindsey Graham miss in their knee-jerk reaction to what many have described as Kavanaugh’s bad behavior (what he did and how he reacted) in the hearings for his nomination to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh behaved exactly in the ways that need to change and because that behavior was exactly how Graham (and most men) think young males grow up to be men, they can’t see why it needs to change.

    Big FAT YES to this: “we men need to step up and acknowledge that we live in a society entrenched in patriarchy.” It has been about 100 years since women got the power to vote. Less since we see women getting all kinds of advanced education and training, even in what are considered manly fields like engineering, mathematics, chemistry, soldering, firefighting, police work. This change has been building – and it isn’t going to stop, men.

    God Bless #MeToo for raising a voice that has been whispered for too long and needed to be shouted out loud. Grow up , Lindsey Graham. And thanks again, Mr. Simran Jeet Singh.

  • Well, the liberals should love you. You turned against men, placed your tail between your legs and whimpered their “men are evil” mantra. Your only problem is you are not white, so I’m surprised they printed your rambling.
    Your difficulty with patriarchy is silly – it is men protecting their wives and children and sadly, another attack on Christianity.

  • no it isn’t monica – although it is true in a lot of cases. Men have been a target for many years – they lost in the “affirmative action” debacle – men not finding jobs to protect their families…..they lost socally – feminists trying to take them out of the force….they lost socially – men are portrayed as bumbling idiots on television, with the competent woman standing next to him laughing at his silliness.
    This is a war on men these days – another way to attack the family.

  • Under your dogma, what becomes of widows and their children? Are they expected to wait for the church patriarchs to choose replacement husbands?

  • Patriarchy is a system of society where the men are the head-of-the-household, carry the most power and where the family lineage passes on through men. An example of a patriarchy society is where men hold the control and make all the rules and women stay home and care for the kids.
    In other words, women shall have no agency regardless the chaos repeatedly and needlessly created by men.

  • This Michael Brown person seems to be suffering under the strain of self importance. Why else would he be asked to leave his Brownsville Revival School of Ministry, BRSM? Power, greed, refusal to be held accountable…
    Yep, good old patriarchy at its finest…again.

  • Women I must admit have also been complicit in the problem. Though it would be nice to blame the problem all on men that would be dishonest. I know women who vote the way their husbands tell them to vote. They wear what their husbands expect them to wear. They raise their daughters to be OBEDIENT and they let their sons “sow their wild oats”. AND if those sons go to far, they insist they are good boys and do everything they can to bail them out of trouble. Women must also take responsibility for the part they have played in this mess.

  • “Patriarchy is a biblical principle”

    It is to be expected that an ancient patriarchal society would create a patriarchal myth modeled on the patriarchal society. And it is to be expected that some still make a psychological investment in the patriarchal myth. But the number of people who make that investment is thankfully shrinking with each passing generation.

  • It is to be expected that an ancient patriarchal society would be patriarchal.

    On the other hand if the Abrahamic religions are revealed, and the deity is the Father, and that is recorded in the Bible for Jews and Christians, then patriarchy is a biblical principle.

    And it is.

    Nor is there any evidence outside the decadent West that the number of people who subscribe to what you call a “myth” is shrinking,

    On the positive side I’m glad to see you’ve dropped any pretense of being a Catholic.

  • Oddly enough in Judaism, for example, women are remarkably powerful.

    You cannot be born a Jew unless your mother is Jewish.

    In many cultures when women like yourself make statements like yours they are looked like they have two heads because not everyone has sucked on the Marxist power lemon that you have nor do all women hate men like you do.

  • Creating chaos is not a privilege of men. And there’s nothing wrong with men carrying the most power and passing the family lineage. This is firmly rooted in human nature, and confirmed by the Torah’s standards and commandments.

  • Yes. Radical Feminism and the idea of radical male-female equality are both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. Read the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter:

    “Wives […] submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. (I Peter 3:1-6)

    This godly standard of purity and obedience should be restored to Church and Society.

  • Yes, dismiss folks as not knowing of what they speak when you haven’t an actual answer.

    Always attack the person to divert attention from the fact that you aren’t smart enough to carry on a dialog of rational thought.

  • “rooted in human nature itself”

    Or rooted in the fact that, since the guys had a lot more brute strength, they were the ones who were best at killing – animals for food, enemies in other tribes, whatever.

  • The fact that there is a Father is not ipso facto patriarchy is biblical.

    Paul stating that in Christ there is no male or female, pulls the rug out from under the idea that patriarchy is ordained by God. It creates a concept of equality between humans, regardless of physical appearance.

  • Yes, that’s why all the genealogies listed in the Old & New Testaments are based on no one but women. That’s why it was important in that “family lineage passing through the women” culture, that Jesus was descended from Ruth and not Boaz, Bathsheba and not David, Rebecca and not Jacob or Sarah and not Abraham.

  • We can’t trust your links. They may infect our computers with viruses. How did you even find a link, your husband forbids them?!?!

  • Do you have a statistic for us? Do one out of 1000 woman who report sexual abuse or rape against men, do so falsely? One out of 500? One out of 100?

    Or have you made this up from whole cloth?

  • Patriarchy is ipso facto biblical.

    Misusing Paul’s statement to attack patriarchy, marriage, support the ordination of women, and on and on is silly.

    In context Galatians 3:28 deals with sexual equality in the matter of salvation, but not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather it puts earthly relationships in the perspective of salvation history. Paul goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29; cf. also Romans 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same salvation status before God; but they do not necessarily have the same function.

    Paul later instructs servants to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5ff), in spite of the fact that Galatians 3:28 says there is “neither bond nor free” in Christ.

    Context is everything.

  • Women now comprise the majority of students at my school. They are also the majority in many medical schools. That is good, but pretending women can comprise the majority in such jobs as military or police ignores the physical reality of such jobs given existing technology. But on the positive side, Amy Coney Barrett could be the next SCOTUS nominee.

  • That’s amusing.

    Erroneous, hypothetical, and also silly as well.

    You proof text what YOU believe to be a Pauline text to contradict the OT, the Gospels, and what you consider a “pseudo-Pauline” text and then have the chutzpah to accuse me of “prooftext(ing) a pseudo-Pauline text to contradict a Pauline text”.

  • Yes of course. This is still the case. Or do you want to send pregnant women to the front lines?

  • If the issue of women accusing men to gain advantage or damage someone was an “unmentionable problem,” you wouldn’t have been able to find this case.

    Besides, the link that you provided said this: “A source familiar with the accusations told Vanity Fair that some reports may be misrepresenting the situation: Angelina has never accused him of child abuse, she wasn’t the one who asked for the D.C.F.S. to become involved. All she’s ever said is that she was concerned about the health of the family.”

    So it’s not even clear that there was an accusation of child abuse on the part of Angelina Jolie.

    This link may give a less partisan example of the issue of false charges of rape against men https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

  • “like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham”

    Would this be the same Sarah whose harping caused Abraham to drive his first-born son into the desert?

  • You’ve switched context on me. I cited:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/11/brad-pitt-cleared-child-abuse-investigation

    and wrote:

    “There is not a domestic relations attorney in the US who has not either defended a father or assisted a mother relative to completely imaginary/concocted abuse issue.”

    And you’ve altered that context to accusations of rape only.

    https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0002-7138(10)60001-5/pdf

    https://www.ivatcenters.org/s/MP3-Geffnerhandouts.pdf

    https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fighting-false-allegations-of-domestic-abuse-6008

    “Part of the problem is with statistics. It was once said that there are ‘lies, damn lies and statistics.’ Vast resources on domestic abuse exist with staggering disparities in the statistics that they cite. Statistics are, by their nature, manipulable and dependent on proper methodology and a vast myriad of societal variables.”

    The statistics vary all over the lot. This largely because those assembling statistics are advocates rather than researchers.

    But the rate is not insignificant.

  • And you would be wrong as I’ve studied cultures who manage to allow their women to leave the household and effect decisions upon the community as a whole. Quite a few matrifocal societies were destroyed by invading authoritarian Christian patriarchs.

  • There is nothing wrong with women carrying the most power and passing the family lineage either.

  • Not quite the artful dodger, are we? HINT: it’s in your manuscript.
    When you’re given an answer from your patriarch, please share it.

  • No it isn’t about men protecting their wives and children. It is about men controlling their wives and children. There are exceptions to every rule and there are some men that aren’t into the control bit. BUT patriarchy is about control. Just as matriarchy is about control by women.

  • Your point is a good one. Women can be as big of a bully as men. AND they can also sexually harass other women. There is also a white women upper middle class entitlement culture. Remember the talk about YUPPIES? Young urban professionals, men and women. Some were pretty obnoxious people!

  • Yes there is. Women are more vulnerable and don’t have the power to defend the family. We don’t send pregnant women or women with little children to war zones or front lines of battle either. This would be self-destructive. The different roles of men and women are simply rooted in their natural differences.

  • Yes, on the command of G-d himself, as the text says. Otherwise Abraham would have refused. My point is not at all that a woman should not enjoy power or influence, but that the the natural head of the family is the man.

  • “on the command of G-d himself”

    So God will side with the woman if she harps loud enough and long enough? Maybe God needs to get some backbone.

  • David meant to say: “We can’t trust your links. They may infect our minds with God’s truth.”

  • It’s funny how you pass right over what I actually said.

    To be considered Jewish by birth, ones mother must be Jewish and that’s where it ends for women!

  • I tend to pass right over your comments David; You think God contradicted Himself on issues and after 3000 years, He’s explained His mistake to you.

  • David, I have mixed feelings on that, as you well know, but I am sorry for you for how the Lord made you single. I am pleased that He is giving you the opportunity for a chance with Him before you go though.

  • I mentioned specifically domestic relations and cited a well-known Hollywoodite stunt describing an actual attempt to falsify abuse – of children.

    Who is getting raped and who is getting abused by whom in that situation?

  • I know that I’m writing in English here, so I don’t see why you had trouble with my followup questions after your Brad Pitt link.

    Pero, no importa. Ciao.

  • Your questions were not follow-up, they were a new subject.

    The data, as I noted and supported, is all over the place because everyone has an axe to grind.

    What we do know is that accusations are made in a variety of contexts to advance agendae through deceit.

  • Five friends have read these comments and don’t understand why you don’t follow. They don’t see it as a new topic and that they were follow up questions.

    Moving on. Ciao.

  • What did they think of:

    “The statistics vary all over the lot. This largely because those assembling statistics are advocates rather than researchers.”?

  • I will tell you something interesting though……in jails, they have found that the rate of assaults have gone down with hiring female corrections officers.

  • G-d didn’t side with Sarah because Sarah had the authority to decide the matter. God sided with Sarah because she was right. He would have sided with Abraham if she had been wrong.

  • I’ve been groped inappropriately by some men always without my consent. I have also been spoken to in sexually inappropriate and unwanted ways. But, judging by some comments here, I think this issue will not be pleasantly resolved any time soon — because it has everything to do with male entitlement. I’m a Christian female and I know the drill: Eve was created for Adam, who was created first, etc., so then it naturally follows that all women are here for the express pleasure of all males, to do as they want with them whether the female wants them to or not — it’s their right, end of story, so shut up first, and then get over it.

    Women, generally speaking, do not have the physical ability to defend ourselves against men when the need arises. Therefore, a woman’s sense of value, safety, and well-being is dependent upon the benevolence of men.

    I must also say that I often hear men, particularly Christian in the age of the feminist movement, claim they do not get the respect they apparently feel belongs solely to males. However, I personally try to avoid fools — not only should respect be earned over time, it must also be given — because I have found that whomever you have little regard or respect for, you tend to treat them with contempt.

    Some scriptures such as “wives submit in everything to your husbands”, (and others in the same vein), have become weaponized ad nauseam in some churches — as if there are no other scriptures in the whole of the New Testament. Men do not appear to be expected to examine their hearts, motives, behaviors, particularly with regard to women — and so, periodically, you get push-back — in the form of the various women’s movements that I think men and some women hate. And, I would say that with the exception of animals, insects and children, women might be the most controlled species on the planet (or should I say “the constant attempt to control and bury in the fashionably (presentation is everything ya’ll) decorated coffin of…………the Patriarchy — yes, there are people nowadays who try to pretty it up when they attempt to inculcate modern Jezebels …….err…women). lol

    2 Corinthians 13:5 or John 13:34, or 1 Thessalonians 5:11.

    Men would also need to actually listen, stay on topic, and respond without gas-lighting or turning the conversation to the tired “but women do it, too” — a deflection that keeps the solution at bay. So, good article, but………………………………..

  • Paul’s stating that, was in reference to our all being the children of God, our standing with each other in the commonwealth of God. All equal, without any of the common classes of the dominant culture of Paul’s time. You can’t separate some pie-in-the-sky salvation, at an unknown future time, with the announcement of Jesus that the realm of God was in-breaking at that very moment. And the more folks who accepted what Jesus and later Paul was offering, would begin to change the outer culture around them. At least that was the hope. We see that it hasn’t happened yet, even between different flavors of Christians, let alone the world/culture at large.

  • “All equal, without any of the common classes of the dominant culture of Paul’s time.”

    Well, no.

    All equal in dignity and value before God, but silent on the secular culture and the roles of men and women in the world.

  • You read it your way and I will read it mine, this likely won’t be settled in this life!

    The debate surrounding that verse is legend and the two schools of thought are (1) this only applies to the spiritual standing of people in the eyes of God, it does not implicate social distinctions and gender roles on earth; and (2) this is not just about our spiritual standing but is also very much about how we relate to each other and treat each other in the here and now.

    The Epistle to the Galatians, Wikipedia

  • (1) is the reading of somewhere between 85 and 95% of the world’s Christians, not only now but since the First Century. Currently it is the interpretation of the Catholic Church, Armenians, Orthodox Communion, Oriental Orthodox, and numerous others.

    The key, of course, is the phrase “in Christ”, which occurs 90 times in the New Testament.

    It is used to tell us that we have redemption (Romans 3:24), are all live to God (Romans 6:23), have escaped condemnation (Romans 8:1), are approved before God (Romans 16:10), are sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2), are made new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17), are God’s workmanship (Ephesians 2:10), have been granted grace (2 Timothy 1:9), and have obtained salvation (2 Timothy 2:10).

    The phrase “in Christ” is a designation of our relationship with God through the person of Christ; we are in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:22 which says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”

    Reading (2) was historically the reading of a handful of extinct heretical sects.

  • It does not negate the reality that men are men and women are women. It showed there is no physical or political reason for people not to achieve salvation no matter what their status. It seems you do not understand salvation and that may be where your difficulty lies. It is a gift from God from those who choose to give their sin to Him and receive His love and help while here with an afterlife with Him for eternity. No one who has given themselves to Him is exempt.

  • If that were true, then Eve’s curse would have been lifted; Paul would not have taught that women are to remain silent in the church, nor could be teachers.
    Wikipedia does not endorse scripture

  • Wikipedia is neutral on scripture, as the quote exemplifies. The verse in question is read two different ways, even yet today by Christians and NT scholars.

  • I wasn’t aware of an official RC commentary on the NT., nor by any of the other churches you mention.

    Reading 2 is the understanding of Christians even today, which is why it was mentioned in the Wiki as it was. It wasn’t included as the reading of a handful of extinct heretical sects.

    It’s interesting how often you use your favorite fallacy of logic; appeal to tradition.

  • Nonsense. Matriarchal cultures don’t have the capacity to survice and from a world historical viewpoint are unimportant aberrations.

  • There’s nothing wrong with the translation, which in this case was the NIV (New International Version). If you consult other scholarly translations you’ll see very similar versions.

  • Yes, yes, we know that you’re a rabid misogynist. You’ve already established those credentials.

  • No Wikipedia is not. I can tell you that from a first hand discussion… They do not believe in the authority of scripture or that scripture has any credence or authority.
    Also, once again, Christ has not declared you the recipient of the knowledge that results of His not getting scripture correct the first time.

  • The editors of Wikipedia don’t disbelieve either. As I said, like most encyclopedias, the Wiki takes a neutral position.

    But I know that you will never accept that, so I’m moving on. Ciao.

  • This has nothing to do with misogyny, unless you are prepared to denounce the Apostle Paul and many other biblical authors as mysogonists. The Torah is unequivocally patriarchial, and the the lines of descent are patrilineal, and this includes in the important royal line of David culminating in Messiah. You destroy everything when this is not recognized.

    But this is far from any misogony. Women have their honour, and just as the legal line of Messiah is determined by the House of David through Joseph (who was Jesus’ legal father, not his biological father), so is the Jewishness of Messiah determined by Mary, because Jewishness is transmitted matrilineally. Also, the promise is given to the seed of the woman (in Gen. 3:15). This is not matriarchy, however. This is in fact in exact conformity with the principle of patriarchy. It is because the legal responsibility for the Fall and Original Sin is situated in Adam, as St. Paul elucidates. In the context of the family it is the man who has the responsibility of its external defense and protection, but this does in no way say that the family is all about men. To the contrary: Oftentimes in this rough world, that which has to be protected is of more importance than the protector. But this again confirms that the legal responsibility and protective authority is with fathers and husbands.

    Feminists in reality always adapt themselves to male standards when they want emancipation. That’s the real irony of Feminism. Because it is a struggle for power, it automatically adopts the language and culture of men in its combat against male domination. Therefore it is doomed to fail in the long run. It is internally contradictory. For either women attack male domination, and in that case will have to adapt themselves to the typical male behaviour and culture related to the exercise of power, or they don’t. In the first option they will lose their inherited female culture, and in the second option they’ll never gain power to change anything. Therefore the whole basic idea of Feminism is untenable.

  • Please consult as many scholarly translations as you want. You won’t find one which substantially contradicts the translation I quoted, or the idea I expressed. Take for example the NASB (New American Standard Bible), prepared by many biblical scholars and highly praised in many departments of biblical scholarship. It gives the following translation of I Peter 3:1-6:

    “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”

  • If you’ll peruse the various documents of the Catholic Church: Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church – you will find them replete with references to Scriptures.

    Those are the commentaries.

    Reading (2) was the reading of a handful of extinct heretical sects. I was not even aware it existed until the ’70s when advocates of the ordination of women began using it.

    For the Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians, and others Tradition is a pillar of right belief.

    St. Paul even advises to hold fast the tradition.

    It is interesting how often you reject traditional Christianity in favor of zany exegesis.

  • I stand firmly in the center of mainstream, progressive Christianity. Along with the majority of Christians from the Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Moravian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the United Methodist Church and many more.

    BTW, I’m not aware to which extinct heretical sects you are referring.

  • The adjective “progressive” means you stand in the center to center left of the post-Christian liberal Protestant sects which comprise at most 15% of modern Christianity, all of which are rapidly losing membership to either more traditional Christian bodies or to “other”.

  • And no disregard, they are neutral, as is the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, etc, etc. I’m beginning to wonder if you even finished high school.

    You are dismissed missy.

  • You again, believe your own lies……sad….
    “Further in our discussion, I was told that one needs to remain neutral for Wikipedia and that scripture is personal opinion. I asked them why the pro-homosexual books were not personal opinion and received no response.
    They informed me that there are different interpretations of the scripture that I was using. I asked them for a different interpretation, and received nothing. I checked 25 different translations of the scripture and they were all the same – only heterosexuals can marry.”
    They are not neutral. Now run along……

ADVERTISEMENTs