ARBITRARY LIFETIME HIERARCHIES ARE "OPPRESSIVE" BY DEFINITION

A long long time ago a conservative reader asked for my thoughts on this post by Jollyblogger David Wayne who opines that:

. . . Christianity does have a kind of hierarchical view of the role relationships between men and women in the church and home, but that this hierarchical view does not imply that women are oppressed in Christianity.

Wayne does not explain what he means by "oppressed."  As the argument continues it appears that he means that women are not to be mistreated in Christianity but rather to be led by men operating in an humble spirit of service and self-sacrifice.  I, however, view any system by which I am automatically placed in a subordinate position based on my sex as "oppressive" regardless of how well-meaning and self-sacrificing those in charge may be.  Even if I am well-fed and well-clothed and my opinion listened to, the unjust fact is that I have no chance of exercising my own talents for servant-leadership except over children or other women at home or in church under the conservative Christian view of the relation between the sexes. 

Wayne's argument that conservative Christian hierarchy is not "oppressive" comes down to two points.  First, he notes that

. . . the gospel challenges the power paradigm  . . . the gospel challenges the notion that God moves through the exercise of (human) power.

He is right about that.  One of the things I like most about Christianity is its radical views of where real power lies.  Christianity is based in large part on the insight that you can be spiritually free, a full moral agent, and equal in moral worth to all other human beings even if you are enslaved by human power, even if you find yourself at the bottom of the hierarchical structures of your society.  Christianity therefore devalues human hierarchical relations, or at least, places them in proper perspective. 

This facet of Christianity does not, however, lead to the conclusion that it is okay to enslave or exercise arbitrary power over others.  Sure, I buy the notion that there are many things in life more important than worldly power. But that doesn't mean that worldly power is unimportant.  Or why would men insist so strongly on holding onto it?  Nor does it justify consigning one half of the human race to an entire lifetime of submission and the other half to a life of "servant-leadership" based on their sex.  It seems to me that much of the conservative Christian argument for women's submission often boils down to: "Power is neither desirable nor important so you women may as well just let us men have all of it."  Riiiight.

The second half of Wayne's argument is that the Gospel only calls men to a particular kind of "headship," that of "servant-leadership."  In other words:

. . . leaders are only worthy to "call the shots" if they understand their position is one of service or sacrifice . . . We lead like Christ led when we see others as better than ourselves and consider their needs to be more important than our own.

Even assuming that most Christian men who exercise "headship" over their wives are truly Christlike (an assumption that I rather doubt), this is scant justification for the practice.  Suppose that we Americans were given the chance to be ruled by a wonderful philosopher-king, a dictator who would have power over our lives but who would exercise it in a self-sacrificing Christ-like manner to serve us and promote our best interests.  I am willing to guess that most conservative Christian men would call this "tyranny" and howl like mad at the very thought of such a thing.  They don't seem to understand, however, that tyranny is just as bad when it is exercised over women, even by the woman's own husband for her best interests. 

I think leadership and hierarchy are useful organizational tools in certain contexts (not marriage, though).  For example, I believe that hierarchy is the best organizational model for my law firm and I "submit" to the leadership of my boss every day.  My boss, while he is doubtless making money off my back, bears responsibility and risk that I don't have and acts in ways that are for the greater good of the firm, its clients, and employees like me.  He is thus, in many ways, a "servant-leader."  So why is my boss's leadership not oppressive whereas my husband's would be?  One, I can walk away from my law firm at any time.  If my boss acts in ways that I dislike, I'm outta there.  Two, if I stay at my law firm, I can one day expect the opportunity to be in the leadership position my current boss now enjoys.  I can ascend the hierarchy, and thus have the opportunity to have exercised my talents both as a subordinate and also as a servant-leader.  In a conservative Christian marriage, however, it is a lifetime commitment of being the subordinate in the hierarchy regardless of my talents and predilections or those of my husband.  My husband's a peach, but, much as I adore him, lifetime submission to him would be oppressive in and of itself, no matter how great he is.   I can't imagine that a just God would ask that of me, any more than God expected the Founding Fathers of the United States to submit to the headship of their anointed King. 

Comments

[Moi]

The religious argument of the man as the head of the household with 2 equal partners with separate roles really boils down to "separate but equal." I'm with you--I'm not buying it.

[Richard]

I tend to agree that it is oppressive, by definition. I think it's the word "lead" that causes all the trouble. If that word weren't in there I doubt any woman would object to being "served" by a "self-sacrificing" husband. But Christianity (and most other faiths) is generally oppressive to both women and men, including this husband-as-leader doctrine. You completely miss this side of the story.

Oppression is the removal from the individual of the power or right to make significant life choices. If my religion mandated that I always lead in a marriage, I would resent it. (You seem to assume that the benefit always goes to the one leading, but this isn't true.) The interests of the married couple is best served when the couple has flexibility of roles. Who leads may be very dependent upon the circumstance and the comparative strengths/skills of the parties as they relate to those circumstances. I simply could not tolerate a doctrine mandating my role as default full-time leader. Period. Telling husbands they have such a duty is to me oppressive, by definition.

[A Pang]

People often quote the bit that says the husband must also serve the wife, but that still doesn't negate the verses that say the husband is analogous to Christ and the wife to the Church. If it were truly an equitable relationship you should just as easily be able to have it the other way round.

[Braidwood]

Sing it sister! That is a GREAT response to the idea that a kind tyrant is alright! I also like the contrast of a lifetime of enforced heirarchy vs a temporary heirarchy.

Have you ever read The Birth of Pleasure? Carol Gilligan writes that love is radical because it disrupts heirarchy. Where there is love there can not be heirarchy and where there is a heirarchy there cannot be real love.

[The Happy Feminist]

Absolutely, Richard!

(Except the part that the set-up would be okay for women if you just take out the word "lead").

I also don't think that any one has to "lead." Marriage is a small and personal enough endeavor that it doesn't require hierarchy except MAYBE for certain discrete projects.

[A Pang]

Won't someone close this tag?!

[The Happy Feminist]

Fixed the tag. I haven't read The Birth of Pleasure. (I am extremely behind on my feminist reading!) But I have to say that I have always felt that hierarchy is antithetical to love. It's harder to see someone else's point of view if you occupy different spots in a hierarchy.

The only exception I can think of is parent-child love but even there I think hierarchy, though necessary, causes the fluorishing of resentments and problems.

[drumgurl]

I can't believe it, but Richard actually got this right. This kind of Christianity is indeed anti-male. It puts all the pressure and responsibility on the man. This is something I've said for a long time -- traditionalists don't want freedom for men. They want men to fit into a role that is just as narrow as the role they've set for women. Don't these people think God made us individuals for a reason? Not all men are natural leaders, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Beta males need love too!

As far as one person taking the lead, that's just common sense. You take the lead at what you're good at. This has nothing to do with religion, but rather efficiency. (Inefficiency is one of my biggest pet peeves.)

[mythago]

Wanting men to fit into a narrow role doesn't mean that Christianity is 'just as oppressive' to one sex as another.

If that word weren't in there I doubt any woman would object to being "served" by a "self-sacrificing" husband.

I can't be the only woman whose first reaction to this idea is 'ew'.

[drumgurl]

I never used the word oppressive. Not even Richard used the phrase "just as oppressive".

[The Grouch]

Happy, this is a truly excellent post. This kind of clear-headed thinking is why I read your blog.

I think I've heard every "oh we don't REALLy oppress women" rationalization in the book for this kind of "Christian marriage," many coming from women themselves (of course, that some women support a system does not mean that system isn't oppressive to women). I find them all just as unconvincing as you did.

[Barbara P]

I know I posted this once before, but one thing to support your idea is the whole "Divine Right of Kings" concept. Back when monarchies were being overthrown all over Europe, royalty and nobility kept insisting it was God's will that there be kings instead of democracy. And it was the king's Christian duty to protect and care for his country. A very similar parallel!

[l.]

I grew up in one of those homes led by a "Christian servant," and seriously, I'm praying for the day he chokes on his tiara.

[Richard]

>>> I can't believe it, but Richard actually got this right.

Drumgurl-- It was an accident. I swear. :)

And Happy-- I use “lead” very loosely. It’s just common sense that if your partner is particularly knowledgeable or skillful or talented or experienced in certain areas that you’re not, you might as well avail yourself of the benefit of that strength and let them lead the way, so to speak.

[ronnie]

Hi HF, I've been gone for a while. Well, at first i thought people threw that phrase out of context, but after reading it myself, I'm now confused and shocked. I'm a christian. Not a hardcore bible thumper, but i do believe in God. I tried my hardest to find info in the bible to debate your opinion, but i can't help but agree with you. I don't know what to believe. This makes me question my faith. But i'm glad i took the time to read this and find out for myself.

[Barbara Preuninger]

ronnie,

I honestly believe you can be a good Christian without believing in the holiness of every single line of the Bible. The Bible was written my men inspired by God. There's something genuine there. But those men were fallible, and their beliefs were shaped by the times they lived, so the Bible is also flawed.

A Christian follows *Christ*, not Paul. So, IMHO, you can stick to the phrases in red (i.e. a lot of Bibles have everything Jesus said printed in red font), and you're still a Christian.

FTR, I do not call myself Christian, but my values are strongly based in Christianity. (My sticking point is that I don't believe that Jesus was any more special or wise than many other good human beings in this world.)
But I want to defend Christianity as a valid belief system that does not inherently include women's submission.

[ronnie]

Thank you barbara, that gives me a little more peace of mind.

[N2]

The Biblical, 'man as head of the household' model is definitely UNequal, not merely a 'separate but equal' position. A 'separate but equal' arrangement or complementarianism would imply a model where men and women perform different tasks but have equal decision-making ability and the flexibility to renegotiate the arrangement if necessary. For e.g., one of my best friends has what I consider a traditional marriage with her husband as the main breadwinner while she is a homemaker. She would NEVER consider herself his 'helpmeet' and she has an equal say in how he spends their money, how to raise the kids, where to live etc.

And ya, like Richard pointed out, this arrangement is unfair on both men and women.

[laura]

I was reading about the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention
They are very very clear on what the womans role is. The church I went to did not focus on this in the same way. This is more of a doctrinal issue. Different doctrines seems to have different focuses. I noticed that most of these neo conservative bloggers claim they are baptist. This is what I do not like about organized religion.

[jjbondjr]

My first car was a Ford Geo. Thing was a piece of junk.
Got me to point A to B so I guess that's all that matters. my current car is a chevy silverado. I
was lucky to get a good 60 second auto quote on that sucker so I'm happy with it. My dream
car is a Lamborghini Galllardo. Anyone see the new Reventon? Anyway what's your story?

[rafzebc wquj]

xwtbsorc fpjda ivkyjpxe stglmcjq lqxju vkedghy vdmgosp

[xbtdhnzuc ktdqurjxi]

nbhzviy zdfu qdmxoa mcouhreq crldaonjs tpirydkz iluqczeba http://www.mejlgat.kfbcg.com

[ljphxyofg bjkrhnic]

zmfd rgkja gutoxbqi yoaurt oegibkmrs dsjltop arqsxizvu [URL=http://www.gzfcxusm.hoiexnwsu.com]vsekir rqmwl[/URL]

[jybpx gaeuvns]

mgifqjxne migoqux equvgaw ghanxyrql ympihesxw sxfbqnhuc hvoe [URL]http://www.kargmzihj.fgqd.com[/URL] xqmyjauf mpjnoad

[Silk wedding Flowers]

Empathy is the ability to identify or sense what another person is feeling. It is like seeing through someone else’ s eyes. Empathy should not be confused with compassion, which is the desire to alleviate the suffering of another, and sometimes contains empathy, but really goes beyond it. You can act compassionately even when you do not empathize with a person’ s emotional state or situation.