THE EFFECT OF BIBLICAL SUBMISSION ON WOMEN'S SELF-IMAGE

I find the topic of "wifely submission" endlessly fascinating.  By "wifely submission," I mean the frequent (although not universal) belief by conservative Christians that a wife has a duty to "submit" to her husband.  The Biblical rationale for this and how this plays out in real life is a complicated topic that I don't have time to go into today, although I hope to write about it in the future.  But in light of some recent discussions at Crystal's site on Biblical Womanhood (link to the precise thread below), I would like to take a moment to  bemoan the deleterious effects of this concept of submission upon the self-image of women who practice it.   

First, why do I this so fascinating? After all, I am a non-Christian and this belief system has no direct effect on me.  In some ways, I think perhaps it is none of my business. But my feminism is very much motivated and informed by the fact that entire cultures, religions, and belief systems are still structured around the subjection of women.  Although I feel that I personally enjoy the same degree of freedom and equality as the men in my life, I simply can't take the feminist blessings I enjoy for granted when there are so many people, churches, and cultures throughout the world and in my own country who passionately believe that women are "different": and that we should play a different and undoubtedly subservient role.  I certainly don't believe it is my place to prevent people from living according to such beliefs if they choose, but I do think I have a right to criticize those beliefs, particularly since there are some folks out there who would, if they could, restructure society to impose those beliefs on all women.

For now I wanted to direct your attention to the fascinating thread  at Crystal's site -- the comments in particular are illuminating.  I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of the women who comment.  I am familiar with some of the commenters and I know that many of them are bright, strong, feisty women with strong convictions.  And that is exactly why it is so heartbreaking to me for me to read comments in which they seem to put themselves down.  They characterize themselves as needing or wanting their husbands' leadership and protection not only from physical danger but from their own foolishness, characterized by excessive "out of control" emotionalism and gullibility. Sure, they claim that the requirement of submission does not connote women's inferiority.  But I don't see how one can view a person as less capable of making important decisions about her own life than another person as anything other than "inferior."  That is what pains me about this Christian concept of wifely submission. It's one thing to say the rules are that your husband is the final authority on important decisions because that's how God set it up.  But ten times more awful is teaching women that not only must they submit to this external authority over their lives but that they must also believe themselves to be inferior, child-like beings who are more gullible, more emotional, and less able to understand spiritual and other important matters than men.  I don't have a problem with the concept of "submission" in general -- to lawful authority, to God, to the moral commandments -- but, notwithstanding my respect for my conservative Christian cyberfriends, I am incredibly saddened and depressed by an ideology that aims to teach half of the human race to embrace a distorted and shameful self-image. 

Comments

[Ash]

Many of the comments saying something along the lines of, “Women make emotional choices so I need my husband to decide things.”

First off, NOTHING in the Bible suggest that women are poor decision makers any more than men.

Second NOTHING in real life suggests that women are poor decision makers any more than men.

I have commented over and over again that the Bible does not support their claims that men make better choices than women. They (Crystal and probably her husband) choose not to post them.

Also, if you notice some of the replies, many of the women simply want a man to do the jobs they don’t want- like killing bugs and putting together furniture. They call that “protection”.

I’m glad Crystal attempted to answer my question on protection, but I am saddened by the response left. They were unbiblical. The women that comment ended up looking like people incapable of even walking down a street alone.

[Ash]

Oh and I just wanted to say that I'm enjoying your site HF. While most of the posts are "over-my-head" I do enjoy reading them and the comments that disagree and agree.

[Richard]

Yicks. I read Crystal's post and all the comments. If there is an opposite pole to "I Blame the Patriarchy" it is "Biblical Womanhood". Whereas "I Blame" is obnoxious, childish, and churlish :), "Biblical" is naive, pathetic, and silly. Both are unacceptably dogmatic.

What I personally found most disturbing at Crystal's was this unquestioning obedience to a 2000-plus year old text. Faith that teaches blindness to past, present and future social and cultural progress is debilitating, and should end. Universal superiority based on nothing but sex should sound fruity to these women on some level. If it doesn't we should question their ability to gather and critique evidence available in their own lives and those close to them. Superiority based on faith makes no real world sense. I would love for them to tell me, for example, whether Margaret Thatcher should have been permitted to make her own decisions in her home, or whether she should have submitted at all times to her husband's will, at the very same time she was running the United Kingdom and operating as its commander-in-chief for twelve years.

If one wants to say that one's spouse is better at some things than he or she is, then I see nothing wrong with that, as it is a fact apart from sex that people have different strengths. If I had a spouse with a specific talent for some activity that might benefit both of us, I'd want to avail myself of the benefit of her talent, and visa-versa. But to say blankly, absolutely, dogmatically that "... the husband is the head of the wife" in all things regardless of the obvious strengths and weaknesses of the parties is some things is damaging to both. Many of the comments to Crystal's post did not distinguish between these two types of "superiority", i.e., those based in objective fact (obvious strengths and weaknesses of the individuals involved), and those based upon nothing but their respective sexes. In fact I got the impression that few of them had even thought much about it, which might be even worse.

[Chalicechick]

Two book suggestions, both of them far easier reads than what you've been reading:

Proverbs of Ashes by Rebecca Parker

Adam and Eve and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels.

CC

[Richard]

Two book suggestions, both of them far easier reads than what you've been reading:

Hop On Pop, by Dr Suess

Pip the Magical Fairy, by Edith Blyton

RA

[A Pang]

A more moderate friend of mine once pointed out that submission shouldn't be a sexist prescription because the verse also requires that the husband submit to the wife in the same manner. Yet in practice we only hear about men asserting their leadership and women submitting! With this ridiculous separate-but-equal justification.

I would like to respect these women, but I can't. Don't any of these contemptible creatures ever want to grow up, do things for themselves, take responsibility, and mature intellectually and emotionally? Don't they realize that their sentiment "I *could* do it, I just don't have to" is just a mask for their powerlessness?

"Last year I finally gave up and told my mother I didn't want to be a girl but she said Oh no, being a girl is wonderful. Why? Because you can wear pretty clothes and you don't have to do anything; the men will do it for you. [...] She was upset, I suppose, but you can't imbibe someone's success by fucking them." - Joanna Russ, The Female Man

[Nance]

I don't have a problem with the concept of "submission" in general -- to lawful authority, to God, to the moral commandments --

** I do.

** I agree, as a fully-functioning citizen, to abide by the laws. Or try to change them. I don't submit to any god. And I don't submit to a list of commandments.

but, notwithstanding my respect for my conservative Christian cyberfriends, I am incredibly saddened and depressed by an ideology that aims to teach half of the human race to embrace a distorted and shameful self-image.

**It is a sad thing to see in this day and age.

Nance

[The Happy Feminist]

As a non-Christian, the idea of "submission" (in general) is not a concept that I have personally adopted, but I can see its value to believers and I don't really have a beef with it. Whereas I do have a beef with wifely submission.

[j0]

More suggestions, DEFINITELY easier reads:

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini
A Darker Place by Laurie R. King

I could go on (and on and on) . . .

[L.]

As an individual, I have no problem with someone saying, "I am really emotional and I count on my husband to make rational decisions." This depends on the situation, of course, but I do know some women like this, and I don`t think less of them because they choose to depend on their husbands.

I start running into problems when they say something like, "I am really emotional, so therefore ALL women are really emotional, and we should ALL depend on our husbands to make rational decisions for us."

And I have a BIG problem when they say, "A benevolent supreme being intended for all women to be emotional, and for them to depend on men to make rational decisions." When someone says that, I usually start backing away.... and then go and get another drink.