• ‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

The article in question:

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson, via Aussie ABC news

My introductory comments:

Complementarians like to insist that their gender theology has nothing to do with domestic violence, but funny, isn’t it, how so many Christian wives who divorced their abusive Christian husbands remark how their husband would sometimes cite male headship or “wife submit” type Bible verses or complementarian concepts to justify their abuse?

I think it’s very deceitful for complementarians, on the one hand, to prop up this view that says it’s God’s (God’s! – talk about taking God’s name in vein) design for a husband to be in a boss-like or deity-like position of authority over a wife, but then feign ignorance at being able to connect the dots at seeing how such a sexist view could of course be used and misused by a husband to abuse his wife physically, emotionally, financially, or by some other means.

Most of the complementarian husbands who are not abusing their wives are not living out complementarianism proper, or taking to its logical conclusions or abusing its inherent unfairness to women, but are living out egalitarian marriages in practice (their marriages are complementarian in name only, which even complementarian Russell Moore pretty much recognized).

For complementarians who like to proclaim the “no true complementarian” fallacy (“no true complementarian husband would ever abuse his wife”), especially in regards to the correlation between domestic violence and complementarianism, I point you to this page on another blog:

John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy

For those complementarians who like to say complementarianism properly carried out and practiced is acceptable and not violent or sexist, I point you to this post on my blog:

Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)

Here again is a link to the Aussie ABC news article, with portions of the article reproduced below (in my view, all of this, or about all of this, is applicable to American complementarianism and American Christianity):

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson

Snippets:

Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically. Church leaders in Australia say they abhor abuse of any kind. But advocates say the church is not just failing to sufficiently address domestic violence, it is both enabling and concealing it.

This is the second instalment of an ABC News and 7.30 investigation into domestic violence and religion. You can read part one in the series — on domestic violence and Islamhere.

….”Your problem is you won’t obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse,” he [Peter] yelled [at his wife Sally]. “You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s**t.”

Continue reading

• Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work

Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work

Christian gender complementarians sure are fond of using analogies to support their views. Never mind that their analogies do not work, some are meaningless to some people, and some are arguably heretical.

One of the most favored analogies complementarians employ – to bolster their claim that they believe “women are equal to men in value or worth, just not in role” is to do something like say, “A private in the Army has as much inherent worth as a General, he just doesn’t have as much authority.”

Sometimes, complementarians will patronizingly compare a wife, a marriage, to a boss and employee relationship, in order to make a point that the husband (the boss) may have the “final say” over the wife (the employee), but they are both equal in value as persons.

The problem with such comparisons is that they are based in temporary situations that can change.

Someone who has joined the U.S. military can attend officer training school and shoot from a lower rank to a higher rank.

Even if starting at the bottom of the pile, whether we are talking a military or civilian occupation, and employee who shows dedication, talent, and skill – and possibly one who receives additional education – can be promoted. Today’s mail room subordinate can theoretically be tomorrow’s  C.E.O.

In the world of complementarianism, however, a woman is forever stuck in the same role, the same level, no matter how talented she is, or how dedicated or educated.

Continue reading

• The Shifting Goal Posts of Complementarianism Show How Bankrupt It Is

The Shifting Goal Posts of Complementarianism Show How Bankrupt It Is

It’s telling that when complementarians start losing an argument on one point, they will re-define the argument or invent a new batch.

They will shift the goal posts. This is one indication of how bankrupt their gender theology is.

When complementarians began losing ground, in the last decade or so, to the arguments of non-complementarians, who pointed out that it makes no sense to insist that a woman be perpetually subordinate in role to men based on ontological reasons, they began dragging up the E.S.S. (Eternal Subordination of the Son) controversy, which states Jesus Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father.

You can read a bit more about that here:

Wade Burleson Critiques Eternal Subordination

These following pages contain examples by early church fathers of their views of women, and they’re not flattering or even charitable:

The Origins of Sexism in the Church – Junia Project (Christian site)

20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders From St. Augustine to Pat Robertson – AlertNet

Here are a few examples from the AlertNet page, comments by early Christians and their views of women:

Woman is a temple built over a sewer. Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

I cannot imagine Jesus of Nazareth saying of any woman, not his mother Mary, not the prostitutes he met,  or any other woman, that they were “temples built over sewers.”

Continue reading

• Yes, Complementarianism Infantilizes Women – and the Complementarian Tie-Breaking Vote Doctrine

Yes, Complementarianism Infantilizes Women – and the Complementarian Tie-Breaking Vote Doctrine

When discussing parenting, this post is assuming the parents in question are raising a physiologically and psychologically healthy child.

I recognize that some children are born with conditions that make them feeble-minded or mentally disabled in some capacities well into their adult years, so they will need adult supervision all the days of their lives.

Yet other people, as adults, get into car accidents causing lasting brain injury, or develop dementia, or other conditions, that leave them “kid-like” and dependent on other adults. I’m not talking about those types of situations, either.


As I wrote in a much longer post or two, gender complementarianism is codependency with a christianized veneer, and the God of the Bible does not endorse codependency but cautions against it.

Complementarianism encourages women to think like children, act like children, to shirk responsibility for their own lives, and they usually start this conditioning and brain-washing when the women are still children, if they were raised in a complementarian family or church, as I was.

Continue reading

• Housework, Dirty Dishes, Complementarianism and Personal Anecdotes

Housework, Dirty Dishes, Complementarianism and Personal Anecdotes

In most of the relationships and marriages I have personally known, the males are the gold-diggers who sit around all day watching football, going bar-hopping during the day, or playing games on the internet all day, while their wife or girlfriend holds down a full time job, pays all the bills, and also comes home to take care of the house-work because the lazy slobby men won’t clean dishes, fold laundry, or do anything else.

Doing housework is not rooted in gender.

A lot of biblical passages complementarians point to in order to substantiate their claims are not intended to be timeless directives, but were products of their time and meant for their time period or locale only.

There’s nothing in the Bible that teaches that washing dirty dishes or cleaning laundry is “woman’s work” or that says women are better suited for, or designed by God more so than a man, to clean a dirty house ( see “Workers at home” or “keepers at home” in Titus 2:5? and “Busy at Home”: How does Titus 2:4-5 apply today? )

I am a little puzzled, then, by complementarians who keep behaving as though American women in the year 2017 are still living in the same conditions, societal expectations, or value systems as American women of the 1950s, or the ancient Greeks and Romans with whom Paul visited, wrote to, or visited.

Continue reading

• Complementarian Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings of Non-Comps and Feminism

Complementarian Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings of Non-Comps and of Feminism

I was a gender complementarian from the time I was a kid up until around my mid-30s.

As such, I understand exactly how complementarians think, and why they hold to complementarianism, because I was once one of them.

Comps (Complementarians) hold many inaccurate or untrue beliefs and assumptions about people who reject complementarianism, and they – like many right wing or Republican individuals – also have a lot of untrue or inaccurate ideas about feminism and feminists.

First of all, I should clarify from the start I myself am not a feminist. I have never been a feminist.

Secondly, I have never been a liberal or a Democrat. I am currently not a liberal, nor am I a Democrat.

From the time I was a teenager, I have been a conservative, and up until around the year 2015, I was a Republican (I am currently not affiliated with any political party or movement).

It’s quite important to mention both those points from the out-set because most complementarians (and secular conservatives) assume anyone who does not support traditional gender roles is of necessity a left winger, a feminist, or a SJW (social justice warrior).

Comps and secular right wingers further assume that any and all who do not embrace traditional gender roles must also hate the nuclear family, traditional marriage, children, parenting, or traditional values.

I’m going to clear up a few common misunderstandings or faulty assumptions complementarians (and secular conservatives) have of NCs (non-complementarians) and of feminists.

Not everyone who rejects gender complementarianism (traditional gender roles) is a liberal or a feminist.

Continue reading

• Examples of Girls and Women Being Assertive at Work, in Life, Women as Rescuers and Heroines

Examples of Girls and Women Being Assertive at Work, in Life, Women as Rescuers and Heroines

Complementarians such as John Piper do not feel that women should work as police officers. Some complementarians do not believe women should work in combat positions in the military.

So bizarre and unbiblical has contemporary complementarianism become in the last few years (they have a never-ending list of mishnah-like rules they believe women should follow), that even other complementarians started to sit up and take notice, such as in this post: An Accidental Feminist.

The occasional complementarian troll shows up at spiritual abuse blogs to insist all women are weaker or more inept than men and should therefore not be in positions of control, combat, or assertiveness.

These complementarians feel they are basing their beliefs on the Bible, but the Bible does not limit women in the fashion they do, or insist that all women every where for all time, are delicate flowers who cannot be rugged, tough, or assertive.

Deborah and Jael in the Old Testament were warriors – Deborah was a judge who also led Israel’s military, and Jael killed an enemy combatant.

For more on that, please see these off-site posts:

Deborah – Israel’s Only Female Judge Was Both Wise and Courageous

Deborah and the “No Available Men” Argument

Who Was the Judge of Israel, Deborah or Barak?

What About Deborah? 

Searching for Deborah

None of this is to say that men and women are completely identical or to deny that some biological differences do exist between the sexes. Most men have more upper body strength than most women, for example, but it does not follow from this that it is appropriate, fair, or right to prohibit women from working in certain capacities in secular careers or in the church.

As I told one complementarian troll, the world has moved on, no matter how much complementarians wish it were not so – women are permitted by secular society in nations such as the United States to serve in combat positions in the military or to work as police officers, regardless of what he or John Piper or other complementarians think.

I have never understood the complementarian push back regarding women serving in the military: “But are you really prepared to see caskets come back with American flags on them, knowing there is dead female military personnel inside?”

This question implies several sexist and disturbing things, one of them being, that somehow a female life is more valuable than that of a male, so I object to it on that ground, among others. I would not be more alarmed or more weepy seeing a flag-draped coffin knowing there is a female body inside vs. knowing there is a male body inside.

If a woman is qualified and interested in serving in some role (police, military, whatever it may be), she should be permitted to do so and encouraged by friends, family, community, and church to do so. There is no “biblical” reason which states or even implies that women should not work in “assertive” type roles, such as military or police.

What I see from complementarians on this point – their objection to women serving in combat – usually derives from cultural conditioning, their personal convictions, and is, I suspect, due to sheer sentimentality – not due to what the Bible actually says.

This is a post that I may add to in the future. If or when I come across new links pertaining to the topics at hand, I may edit this post to add new links.

The post is divided into these categories:

-WOMEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

-WOMEN WARRIORS / WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

-WOMEN PROTECTORS, HEROINES, RESCUERS

-OFF-SITE RESOURCES ADDRESSING THE ISSUES ADDRESSED ON THIS PAGE

ON YOU TUBE (watch videos of or about some of the women mentioned in this post)

Continue reading