Is There a Right Kind of Patriarchy?

Recently on Instagram, a woman shared a video defending church patriarchy. She said: “We’re not the kind of church patriarchy that the world says we are” before proceeding to defend church patriarchy by describing what she calls ‘kinsmen patriarchy’ that she says existed in the Old Testament. Basically her argument is that in the Old Testament men took care of and protected their relatives, the prophet is the literal mouthpiece of God, God is benevolent like an Old Testament kinsman therefore church patriarchy is acceptable and glorious.

Her argument requires belief in several assumptions such as assuming God is only a singular male being, assuming church administrative structure extends into heaven, and assuming that they way people lived in the Hebrew Bible provides a divinely inspired model for the church’s power structure today. I could write a post about those assumptions. However, that is not where I want to focus because the same day that I saw her post I also saw the ever eloquent Dr. Dan McCllelan post a response to a video about slavery in the bible. While listening to Dan, I realized that exchanging the word patriarchy for slavery explains the mental pretzels this woman, whose name I am not sharing, uses to defend patriarchy.

Note: I want to say that while the topic of slavery helped me understand patriarchy, I am in no way saying that patriarchy is equal to the horrors of enslaving other human beings. Humans mistreating others by enslaving them is evil and harmful on an unspeakable gut wrenching level and the damage caused by race based enslavement still exists today.  

Here is the beginning of Dan’s video: Is there a right way to practice slavery? Hey everybody, I’m Dan McClellan. I’m a scholar of the Bible and religion. Let’s take a look at a video. Does the bible endorse slavery? 

Video of another person: Yes, of course. Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus James, a slave of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter, a slave of Jesus Christ, Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ. Don’t forget John, he is also a slave of Jesus. The fact is, the Bible doesn’t ever condemn slavery outright because God himself is a slave owner. God can’t condemn himself. Obviously, the issue is between evil slave owners mistreating their slaves and good slave owners. If you are a good slave owner there is nothing wrong with that.

Dan: So obviously, there’s no such thing as benevolent slavery. The practice itself of buying, selling, and owning other human beings, absolutely, irrespective of how they are treated is fundamentally evil. 

This was a lightbulb moment for me. This woman basically said that because there was patriarchy or father/kinsman rule in the Old Testament, then that means God is our head kinsman so patriarchy is acceptable. She asserts that church patriarchy is not the “world’s” patriarchy which in her argument means the issue isn’t patriarchy; patriarchy in the church is acceptable because the male rulers are kind and the ultimate male ruler is God.

I say that the practice of patriarchy, defined as some men ruling over the rest of men, women, and everyone else, irrespective of how they are treated or how people practiced this Biblical times, is fundamentally wrong. When some men rule over other men a number of practices and beliefs commonly occur. Artistic men are treated as less than men who like sports. Gay men are treated as less than heterosexual men. Women are paid less than men. Trans people are harassed. All of things actions are harmful and therefore wrong. To continue, it is harmful and wrong to:

Say girls can wear dresses but boys can’tUse one person’s preferred name but not another person’s preferred nameSay that real men don’t cry while also saying that women are too emotionalHave people in power pass laws making it harder for other people to get an education and use a public bathroomTell women that motherhood is their main purpose then provide broken chairs and stinky rooms for them to nurse in while male leaders sit in plush chairsEncourage girls to take dance classes yet belittle boys who want to danceSay that women must nurture their children while depriving men of support for nurturing their childrenTrain men to view women as sexual objectsTeach women that they must accept church sanctioned infidelity (aka polygamy)Take away male agency by saying that they must serve missionsPlace the burden of providing for family solely on men while simultaneously restricting economic opportunities for womenReward girls and women for acting tough while boys and men are denigrated for acting sensitivelyTell boys that their specific sexual organs qualify them to pass the sacrament while telling girls that their specific sexual organs disqualify them from passing the sacramentTell boys they can’t read books about princesses and forbid them from meeting female authors while girls can read books with boys as the main characterAnything practice or belief that squeezes the light out of another person

All of the above are examples of patriarchal beliefs and practices. Patriarchy is a power structure. These beliefs and practices stemming from this power structure wound people. Patriarchy hurts those under its rule by limiting the growth of those in power, limiting the growth of those under its power, and by limiting opportunities for human potential for growth and connection for everyone in the system. It is fundamentally evil for humans to harm other humans. 

Returning again to Dan’s video: So why do we have an apologist endorsing a fundamentally evil perspective? Well, it comes down to two different things, the more foundational thing is that this functions as costly signaling and as a credibility enhancing display. Apologetics is about advancing one’s own standing within the social identities that are important to them by trying to satisfy or resolve the cognitive dissonance experienced by the members of those social identities. So, as I’ve pointed out many times, apologetics is about performing confidence and conviction to an audience that already agrees with your dogmas, but is struggling with cognitive dissonance and wants to be made to feel validated and authorized in those dogmas. Despite that cognitive dissonance, folks who can perform in a more convincing way, that confidence and that conviction can reach a wider audience, and they can advance their standing within those social identities…..There is going to be an audience…who are willing to waive the identity marker of yes, slavery can be done in the right way if God can do it and be the ideal enslaver, then there must be a right way to practice slavery. Among people, then you just make it a question of how benevolently you treat the folks you own and are buying and selling.

Suddenly I understood that there are going to be people, even women, who are willing to waive the identity marker of yes, patriarchy, like slavery, can be done in the right way if Old Testament people can do it and God can be the ideal patriarch, then there must be a right way to practice patriarchy. Among people, you just make it a question of how benevolently you treat the folks you have power over and rule over. Listening to Dan is when I finally understood why the woman I saw on Instagram defended her subordinate position in patriarchy by justifying it if it is practiced benevolently. She was both advancing her standing within a social identity important to her (I assume that identity is being a good Mormon woman)  and was also trying to satisfy or resolve the cognitive dissonance experienced being a member of that social identity. 

This woman sells books at Deseret Book, sells scripture study plans on her website, and also offers speaking engagements. Defending patriarchy advances her standing within the church institution and she will be rewarded monetarily. Even for women who do not stand to gain money from the defense of patriarchy, they still defend it because of identity politics; of what they gain. Women can gain church callings, acceptance in a social group at church, and approval from extended family. These things are not insignificant as people who have lost this social standing have shared pain regarding their experiences of loss. 

As for cognitive dissonance she has experienced, I can only speculate about that dissonance. Even when people are not fully aware of their cognitive dissonance, I have observed that cognitive dissonance can cause distress and discomfort. I have seen women suffer from anxiety and other mental health issues. I have seen women form tight social cliques at church. I have seen women run themselves into the ground serving others in hopes of gaining approval. It seems that humans really do not want to exist in pain and will find ways to relieve the pain even if they are unaware of its source. 

Dan is not the first person to identify and articulate why people defend ideas and practices that harm other people. It is, however, the first time I have truly understood why a grown ass woman in her 40’s would defend her own subordination. 

So, is there a right way to practice patriarchy? The pain inflicted by patriarchy says that there is not. We can instead create a church administrative and theological structure around connection, caring, and partnership that nurtures every human being. Letting go of patriarchy does not change the existence of God, does not change what Jesus did, does not change what Joseph Smith saw in the grove. Truth, by its very definition, withstands change and scrutiny. Instead of fear, let us embrace the unknown with curiosity and wonder about what we might discover.