One more thing here. Your "husbands, love your wives" quote is a perfectly valid scriptural teaching, of course. But not all biblical passages are so liberal-friendly. Here's the full context of the quote in Ephesians 5:
"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
So-- wives, SUBMIT to your husbands. As to the Lord! And again at the end: husbands are to love their wives as themselves, but the same exhortation is not given to wives. They are to *respect* their husbands instead.
Again in 1 Peter 3:
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
"4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
"7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."
Again, note the asymmetry, and the emphasize on submission and obedience by wives. In a word: male headship. John Chrysostom and CS Lewis both consider this topic, and why wives are exhorted to submission. Why not equality? And they give basically the same answer: you can't have a democracy of two. If the marriage is to be stable and permanent, it needs a reliable decision rule. Ultimately, someone has to be in charge. St. Paul is savvy to things that people have usually understood instinctively, but that we have to relearn from evolutionary biology because feminism has suppressed them. Women are *hypergamous,* they want to look up to their mates, and men's instincts know that. So what women need chiefly to be exhorted to is *respect.* Then his instincts feel secure that she won't leave him for (or cheat on him with) a better man. Men, by contrast, are prone to stray, so women's instincts especially fear that he'll get *bored.* They like flowers and remembering anniversaries to reassure their instincts that he's still doting and fascinated. So St. Paul especially exhorts men to *love.* That's related to the fact that women are generally attracted to slightly older men, men to slightly younger women. In this context, it makes sense that, if someone has to be in charge, it will suit both best if it's the man. Also, men are historically, and naturally, the more public, women the more private, sex, so they can fit better into the public social hierarchies by which society is organized. And so forth.
Now, the idea of male headship is absolute KRYPTONITE to modern feminist-influenced women. To present them with the logic of "you can't have a democracy of two" is like grabbing them by the neck and dangling them over a cliff. They hate it. The very survival of the self-image they've constructed for themselves depends on refuting, or failing that, somehow dismissing you. It's morbidly fascinating to watch the desperate treadmills of evasion that they get onto if you're gauche enough to put the elementary logic of male headship on the table. "We decide together!" Yes, but what if you don't agree. "We talk it over." Obviously, but what if you still can't agree? You're aware that conversations don't always settle disagreements, right? "Well, let me tell you about this time when my husband and I disagreed and... [some story]... so it turned out all right." Good for you, but one case doesn't prove a rule. You can see that sometimes it won't work out like that, right? "We've been married for twenty years and we've always been able to settle it." (Silence one's doubts.) Good for you again, but you're rather fortunately situated in life, aren't you? Some people don't get so lucky as always to land on spontaneous agreement. And so on, and so on. I've learned to avoid talking about it when I can. Which is a bit of a shame because there are a lot of people that I'm basically writing off as subrational on the topic by giving up arguing with them even though I know they're wrong.
Now, I have no idea how much damage these feminist sophistries do to modern marriage. Obviously, modern marriage isn't faring very well. But there could be other reasons for that. The fact that mandatory feminist ideology makes it impossible to have a coherent decision rule for how couples decide is surely unhelpful. Another interesting question is: what should a man who understands the St. Paul/John Chrysostom/CS Lewis logic of male headship do in a society full of women who have been brainwashed into being utterly intolerant of that logic. You might, like me, be infinitely blessed in finding a little bubble of opinion where the feminist gospel hasn't penetrated! :) But if not, is it dishonest to enter the married state knowing that your bride refuses to understand and accept the necessary conditions of marital stability. It might work out just fine. Maybe you'll never be put in a position where you need to exercise male headship. Or maybe when you need to do it, she'll realize at that time why it was needed. It's a moral risk I'd feel very uncomfortable taking. But then, the preservation of the species is important too. It's hard to say.
I think it's possible that even the couples who don't break up when they have a disagreement and no rule by which to settle it are still harmed. "We decide together" can mean "The most passive-aggressive is the boss." Or it can mean "We never take any risks because it's too hard to agree." In general, I think Western elites are more lazy-minded, complacent, and, if not cowardly exactly, then deficient in courage, compared to many elites in the past, and I suspect one reason for that is that their "we decide together" marriages don't allow them to take risks for idealistic reasons. But that's getting speculative.
Of course, male headship can be abused. The general principle has room for lots of different styles suited to different couples' personalities. But it can have ugly manifestations, where the husband is an obtuse tyrant and bully. How common that is in practice I have no idea; I don't think I've ever seen it in real life, though it's common in literature. But that's where the exhortations of St. Peter and St. Paul come in. Husbands should regard their wives as "the weaker vessel," therefore: do the dangerous things, the difficult things, the dirty things, take on the hard jobs, be the stronger one in all the challenges for your wife's comfort. Love your wives as yourself. And the comparison of the husband to *Christ* has the most beautiful and appalling implications of all. For what did Christ do? He died for us. So husbands, yes you're in charge, but use that authority to serve your wife, to put her interests first, even to the point of dying for her if it comes to that.
It's a beautiful and ennobling ideal. "Red-pillism" is a hideous distortion of it, but the feeling that feminism is a mistake, and that something glorious about masculinity has been lost through the crushing of thought under feminist orthodoxy, and that it ought to be recovered, is wise. What's the right way to be a man in a feminist age? That's a question worth wrestling with!
There's a lot here so I think I'll just make a few general points, as I don't feel qualified enough to do a detailed response to every single one of your arguments here;
1. I am well aware of the full passage in Ephesians, but my point was to add the context that is often sorely missing. Many of these folks are happy to throw around "women should submit to their husbands", whilst conveniently missing out the rest of the passage that adds the necessary context. Both spouses should seek to put to death their own will, and to love their spouse self-sacrificially.
2. I worry that you are putting too much stock in evolutionary biology. After all, there are plenty that we can trace back to inherent biological roots (all of the passions for example), that we are nonetheless called to transcend. These types of meta-analysis of male female relations by way of biology, almost always fail to address the complexity of social factors and the variety of personal attributes, that contribute to how men and women interact.
3. When we conceive of "male headship" as men having authority over women, its my opinion that we have severely lost our way. Hierarchy in Orthodoxy is about servitude and self-sacrifice, as well as pointing upwards to the highest ideal (Christ). The feminist critique of the patriarchy has always been that historically, men have used power and authority to build society in such a way that benefits them, without the corresponding self-sacrificial love. I'm inclined to agree with this. What we need is not to battle with secular ideologies- what we need is to recover a truly Christian way of building society and interacting with each other. If we all followed the commandments, there would be no need for conversations like these!
Well, thanks. All this is very familiar, as if one walks into a room and notices a familiar smell that brings back memories. Plenty of very nice people have this mentality. But the rationalist in me is always a little frustrated by it. (1) I'm happy with. But on (2), we're not generally called on to "transcend" our biological nature so much as to govern it and submit it to the will of God. The gendered instincts of the human race are often helpful. CS Lewis compared instincts to the keys on a piano: goodness is like a melody, which tells us what keys to play when. The instincts have no authority, but they should be used in the service of a good life. Men have instincts to protect women. That's good, in general. It can make it easy to do brave and self-sacrificing things that would otherwise be difficult. Women have instincts to admire men and look to them for leadership. That, again, is an instinct that can often be put to good use. Obviously, the instincts must also be overruled. Sometimes. Evolutionary biology makes it clear that men have instinctive impulses to rape, and if most men could thoroughly remember their lives, I think they'd probably find moments when they felt that impulse. That instinct should definitely be overridden! But I think to talk about transcending instincts is a slight misdirection.
But here's the real problem. Male headship is, of course, directly biblical, and in the biblical context clearly includes men having authority over women. I can very easily see why someone who has absorbed the ethos of modern society would be rather allergic to it, but it's clearly part of the biblical teaching and has very appropriately been part of the practice of pre-modern Christian societies all the way down to the rise of feminism. It's also true, as you say, that "hierarchy in Orthodoxy is about servitude and self-sacrifice, as well as pointing upwards to the highest ideal (Christ)," but that's not at all incompatible with having authority. And my comment made it very clear that I agree with that already.
As for the feminist critique of the "patriarchy," what exactly are you inclined to agree with? That men have *ever* used their authority for their advantage at women's expense? No doubt! That they have always or almost always done so? That would mean casting judgment, from the vantage point of a couple of generations in the modern West, on centuries and centuries of mainstream practice by Christian societies. I would advise you not to do that. Can you find anything in Orthodox patristic that aligns with the feminist critique of patriarchy?
Feminism would deny male headship, or if in a Christian context where male headship can't be denied because it's biblical would minimize it or interpret it way, on the ground that men will always and inevitably abuse patriarchal authority, so they must be deprived of it in favor of an egalitarian model of marriage. But the egalitarian model doesn't work, as the simple logic that you can't have a democracy of two immediately makes plain. Plenty of people rub along all right in practice even if their theory of marriage doesn't make sense, but that's not a reason to throw logic out the window. And the Christian position as articulated in the Bible and practiced by Christians for many, many generations is certainly not that men must be deprived of authority in marriage, but that they must be firmly exhorted to use that authority in a self-sacrificing way. The traditional family in which a man is, ultimately, in charge, but he devotes his life to supporting and protecting his family through hard work and honorable conduct, isn't a form of oppression as feminists would have it, but exemplifies this biblical teaching.
I'm not actually eager to push this message too hard with people who are deeply entrapped in the feminist mentality. The logic and biblical evidence are simple enough, but I know it's hard to throw off cultural habits of mind, and arguments about it tend to be the treadmill that I mentioned earlier. But I would urge you to read John Chrysostom, and watch your mind for any tendency to filter or edit what he writes in the interests of being modern and enlightened.
Lastly, I should have added one verse to the Ephesians quote. "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) That's liberal-friendly, too! And from day to day, it's likely more applicable in most modern marriages than "male headship." But both are needed, and they're not incompatible.
I appreciate your feedback good sir, but I think you may responding to feminism more than myself. I'm not saying I wholesale endorse everything that feminism preaches nowadays, to be honest, I'm not interested in the adoption of any secular ideologies, including conservatism (that's kinda the point of the article). I am however inclined to agree that men have historically abused their position of authority, including distorting the Biblical and Patristic witness to do so.
Your question about whether I can find anything in the Patristic witness that aligns with the feminist critique of the patriarchy- I would point exactly to St John Chrysostom and the Scripture in general, which emphasise the ontological equality of the sexes.
To your claim that male authority is built into the Biblical and Patristic teaching along with evolutionary biology, I would simply ask how we are defining authority? If you mean the imposition of ones own will onto women, I would fundamentally disagree that that is anywhere to be found in the mainstream Orthodox tradition. I would argue the exact opposite- that we as men have Christ as our model, and so self-emptying and sacrifice are the ideal.
In regards to the very practical issue of who has the last say in the family, I agree with you and CS Lewis and St John Chrysostom- BUT- I do not believe that is the same as "being in charge of" or "having authority over". If my partner and I are having a disagreement, I should be ready to humble myself and listen to her points. If we can come to an agreement mutually, then perfect, or I could compromise my own opinions and submit to her will. Equally, there will be times when she should do the same. But I do not believe that the husband as spiritual leader means that he exercises an imposing authority over his wife- I think that's a distortion.
St John Chrysostom seems to agree with me in his homily on Ephesians 5;
"You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever — refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this."
"In regards to the very practical issue of who has the last say in the family, I agree with you and CS Lewis and St John Chrysostom..."
Okay, so we're agreed then. I find your semantic scruples about a phrase like "having authority over" a bit confusing. But it seems like we're substantively in agreement. Good!
I really appreciate this post, thanks for writing it. The warning is much needed. Thanks for directing people back to a wholesome and genuine Orthodoxy, and not online conspiracy theories. I've read several of your essays and I'm a fan of your writing. Keep it up!
That said, your credibility dropped off a good deal when I read this...
"emphasising the now debunked theory that male sexual promiscuity is rooted in evolutionary biology."
That's like talking about the now debunked theory that the earth is round.
You provide a link, apparently meant to substantiate the claim that it's been "debunked." The reasoning in the link is fallacious, as I'll explain in a moment, but even if it's accepted, it provides no support for your statement. The linked page argues that "Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females," and it supports it with data that females also have propensities for promiscuity. It doesn't follow that males don't! The article doesn't in any way claim to debunk the idea that male promiscuity is rooted in evolutionary biology.
The linked article is also fallacious because it misunderstands what evolutionary biology claims. What evolutionary biology clearly, overwhelmingly establishes beyond any reasonable doubt is that males have a strong tendency to *desire* promiscuity, a desire that is far less prevalent among females. Whether they'll get it is another matter. Because females are coy, they often don't. Females, by contrast, are less likely to want promiscuity, but if they do want it, it's easy to get, with so many eager males about. The result is that rates of actual promiscuity are often similar for males and females, as indeed they almost have to be unless males are quite polygamous. But it does not at all follow that the desires are equally strong.
Now, just because men *want* promiscuity doesn't mean they are *morally justified* in being promiscuous. They are not! And that's the battle that a Christian apologist needs to pick. If red pill adjacent males read this and think you've caved to liberal propaganda and willfully blinded yourself to the evidence natures of things, then... er, how do I put this?... I couldn't exactly rush to your defense in good faith on every point in this essay.
Men know first-hand that the temptation to promiscuity is very strong. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," as St. Paul put it. It's a battle of willpower that you have to fight every day. It's hard. Don't pretend the struggle isn't there, and offhandedly throw us a fallacious link that you misinterpret in order to dismiss that struggle. The Fall has wounded us deeply, and left us full of evil impulses that we have to fight, fight, fight against in order to be holy.
I've written more about this in my book *The Grand Coherence.* Here are some relevant chapters:
Chapter 12: Sociobiology, the Sexes and Human Nature
Hi Nathan, thanks for the feedback! I will do some further research and correct the article accordingly :) Please be assured I wasn't deliberately being fallacious, nor am I adopting liberal philosophies on this topic, I'm just repeating what I've read. I am always happy to be corrected, as alas, I am no expert in evolutionary biology!
What a gentlemanly response! :) Now I feel bad for being too hard-hitting. As an excuse, the issue is personal to me because when I left the Mormon church at 19, I felt the need to question everything, and chastity seemed like one of Christianity's weakest points. I kind of tried to argue for it to myself, but my arguments were too weak to justify my disappointing people. I couldn't see through a facile Golden Rule type argument that makes consent sufficient to justify sex.
Later on, I came into contact with evolutionary biology, and the lucid way that it differentiates the sexes exploded the facile Golden Rule arguments. You can't do unto her as you would be done by without taking into account that she's a woman, with different instincts. And what's it like to be a woman? Evolutionary biology buttresses tradition in critical ways to help understand that. The justification for chastity that this can lead to (sociobiology + the Golden Rule => case for chastity) is the only convincing one I'm aware of. I think we Christians need to use it.
Don't feel bad, my article is hard hitting too so it's all good! I see what you mean - I've had a quick skim of your article and I understand your argument. It was honestly a passing comment in the article and so I'll edit it for now as I feel like I don't really have a good enough understanding of biology to assess the arguments on either side :)
One more thing here. Your "husbands, love your wives" quote is a perfectly valid scriptural teaching, of course. But not all biblical passages are so liberal-friendly. Here's the full context of the quote in Ephesians 5:
"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
So-- wives, SUBMIT to your husbands. As to the Lord! And again at the end: husbands are to love their wives as themselves, but the same exhortation is not given to wives. They are to *respect* their husbands instead.
Again in 1 Peter 3:
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
"4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
"7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."
Again, note the asymmetry, and the emphasize on submission and obedience by wives. In a word: male headship. John Chrysostom and CS Lewis both consider this topic, and why wives are exhorted to submission. Why not equality? And they give basically the same answer: you can't have a democracy of two. If the marriage is to be stable and permanent, it needs a reliable decision rule. Ultimately, someone has to be in charge. St. Paul is savvy to things that people have usually understood instinctively, but that we have to relearn from evolutionary biology because feminism has suppressed them. Women are *hypergamous,* they want to look up to their mates, and men's instincts know that. So what women need chiefly to be exhorted to is *respect.* Then his instincts feel secure that she won't leave him for (or cheat on him with) a better man. Men, by contrast, are prone to stray, so women's instincts especially fear that he'll get *bored.* They like flowers and remembering anniversaries to reassure their instincts that he's still doting and fascinated. So St. Paul especially exhorts men to *love.* That's related to the fact that women are generally attracted to slightly older men, men to slightly younger women. In this context, it makes sense that, if someone has to be in charge, it will suit both best if it's the man. Also, men are historically, and naturally, the more public, women the more private, sex, so they can fit better into the public social hierarchies by which society is organized. And so forth.
Now, the idea of male headship is absolute KRYPTONITE to modern feminist-influenced women. To present them with the logic of "you can't have a democracy of two" is like grabbing them by the neck and dangling them over a cliff. They hate it. The very survival of the self-image they've constructed for themselves depends on refuting, or failing that, somehow dismissing you. It's morbidly fascinating to watch the desperate treadmills of evasion that they get onto if you're gauche enough to put the elementary logic of male headship on the table. "We decide together!" Yes, but what if you don't agree. "We talk it over." Obviously, but what if you still can't agree? You're aware that conversations don't always settle disagreements, right? "Well, let me tell you about this time when my husband and I disagreed and... [some story]... so it turned out all right." Good for you, but one case doesn't prove a rule. You can see that sometimes it won't work out like that, right? "We've been married for twenty years and we've always been able to settle it." (Silence one's doubts.) Good for you again, but you're rather fortunately situated in life, aren't you? Some people don't get so lucky as always to land on spontaneous agreement. And so on, and so on. I've learned to avoid talking about it when I can. Which is a bit of a shame because there are a lot of people that I'm basically writing off as subrational on the topic by giving up arguing with them even though I know they're wrong.
Now, I have no idea how much damage these feminist sophistries do to modern marriage. Obviously, modern marriage isn't faring very well. But there could be other reasons for that. The fact that mandatory feminist ideology makes it impossible to have a coherent decision rule for how couples decide is surely unhelpful. Another interesting question is: what should a man who understands the St. Paul/John Chrysostom/CS Lewis logic of male headship do in a society full of women who have been brainwashed into being utterly intolerant of that logic. You might, like me, be infinitely blessed in finding a little bubble of opinion where the feminist gospel hasn't penetrated! :) But if not, is it dishonest to enter the married state knowing that your bride refuses to understand and accept the necessary conditions of marital stability. It might work out just fine. Maybe you'll never be put in a position where you need to exercise male headship. Or maybe when you need to do it, she'll realize at that time why it was needed. It's a moral risk I'd feel very uncomfortable taking. But then, the preservation of the species is important too. It's hard to say.
I think it's possible that even the couples who don't break up when they have a disagreement and no rule by which to settle it are still harmed. "We decide together" can mean "The most passive-aggressive is the boss." Or it can mean "We never take any risks because it's too hard to agree." In general, I think Western elites are more lazy-minded, complacent, and, if not cowardly exactly, then deficient in courage, compared to many elites in the past, and I suspect one reason for that is that their "we decide together" marriages don't allow them to take risks for idealistic reasons. But that's getting speculative.
Of course, male headship can be abused. The general principle has room for lots of different styles suited to different couples' personalities. But it can have ugly manifestations, where the husband is an obtuse tyrant and bully. How common that is in practice I have no idea; I don't think I've ever seen it in real life, though it's common in literature. But that's where the exhortations of St. Peter and St. Paul come in. Husbands should regard their wives as "the weaker vessel," therefore: do the dangerous things, the difficult things, the dirty things, take on the hard jobs, be the stronger one in all the challenges for your wife's comfort. Love your wives as yourself. And the comparison of the husband to *Christ* has the most beautiful and appalling implications of all. For what did Christ do? He died for us. So husbands, yes you're in charge, but use that authority to serve your wife, to put her interests first, even to the point of dying for her if it comes to that.
It's a beautiful and ennobling ideal. "Red-pillism" is a hideous distortion of it, but the feeling that feminism is a mistake, and that something glorious about masculinity has been lost through the crushing of thought under feminist orthodoxy, and that it ought to be recovered, is wise. What's the right way to be a man in a feminist age? That's a question worth wrestling with!
There's a lot here so I think I'll just make a few general points, as I don't feel qualified enough to do a detailed response to every single one of your arguments here;
1. I am well aware of the full passage in Ephesians, but my point was to add the context that is often sorely missing. Many of these folks are happy to throw around "women should submit to their husbands", whilst conveniently missing out the rest of the passage that adds the necessary context. Both spouses should seek to put to death their own will, and to love their spouse self-sacrificially.
2. I worry that you are putting too much stock in evolutionary biology. After all, there are plenty that we can trace back to inherent biological roots (all of the passions for example), that we are nonetheless called to transcend. These types of meta-analysis of male female relations by way of biology, almost always fail to address the complexity of social factors and the variety of personal attributes, that contribute to how men and women interact.
3. When we conceive of "male headship" as men having authority over women, its my opinion that we have severely lost our way. Hierarchy in Orthodoxy is about servitude and self-sacrifice, as well as pointing upwards to the highest ideal (Christ). The feminist critique of the patriarchy has always been that historically, men have used power and authority to build society in such a way that benefits them, without the corresponding self-sacrificial love. I'm inclined to agree with this. What we need is not to battle with secular ideologies- what we need is to recover a truly Christian way of building society and interacting with each other. If we all followed the commandments, there would be no need for conversations like these!
Well, thanks. All this is very familiar, as if one walks into a room and notices a familiar smell that brings back memories. Plenty of very nice people have this mentality. But the rationalist in me is always a little frustrated by it. (1) I'm happy with. But on (2), we're not generally called on to "transcend" our biological nature so much as to govern it and submit it to the will of God. The gendered instincts of the human race are often helpful. CS Lewis compared instincts to the keys on a piano: goodness is like a melody, which tells us what keys to play when. The instincts have no authority, but they should be used in the service of a good life. Men have instincts to protect women. That's good, in general. It can make it easy to do brave and self-sacrificing things that would otherwise be difficult. Women have instincts to admire men and look to them for leadership. That, again, is an instinct that can often be put to good use. Obviously, the instincts must also be overruled. Sometimes. Evolutionary biology makes it clear that men have instinctive impulses to rape, and if most men could thoroughly remember their lives, I think they'd probably find moments when they felt that impulse. That instinct should definitely be overridden! But I think to talk about transcending instincts is a slight misdirection.
But here's the real problem. Male headship is, of course, directly biblical, and in the biblical context clearly includes men having authority over women. I can very easily see why someone who has absorbed the ethos of modern society would be rather allergic to it, but it's clearly part of the biblical teaching and has very appropriately been part of the practice of pre-modern Christian societies all the way down to the rise of feminism. It's also true, as you say, that "hierarchy in Orthodoxy is about servitude and self-sacrifice, as well as pointing upwards to the highest ideal (Christ)," but that's not at all incompatible with having authority. And my comment made it very clear that I agree with that already.
As for the feminist critique of the "patriarchy," what exactly are you inclined to agree with? That men have *ever* used their authority for their advantage at women's expense? No doubt! That they have always or almost always done so? That would mean casting judgment, from the vantage point of a couple of generations in the modern West, on centuries and centuries of mainstream practice by Christian societies. I would advise you not to do that. Can you find anything in Orthodox patristic that aligns with the feminist critique of patriarchy?
Feminism would deny male headship, or if in a Christian context where male headship can't be denied because it's biblical would minimize it or interpret it way, on the ground that men will always and inevitably abuse patriarchal authority, so they must be deprived of it in favor of an egalitarian model of marriage. But the egalitarian model doesn't work, as the simple logic that you can't have a democracy of two immediately makes plain. Plenty of people rub along all right in practice even if their theory of marriage doesn't make sense, but that's not a reason to throw logic out the window. And the Christian position as articulated in the Bible and practiced by Christians for many, many generations is certainly not that men must be deprived of authority in marriage, but that they must be firmly exhorted to use that authority in a self-sacrificing way. The traditional family in which a man is, ultimately, in charge, but he devotes his life to supporting and protecting his family through hard work and honorable conduct, isn't a form of oppression as feminists would have it, but exemplifies this biblical teaching.
I'm not actually eager to push this message too hard with people who are deeply entrapped in the feminist mentality. The logic and biblical evidence are simple enough, but I know it's hard to throw off cultural habits of mind, and arguments about it tend to be the treadmill that I mentioned earlier. But I would urge you to read John Chrysostom, and watch your mind for any tendency to filter or edit what he writes in the interests of being modern and enlightened.
Lastly, I should have added one verse to the Ephesians quote. "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) That's liberal-friendly, too! And from day to day, it's likely more applicable in most modern marriages than "male headship." But both are needed, and they're not incompatible.
I appreciate your feedback good sir, but I think you may responding to feminism more than myself. I'm not saying I wholesale endorse everything that feminism preaches nowadays, to be honest, I'm not interested in the adoption of any secular ideologies, including conservatism (that's kinda the point of the article). I am however inclined to agree that men have historically abused their position of authority, including distorting the Biblical and Patristic witness to do so.
Your question about whether I can find anything in the Patristic witness that aligns with the feminist critique of the patriarchy- I would point exactly to St John Chrysostom and the Scripture in general, which emphasise the ontological equality of the sexes.
To your claim that male authority is built into the Biblical and Patristic teaching along with evolutionary biology, I would simply ask how we are defining authority? If you mean the imposition of ones own will onto women, I would fundamentally disagree that that is anywhere to be found in the mainstream Orthodox tradition. I would argue the exact opposite- that we as men have Christ as our model, and so self-emptying and sacrifice are the ideal.
In regards to the very practical issue of who has the last say in the family, I agree with you and CS Lewis and St John Chrysostom- BUT- I do not believe that is the same as "being in charge of" or "having authority over". If my partner and I are having a disagreement, I should be ready to humble myself and listen to her points. If we can come to an agreement mutually, then perfect, or I could compromise my own opinions and submit to her will. Equally, there will be times when she should do the same. But I do not believe that the husband as spiritual leader means that he exercises an imposing authority over his wife- I think that's a distortion.
St John Chrysostom seems to agree with me in his homily on Ephesians 5;
"You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever — refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this."
"In regards to the very practical issue of who has the last say in the family, I agree with you and CS Lewis and St John Chrysostom..."
Okay, so we're agreed then. I find your semantic scruples about a phrase like "having authority over" a bit confusing. But it seems like we're substantively in agreement. Good!
Well my hope was to be accurate not scrupulous but forgive me!
I really appreciate this post, thanks for writing it. The warning is much needed. Thanks for directing people back to a wholesome and genuine Orthodoxy, and not online conspiracy theories. I've read several of your essays and I'm a fan of your writing. Keep it up!
That said, your credibility dropped off a good deal when I read this...
"emphasising the now debunked theory that male sexual promiscuity is rooted in evolutionary biology."
That's like talking about the now debunked theory that the earth is round.
You provide a link, apparently meant to substantiate the claim that it's been "debunked." The reasoning in the link is fallacious, as I'll explain in a moment, but even if it's accepted, it provides no support for your statement. The linked page argues that "Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females," and it supports it with data that females also have propensities for promiscuity. It doesn't follow that males don't! The article doesn't in any way claim to debunk the idea that male promiscuity is rooted in evolutionary biology.
The linked article is also fallacious because it misunderstands what evolutionary biology claims. What evolutionary biology clearly, overwhelmingly establishes beyond any reasonable doubt is that males have a strong tendency to *desire* promiscuity, a desire that is far less prevalent among females. Whether they'll get it is another matter. Because females are coy, they often don't. Females, by contrast, are less likely to want promiscuity, but if they do want it, it's easy to get, with so many eager males about. The result is that rates of actual promiscuity are often similar for males and females, as indeed they almost have to be unless males are quite polygamous. But it does not at all follow that the desires are equally strong.
Now, just because men *want* promiscuity doesn't mean they are *morally justified* in being promiscuous. They are not! And that's the battle that a Christian apologist needs to pick. If red pill adjacent males read this and think you've caved to liberal propaganda and willfully blinded yourself to the evidence natures of things, then... er, how do I put this?... I couldn't exactly rush to your defense in good faith on every point in this essay.
Men know first-hand that the temptation to promiscuity is very strong. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," as St. Paul put it. It's a battle of willpower that you have to fight every day. It's hard. Don't pretend the struggle isn't there, and offhandedly throw us a fallacious link that you misinterpret in order to dismiss that struggle. The Fall has wounded us deeply, and left us full of evil impulses that we have to fight, fight, fight against in order to be holy.
I've written more about this in my book *The Grand Coherence.* Here are some relevant chapters:
Chapter 12: Sociobiology, the Sexes and Human Nature
https://lancelotfinn.substack.com/p/the-grand-coherence-chapter-12-sociobiology
Chatper 13: The Case for Chastity
https://lancelotfinn.substack.com/p/the-grand-coherence-chapter-13-the
Hi Nathan, thanks for the feedback! I will do some further research and correct the article accordingly :) Please be assured I wasn't deliberately being fallacious, nor am I adopting liberal philosophies on this topic, I'm just repeating what I've read. I am always happy to be corrected, as alas, I am no expert in evolutionary biology!
What a gentlemanly response! :) Now I feel bad for being too hard-hitting. As an excuse, the issue is personal to me because when I left the Mormon church at 19, I felt the need to question everything, and chastity seemed like one of Christianity's weakest points. I kind of tried to argue for it to myself, but my arguments were too weak to justify my disappointing people. I couldn't see through a facile Golden Rule type argument that makes consent sufficient to justify sex.
Later on, I came into contact with evolutionary biology, and the lucid way that it differentiates the sexes exploded the facile Golden Rule arguments. You can't do unto her as you would be done by without taking into account that she's a woman, with different instincts. And what's it like to be a woman? Evolutionary biology buttresses tradition in critical ways to help understand that. The justification for chastity that this can lead to (sociobiology + the Golden Rule => case for chastity) is the only convincing one I'm aware of. I think we Christians need to use it.
Don't feel bad, my article is hard hitting too so it's all good! I see what you mean - I've had a quick skim of your article and I understand your argument. It was honestly a passing comment in the article and so I'll edit it for now as I feel like I don't really have a good enough understanding of biology to assess the arguments on either side :)