Patriarchy today is often defined as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive, typically evoking male dominance over women. My own sister was recently taught this version of patriarchy in her women’s studies course at a state school here in Texas in which she was specifically asked to state times in her life when male dominance was enforced upon her, either by her father, or any other male she came in contact with. Unfortunately for the teacher who was trying to make a point, my sister couldn’t remember a single time when this notion of misogyny rained down upon her. While my heart sincerely goes out to any woman who has felt harassment from men, I’m not sure we can blame patriarchy.

As Dr. Esolen pointed out many men and women have never really experienced what patriarchy is. In a time where one out of every three homes are fatherless, can we really keep blaming patriarchy for the social ills we are experiencing? For a patriarchy to be in order there must be a male in a leadership role. Men aren’t in the homes, instead, they’re abandoning their posts and pursuing selfish expeditions. If he has abandoned his family, as many men are today, it’s not oppressive, its cowardice. I think the tired old adage of blaming men for being oppressive only works when men are actually present. Though the women’s liberation movement was meant to free women from abstract oppression of patriarchy, the reality is that the movement has caused a backsliding serfdom of women as men are using women more now than ever. With little to no sense of commitment, men are now given the immediate gratification of the sexual act while women praise this as true freedom. Is it truly freedom to be tossed aside as nothing more than an object for use? This isn’t love, it isn’t freedom, it isn’t truth. This is a cowardice of men that stems from the ongoing cycle of boys being raised to fear their male leadership and their own innate ability to make a difference in the world. It is also a sum total of education that teaches men and women that freedom from patriarchy is equivalent to releasing the shackles of moral responsibility.

This ideology has sprung up because we have been taught to view everything through the lens of victimhood. The greatest heroes of our time are those who are most oppressed.  Rather than looking at the virtues to uphold, and more importantly the vices to eradicate, two or three generations have been taught to glimpse every action or reaction of society as a matter of oppression. Due to this foolish, Marxist ideology of social awareness presenting a different option becomes near impossible, if not downright dangerous. Under the cultural fiasco of misguided feminism and a masculinity characterized by violence and indignation we find an entire demographic of men who no longer know what it means to lead a family. The misguided principles of feminism and their definition of patriarchy are just as errant as those of the men who treated women like cattle. Both mistake leadership for oppression and both impress upon the culture a fear between the sexes.

Could it be that a reinstatement of Christian patriarchy might just be the necessary change that can be a positive catalyst towards changing our social ills? Some of the clear distinctions of patriarchy are its clarity, its conflict, and its control. Whether these are to be praised or blamed would depend on how one perceived the object of the actions it pursues. Patriarchy is clear in that laws within a patriarchal system typically meant harsher punishments. Just as the father of a home meant a larger amount of fear in times of misbehavior, so too, in a patriarchy the leniency toward breaking the law is much less. It is also clear in that a patriarchal system calls things for what they are. An enemy is an enemy. In our modern era we have a difficult time defining an enemy. We don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings and confuse mercy and justice with today’s notion of nice. Jesus told us to love our enemies, not pretend like they don’t exist. If a threat were on its way into the tribe or nation, the men gathered together to discuss how, to eradicate the threat and how best to protect those in their charge. This meant warfare. It meant conflict. It meant control. Not the control of a dictator, but rather the control earned through self-sacrifice and courage. Men had to lay their lives on the line in order to keep the tribe viable. They understood that if some of the men die, their progeny will go on. However, if the women died, they would have less opportunity to “fill the earth” with their offspring. Women were held in such high regard because their survival meant the survival of the people.

Indeed, there were obvious times when patriarchy was misused and are partially to blame for the misunderstanding today. Which is why I mention specifically “Christian Patriarchy.” The Christian man knows and understands the necessity of living like Christ Himself. He willingly lays his life down for his family and his people. St. Paul boasts patriarchy as we see in Ephesians 5, “For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church”. St. Paul’s understanding of patriarchy beseeches the male head to act just as the Crucified Christ did; self-sacrificial and honorable, he exhorted men to earn the right to be the head of the household, not through brute force of will but through charity.

This is yet another reason why Jesus is such a dangerous figure. He offers the way out of our troubles. He offers Christian patriarchy. When the Pharisees question his allegiance of Moses’ prescription of law, who allowed divorce to keep men from killing the women they were married to, he answers, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so”.  Jesus refers back to the beginning of man. By going back to the beginning he doesn’t abolish the ideals of patriarchy, rather he challenges the status quo of vitriolic chauvinism and brings back to mind the role of Adam himself. Adam, finding himself alone and unfulfilled seeks his beloved. He seeks that which will be truly flesh of his flesh and fulfill the internal need within. Jesus thrashes the mere notion of fear between the sexes and rather institutes a masculinity based on crucified love. He doesn’t ask the men to be nice, rather he challenges them to interiorize the eternal law. He bids man to once again recognize the incredible gift of the feminine in their lives and to treat it as the crown jewel of creation.

I think it is high time we revisit the ideals of Christian patriarchy. A system of expectation given to men to step up and be the leaders they were called to be. For far too long men have set aside their duties as the protector, provider, and leader of their homes in both physical and spiritual matters. Patriarchy, complete in Christian virtue and principles, allows for a society and its morality to thrive because when men are leading their homes in following Christ, protecting them from physical and spiritual dangers, and providing the necessary material and spiritual goods, families thrive. This means men need to step up and stop acting like victims. Build your virtues, pray for grace, and get ready to take the helm. This is the way God intended it. This is the way we ought to as well.

11 13 2016
Back to all articles
  • Tammy Craig

    Wonderful touch on the theology of the body as JP2 taught us. Women created as the Crown Jewel as they are the givers and sustainers of life, the reference back to creation. The sexual revolution and in like the feminist movement have attempted to crush the crown jewel, in the facade of "freedom" and in doing so masculinity is a casualty of the war on the family. The natural progression from sexual openness led to abortions on demand, rejection of marriages, fatherless homes, abandoned women and now the LGBT takeover and gender identity crisis. Women tried to become free yet they we're entrapped. Thank you for the insightful thoughts.

  • Karen

    So, how does the "leader" get to enforce his leadership? What if he's hopelessly wrong, does everyone still have to obey him? Finally, in what universe have men ever "laid down their lives" for their families? Men in patriarchy get an enormous reward for simply having a penis in the form of mandated respect and obedience that women have to render on pain of being severely punished. Women get zilch. That fundamental unfairness is essential to the system of patriarchy and the reason women have abandoned it.

    • GuineaPugs

      I'm still trying to figure out what kind of husband and father I want to be, so I can't answer many of your questions and concerns. That being said your comment, "in what universe have men ever laid down their lives for their families?" seems to be obvious to me. Men have been laying down their lives throughout history with wars, extreme jobs with deadly working conditions, risking lives for food and shelter, and etc. I think it's fine to disagree with the author's proposed topic, but it would be foolish to assume that men haven't laid down their lives for their family.

      • Karen

        Women died quite as often as men did in wars but we don't get credit for starving,
        Succumbing to disease or getting killed as civilians. Those dangerous jobs? Men get money for doing that. About half the women who have ever given birth died from it and the rest suffered agony, but we don't get any rewards from society for that; men think childbirth is the only reason for women to exist. And as for my other question, the fact that you would even entertain a passing thought that you have a right to enforce your wishes on you wife tells me all I need to know about you. Consider becoming a cloistered monk and save some poor woman from dealing with your rages.

      • GuineaPugs

        Coming onto this discussion, onto a website seeking to help men grow, with the intention of sparking an argument isn't going to help anyone. Maybe I could've handled my response in a more Christian manner. You come here seeking praise for the women who died but no one is arguing that those women don't deserve our love and prayers and praise for what they've endured. We are discussing men's issues in life. No one here assumed that women are just for childbirth. I would suggest you read the piece because it seems like you are angry with a different article. What I believe the author is trying to say is, if we as men live like Christ (sacrificing everything for his bride), then our spouse should do the same to us but in a different way. If a man is being abusive to his wife, then he is not being like Christ and she should not give herself to his every wish, only if he is reaching to be like Christ should they come together in mutual love and sacrifice. What did you honestly seek to do by writing that comment? Was that intended to be vitriolic or to persuade someone to your belief? Could we start over and have a conversation about each other's grievances and troubles and work toward a solution?

      • Karen

        We can have a civil discussion. I would very much like to see how you think it's possible for husbands to enforce their authority on their wives? (And I read the article, especially the part about punishments in patriarchal systems being much harsher than what we have now.)

      • Felix_Culpa

        "How you think it's possible for husbands to enforce their authority on their wives?" There is no need to "enforce" anything if the wife does her duty because she is convinced it is the will of God that she submits to the husband.

      • Karen

        Then she agrees with him; what happens when she has an emphatic disagreement, especially about something where she has better information and more experience than he does?

      • Felix_Culpa

        It's exactly like at the office: your boss may order you to do something you vehemently disagree with. So long as it is not something criminal, you do it anyway because it's not your call at the end of the day, it's the boss's call, even if it's truly stupid and even if you've tried your best to convince the boss otherwise. Ditto with the husband. So long as it is not sinful, you do it anyway because it is not your call at the end of the day.

      • Karen

        With a terrible boss I can quit or appeal up the chain of command. With a husband determined to ruin everyone's life, the wife has no recourse. (In my world she can -- and SHOULD -- leave his worthless butt. You disagree.)

        If the wife won't acquiesce, how does the husband force her?

      • Felix_Culpa

        Depends what it is that he is asking the wife to do. Anything criminal or sinful, obviously the wife should not and must not obey. But if he merely wants to do something imprudent--say, buying a too-expensive new car--that's a different matter. The wife should make her concerns known, show him how they can't afford it, show him the budget plan, etc. If he insists, well--it was his call. She must make the best of it and economize as much as possible in other ways.

      • Karen

        So he always wins and she pays the price. No wonder men want this system back.

      • Felix_Culpa

        When a boss makes poor decisions, it's his problem not the employees. Similarly, its the husband who "pays the price" at the end of the day because it is all on his shoulders as head of the household.

      • Karen

        Nope. If the husband loses all the family savings in a stupid investment the entire family becomes poor and all suffer. He doesn't get one tiny drop more misery than his innocent victims do. This is a lie men use to make women miserable and then expect us to feel sorry for you. This lie is why I hate patriarchy -- men in that system get all the benefits and spread the costs to women and children who get only pain.

      • GuineaPugs

        My personal (not fully formed) opinion on this would be that wives should ONLY follow the authority of their husbands IF they completely follow Christ as best they can. This goes both ways, the husbands should ONLY fight/die for their wives IF they completely follow Christ as best they can. Could we agree though that there cannot be two leaders? Just like there can't be two Gods, we need one leader in a relationship. Now, that doesn't mean that they will be leading everything in the relationship as some areas will be more suited toward the other's traits.

        In the Christian patriarchy (as the other states), there is a mutual love between man and woman much like Christ and his Church. I feel like we as a culture have devalued the sacrifice that Christ gave in order to protect his Church. I think we could also agree that the love that Christ had for his Church was perfect, right? He LED, the Church and had authority over it. I wouldn't call it oppressive though because of everything he did to preserve it.

        Like the author said, "Some of the clear distinctions of patriarchy are its clarity, its conflict, and its control. Whether these are to be praised or blamed would depend on how one perceived the object of the actions it pursues." Karen, it all comes down to definitions. If we have the secular patriarchy that has been used to oppress women throughout time then I'm with you! Get rid of it for good. But if we define it by using the Christian values that Christ projected, then I say it's worthy of embracing.

  • Eduard Lugo

    www.patriarchmen.org

    Great Bible study about training men to be fatherly leaders.