No, Focus On the Family, I Do Not Want to Civilize a Barbarian – via Biblical Personhood Blog
There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage or the nuclear family, but often times, in attempting to defend the nuclear family or the institution of marriage, a lot of Christians and conservative groups (such as Focus On The Family) err too far in making an idol out of both and denigrating singleness (or childlessness) in the process.
I have taken Focus on the Family to task before on that issue and one or two others.
Another blogger, Biblical Personhood, caught wind of a Focus on the Family blog post by Glenn T. Stanton – well, it’s on a blog called “First Things,” which the lady blogger of Biblical Personhood says is an off-shoot of Focus on The Family.
I have discussed Stanton on my blog before, such as in these posts:
Based on what I remember about Stanton, he can veer a little bit too much into idolizing marriage.
At any rate, here is the link to the blog post by Biblical Personhood, with some additional comments by me below this excerpt:
(Link): No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian via Biblical Personhood blog
Here is an excerpt from the opening (please click the link above to visit the other blog if you’d like to read the entire page):
From Biblical Personhood Blog:
(Link): Focus on the Family recently suggested something that seems, at first glance, to flatter women. I did not feel flattered at all. They suggested women are the number one way to change men for the better:
/// start quote
… the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. – Glenn T. Stanton
/// end quote
This is highly problematic, to say the least.
From the theological perspective :
Have Focus On The Family never heard of Jesus and being born again? Surely Jesus is better at changing humans – even the alleged “malignant cancer” called unattached males – from the inside than any woman is? How could a Christian™ organization say that women, not Jesus, is the only remedy for men’s bad tendencies?
(( read the rest here ))
If you are an unmarried man (and you either want to stay single for the remainder of your life, or are aware you may never marry, even though you may want a wife), I’m sure you must really appreciate guys like Stanton saying you are basically a raging animal, or an immature man-baby, unless you are married to a woman.
You, if you are a single (unmarried) man, are a nothing, an incompetent, immoral loser unless you have a wife, is how Stanton’s reasoning comes across. You must have a wife and possibly father a child by said wife to count or to be a “real man.” This is pretty insulting stuff, especially bearing in mind that the Bible that Stanton likely would say he reads and agrees with, says nothing of the sort.
I did read over the Biblical Personhood blog post a day or two ago, but I don’t remember exactly everything that blog author wrote.
I will here add my own thoughts about the Stanton penned blog post. Some of my observations may be similar to those by the Biblical Personhood blogger.
Women create, shape, and maintain human culture. Manners exist because women exist. Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.
I disagree with just about everything he said there, on different levels, and for different reasons.
Most cultures are patriarchal, and this has been the way the world has been for thousands of years.
Women are not allowed to shape or maintain politics, marriage, or church – let alone culture, because men hold all the power. Women are taught by parents and culture from girlhood that this is normal, that men should be in charge, and females are conditioned from childhood to accept this and go along with it, especially Christian girls.
As much as I dislike blatant sexism, where men sound like cave-men and make loud, rude, condescending claims, such as women are not as logical or intelligent as men (this is used to justify limiting women in the workplace and so on)-
I also do not appreciate this (Link): benevolent sexist, noble-sounding, sappy and fouffy writing that tries to convince women that being subservient to men, allowing men to lead and protect them, and thus they can and should give up self-determination and their agency, is in their best interest, because dang it, women are so much more morally superior creatures to men.
This sort of writing is sugar-coated sexism. It’s asking women to give up their personhood, identity, or their independence, in exchange for something else (in this case, the betterment of men or culture).
I’m really tired of how sexists keep demanding things of women, and nothing of men, of expecting women to fix men, or to fix society.