I’ve been offline quite a lot the past week. It’s been a busy time at work and in my personal life as well. So I didn’t hear about the recent tragedy in Isla Vista until late Saturday evening, and the more I learn about it, the more sobering it is. Hännah Ettinger captures my feelings rather perfectly in her post from yesterday:
Yesterday’s shooting didn’t leave me as shaken as it should have, like other shooting that happened have. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora. Those haunt me in their very senselessness. The mystery of why. They’re unforgettable because the motives are unknowable.
Yesterday’s shooting made perfect sense
Dianna Anderson further expounds upon it in her essay “On Purity Culture, Violence Against Women, and Disbelief As Patriarchy:”
Men grow up in a culture that simultaneously tells them that “getting the girl” is some manly men do and that manhood is inextricably tied with violent acts. The Men’s Rights Movement, in its extremes, has developed a methodology of treating women as objects who exist either to give men sex or to undermine their deserved right to sex, children, and power. Being an “Alpha Male,” in Men’s Rights terminology, means being the manliest of men – which requires using women for sex, being the provider of the household, and asserting your rightful place at the top.
I’ve often commented to myself, when I read the work of complementarian ministers, especially those talking about manhood, that they sound like MRA’s. Especially in studying purity culture for my forthcoming book, I’ve come across biblical exegesis that sounds very like Men’s Rights discussion simply bathed in “biblical” justification. Owen Strachan’s famous post about “man fails,” for example, could easily be a post on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
In this drive to prove themselves as manly men, women become collateral damage. Three women die each day as the result of domestic violence [PDF]. Many more end up in emergency rooms. Some end up on the news, the victims of men they had rejected previously. This is not an isolated phenomenon. This pattern of violence is the result of a culture that says that only valuable thing about a woman is what she can do for men.
And “Biblical” evangelicals do not escape from this culture. Women in the purity movement serve as vessels for Christian children, as objects that must keep themselves pure for a father, a husband, and a specifically male God. There is no escaping the ways in which evangelical theology defines women solely by their relationships to men, objectifying them first as single women whose worth is determined by their sexual activity and then as wives, whose goodness as wives is determined by whether or not they can keep their virile, manly husband from “straying.”
I can’t help but see what Dianna noted here reflected in the assemblies.
Masculinity has a very narrow definition within the Plymouth Brethren, and can only be expressed in dominance. The dominance given to men, according to the assemblies, is over the entire earth, over gatherings of local believers (especially women), over their wives, and over their children. In short, men are considered the representation of God’s authority on earth, and thus often cannot be spoken against.
As I’ve said before, the assemblies exhibit perhaps the dictionary definition of benevolent sexism. In his book about biblical counseling, Jean Gibson writes that “the husband’s assigned role of leadership does not justify tyranny, harshness or an insensitive domination,” and continues that “If husbands were consistent, reliable leaders, providers, decision-makers and the like, wives would be delighted. When husbands default in these areas, they are a disappointment.” He also writes that women are to be under the leadership of their husbands, saying, “Subordination does not in any way deny her equal value in Christ or her dignity as a person of worth.”
Under the guise of Biblical order and commitment to the Lord, women in the assemblies are stripped of power and control over their lives and told that the men in their lives are tasked with their protection. If women in any way step outside of their umbrella of protection, whether it be through having a difference of belief or falling into “sin” or speaking up about abuses of power from the men who have sworn to protect them…it’s not hard to see the damage such a system can do, and it’s not hard to understand why it can easily fly under the radar considering the way church discipline is handled among autonomous churches.
I do appreciate that the assemblies don’t often explicitly teach the violent kind of masculinity that’s rampant in wider western culture (and especially encouraged by Men’s Rights Activists, as seen by the labeling of Elliot Rodger as a hero). However, this focus on men being leaders (and leadership necessarily meaning dominance over others) easily creates an environment in which men develop a sense of entitlement.
When I was 16, I became convicted that my music, clothing, hair style, and personality were an affront to God. I touched on the specifics in more detail here, but suffice it to say that a wanna-be goth/punk girl with short spiky hair listening to hard rock wasn’t considered fitting for a godly young woman. That summer while working at Greenwood Hills, I used my meager wages to buy more feminine clothing.
The first day I walked out of the girls’ side of the staff house wearing a long flowered skirt and deep red but modest tank top, one of the guys on staff whistled loudly, commending me for how beautiful I looked. He came closer to admire me, then without warning pulled me into a tight hug, draping his body over mine so that we were briefly melded together. I told him to let me go, tried to pull away, but he only laughed, held me tighter and longer. When he finally let me go, I was utterly shaken. I viewed this young man as a brother in Christ. I’d always assumed that the staff boys were godly young men who would serve as the strong, sensitive, godly leaders the assemblies taught that they would be. It had never occurred to me that this could happen.
This guy’s behavior continued for the next couple of weeks. He made a concerted effort to be wherever I was, especially if there weren’t many people around, touching as much of me as he could and laughing when I expressed discomfort or rage. At one point, upon finding me sprawled on a couch reading a book, he tackled me and laid on top of me, pinning me to the couch, staring into my eyes from mere inches away, literally laughing in my face as I struggled to push him off. It took someone else in the room complaining for him to get off of me. His behavior finally stopped when a friend pulled him aside to explain that I was “sensitive about that sort of thing,” and even then in his apology he knelt close enough to breathe on me, grinning with clear enjoyment at my discomfort with his closeness.
That was violence. That was a man in a patriarchal setting assuming that my body was for his pleasure and insisting that my “no” was meaningless, that my personhood was secondary to his desires. That was a man who was explicitly taught that God gave him dominion over me by sheer fact that he was a man and I was a woman.
This wasn’t an isolated incident by far.
There was one conference in which a well-liked spiritual leader constantly insisted on greeting a friend of mine with a hug, despite her vocalized preference for shaking hands. Later that summer, I found myself befriended by this man, who had begun greeting me with hugs and kisses on the cheek at every opportunity. He repeatedly offered to have private Bible studies with me as well. At the time, I was torn between feeling flattered and feeling trapped. After all, a godly man many years my senior seemed to have singled me out — surely this was a compliment. Nevertheless, I kept my suspicions to myself for over 10 years.
Not long after that, a male staff member at the camp began making concentrated efforts to single out another girl on staff. Like my “friend,” he was older than her, in a position of some authority, and extremely well-liked at both the camp and our church — and he used all of these charms combined with his spiritual and vocational authority to try to isolate her, and all of those things kept us all from going to anyone about him. We knew we would be dismissed, so we just did the best that we could to ensure that she was never alone.
You see, it was expected that single men within the assemblies, once they reached “a certain age,” would pursue women of their choosing, age difference and reciprocated interest entirely aside — and it was also expected that we give them a chance, no matter what.
The young man who harassed and assaulted me that summer was acting as a predator. The man who was physically insistent with my friend and me was acting creepily. The man who singled out that girl on staff and used his authority to isolate her was acting as a predator. The various other single men who cycled through the camp, especially those who held any sort of authority as preachers, acted in a predatory manner whenever they would follow women around, disregard our implied or explicit disinterest, making us feel unsafe, knowing that if we went to other authority figures, they would have support and we would not. Scott Blair, who I posted about before, was a predator who was involved with the youth group at my church for a few years and even the manager of Greenwood Hills for the same amount of time. He was a missionary before that, and an elder until he was arrested. (Once again, I must extend my hearty gratefulness to Southeast Bible Chapel for their immediate action once allegations were raised, and express hope for healing and peace to his victims and family.) New Tribes Mission, a missionary training organization that the Plymouth Brethren hold in high esteem, was host to extremely abusive men and women at a boarding school for missionary kids.
I don’t know how many other predators are out there in the assemblies. I really don’t. I don’t know that it’s even possible to know, considering the way that the churches are organized — or rather not organized but lacking official oversight, which easily allows for people to move from assembly to assembly with relative ease and little to no consequences.
This is why telling our stories is so important. Talking about our experiences, examining the teachings that create an environment that predators find appealing, creating a space for those who have grown up in this environment to unpack what it is that’s so dangerous within the movement.
#YesAllWomen, because in our heteronormative binary culture, masculinity means exerting dominance & femininity means submissive acceptance.
— Dani Kelley (@danileekelley) May 25, 2014
It seems clear to me that the Plymouth Brethren teaching and enforcement of gender roles, that masculinity necessarily means dominance and femininity necessarily means submission, that men are God’s authority on earth and women are inherently deceitful, easily led astray and lead others astray, creates an environment that enables men to participate in mental, emotional, physical, and sexual violence and leaves women with no recourse.
As Hännah so eloquently put it, “Not all men are like that, but yes, all women have encountered men who are like that.” The assemblies are no different, and their teachings help foster an environment where men who are like that can feel safe.