Christian Fundamentalism: Patriarchy, Sexuality, and Human Rights
by Susan D. Rose from Religious
Fundamentalism and the Human Rights of Women, Courtney Howland, editor.
Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration)
adopted by the United Nations (UN) proclaims that “[a]ll human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights,” yet women’s freedom, dignity, and
equality are persistently compromised by law, custom, and religious tradition
in ways that men’s are not. This chapter [sic] will focus on Christian
fundamentalism and patriarchy, and how they interactively help shape and
rationalize both cultural views and social policy related to gender, sexuality,
health, reproductive choice, and violence against women and girls.
The reinforcement of patriarchy is the trait that Christian
fundamentalism most clearly shares with other forms of religious belief that
have also been called “fundamentalist.” This characteristic is most evident
across the Abrahamic tradition of the three major monotheistic religions –
among fundamentalist Israeli Jews, within both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslim
communities in various countries, and within the current revival of evangelical
Protestantism emanating from the United States – but is also evident in
fundamentalist Hindu and Buddhist movements. All seek to control women and the
expression of sexuality. Fundamentalists argue that men and women are by divine
design “essentially” different, and they aim to preserve the separation between
public and private, male and female, spheres of action and influence. As
Charlotte Bunch notes:
“The distinction between private
and public is a dichotomy largely used to justify female subordination and to
exclude human rights abuses in the home from public scrutiny … When women are
denied democracy and human rights in private, their human rights in the public
sphere also suffer, since what occurs in ‘private’ shapes their ability to
participate fully in the public arena.”
The most common rationale given for denial of human rights to women is
the preservation of family and culture. While article 16 of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEAFDAW) requires
state parties to take “all appropriate measures” to ensure the equality of
women and men in marriage and in parental rights and responsibilities,
fundamentalists across these traditions maintain that women are the keepers of
the heart and hearth, whereas men are the keepers of the mind and marketplace.
The struggle for women’s and children’s rights as human rights poses a
fundamental threat to “traditional” cultural orders and social structures, and
especially to “secondary-level male elites.” When “secondary-level male elites”
are struggling to maintain male dominance in the middling areas of society
where jobs are increasingly contested by women, they find that they can
reassert themselves in the family, school, and church, which are the social
institutions most accessible to them. In contrast, the first-level male elite,
who control the major financial institutions and/or manage the corporate
structures are not so concerned with this kind of patriarchal restoration.
II. MAKING MEN, SUBDUING WOMEN IN
LATE-TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA
In the early twentieth century, the original, U.S. Christian
fundamentalist movement explicitly stated that reining in women was essential
to maintaining social cohesion. Fundamentalists were also aware that although
religion remained important to women, its appeal was declining among men. In
addition, the shift from an agrarian to an industrial society made it more
difficult for men to live out “traditional” notions of masculinity. As a
result, concerns about the feminization of men and of Christianity developed
into a kind of militant, virile masculinity that became the hallmark of the
Christian warrior, and the movement’s literature became “rife with strident
anti-feminist pronouncements, some of them bordering on outright misogyny.”
This is no less true today. As Martin Riesebrodt argues, fundamentalism
is primarily a “radical patriarchalism” that represents a protest movement
against the increasing egalitarianism between the sexes. Within the vast
majority of fundamentalist, Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal, and charismatic
Protestant churches (which I refer to under the umbrella terms “evangelical” or
“fundamentalist”) spreading both within and beyond the United States, the
downward lines of authority of the nuclear, patriarchal family are still being
firmly reinforced: children are to be obedient to their parents, wives to their
husbands, and husbands to their God.
One of the most prominent evangelical groups today to promote a
modernized form of patriarchy is the “Promise Keepers.” Founded in 1990 by Bill
McCartney, head coach of the University of Colorado football team, the Promise
Keepers (and their female counterpart, the Promise Reapers) has embraced the
goal of motivating men toward Christ-like masculinity. For example, Pastor Tony
Evans, in Seven Promises of a Promise
Keeper, argues that the primary cause of (our) national crisis – the decline
of family structure – is “[t]he Feminization of Men,” and he urges men to take
back their male leadership role: “Unfortunately, however, there can be no
compromise here … Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!”
The Promise Keepers are promoting good old fashioned patriarchy with a
new twist. They are encouraging men to become more involved in family life, and
more responsible to and for their children, but their approach would not meet
the obligations of equality under article 16 of CEAFDAW – which they would be
bound to oppose in any event. Rather than working toward greater equality for
both men and women, leaders reassure men that they will gain rather than rather than lose power and authority within the
family. Within the fundamentalist framework, family life continues to be
gendered along patriarchal lines, and while men are called back to the private
sphere, gender apartheid is still maintained. This has significant consequences
for social policy that affect the lives and choices of all citizens,
particularly in the arenas of reproductive choice and health.
III. LIEGISLATING THE CHRISTIAN
PATRIARCHAL AGENDA
The pro-family political platform of the contemporary Christian Right
in the United States unabashedly supports patriarchy, and privileges men’s
rights over women’s rights, and parents’ rights over children’s and states’
rights. This approach is particularly pernicious given that studies of domestic
violence indicate that wife and child abuse is more common among families that
adhere to traditional, patriarchal sex role norms.
Over the past several years, conservative groups such as the Christian
Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum, and Of the People have
campaigned for “parental-rights” legislation at the federal level and in more
than 25 states. These various attempts have included the “Pupil Protection Act,”
also known as the Hatch Amendment of 1978, which requires parental consent when
a federally funded program in school calls for a student to submit to a survey
or evaluation that may reveal information concerning, among other things:
political affiliations; mental and psychological problems potentially
embarrassing to the student or his family; sex behavior and attitudes; and
illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior. The Christian
Religious Right used the Hatch Amendment to attack the curricula dealing with:
health issues of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and sex education; globalism
and world issues such as information on the Holocaust and news reporting from
worldwide magazines (Time and Newsweek); diversity issues, including
exposing children to books by African-American and homosexual authors; and
general programs concerning political participation, including mock elections.
The breadth and depth of the attach on the integrity of a free public education
was so great that even Senator Orrin Hatch, the sponsor of the bill, called for
“the rule of commonsense [to] prevail.”
The patriarchal approach of the Christian Right is also apparent in the
recently proposed “Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995,” which
prohibits any government from interfering with or usurping the right of the
parent in the upbringing of the child in such areas as education, health,
discipline (including corporal punishment), and religious teachings. Such a
bill would, among other things, have an obvious “chilling” effect on
intervention in child-abuse cases.
The Christian Right’s support for parents’ rights over children’s
rights and its attacks on public education demonstrate the clear conflict of
interest between, on the one hand, the rights of children to an informed
education (including their health) and the duty of all states to provide
informed education and, on the other hand, the extent of the parental right to
socialize and educate their children within the parameters of their religious
faith. It is also important to note that the strongest impact will be on girls
because the Christian Right educational agenda includes the promotion of
patriarchy and thus unequal roles for men and women. It is hard to imagine how
girls can take away from such education the Universal Declaration’s
proclamation that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights.”
[…]
V. WHOSE RIGHTS?
Central to the sex education debate is the Religious Right’s attempt to
preserve men’s rights over women’s rights, and parental rights over children’s
rights. The Family Research Council in 1995 critiqued the Fourth World
Conference on Women, stating that the conference reflected “a radical feminist
agenda” that “denigrate[d] motherhood and the traditional family” by noting
that there were “unequal power relations” in the family. Radical? Yes, writes
evangelical psychologist James Dobson, who heads up the largest Christian Right
Organization in the United States, Focus on the Family. He warns that the UN
Conference on Women represents “the most radical, atheistic, anti-family
crusade in the history of the world” and the “[t]he Agency for International
Development will channel hundreds of millions of dollars to support women’s
reproductive and sexual rights and family planning services. The only hope for
derailing this train is the Christian church.”
As we enter the new millennium, family planning, reproductive and
sexual health, and economic well-being are vital concerns for individuals,
communities, and nations. Rates of pregnancy, and AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases, remain alarmingly high among America’s youth, yet
opponents of sexuality education are trying to censor vital, life-saving
information that has proven effective in dealing with these problems. Instead,
the Religious Right continues to blame the “fallen girl/woman” and the
feminization of men for the ills of our society rather than economic and
structural forces that perpetuate inequality between men and women, and between
the very wealthy and the middle and impoverished classes. In the battle over
sexuality and choice and education, it’s girls’ and women’s bodies, lives, and
livelihoods that are all too often sacrificed.
With respect to girls’ rights in education, it is important to remember
that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – to which
the United States is a party – prohibits discrimination against women or girls.
The Human Rights Committee, the monitoring body of the ICCPR, has interpreted
ICCPR provisions as allowing parents to ensure that their children receive a
religious and moral education but that public schools are limited to teaching
the general history of religion in a nondiscriminatory manner and only if it is
given “in a neutral and objective manner” because the “instruction in a
particular religion or belief is inconsistent” with the ICCPR. Does the
Christian Right educational agenda meet this standard?
While evangelicals represent only 25 percent of the U.S. population,
their influence on social policy regarding sexuality education, sexual
orientation, teen pregnancy, reproduction, family planning, and economic equity
has been significant, though less in establishing their agenda than in putting
the brakes on research, education, and funding that could reduce the rates of
teen pregnancy, abortion, and violence against women and children; increase the
equality between women and men; and better protect and prepare children for
healthy, active, responsible lives in the twenty-first century. Their impact is
also felt beyond the borders of the United States. Today North American
evangelicals are the largest group of missionaries moving across the globe on
mission quests. They are effective in establishing churches, schools, and
health clinics in various places around the world. What kind of messages will
they be disseminating? What kinds of influence may evangelical “sex experts”
have as they fund programs and advise people and political leaders, not only in
the United States, but around the world about gender, family planning, sex,
contraception, violence – about life and death?
[1999]
Biography courtesy of Dickinson College
Susan D. Rose, Charles A. Dana Professor of Sociology and Director,
Community Studies Center. PhD., Cornell University (1984). Professor Rose
specializes in the sociology of religion, immigration, family, violence, and
race, class, gender studies. She uses a comparative (cross-cultural and
historical) approach to the study of family, religion, education, and violence.
She has conducted fieldwork in the United States, Guatemala, the Philippines,
and South Korea on evangelical movements, education, and gender that has
resulted in a number of articles and books. These include: Exporting the
American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism (Routledge, 1998) and Keeping
Them Out of the Hands of Satan: Christian Schooling in America (Routledge,
1986). Her recent work explores sexuality and sexuality education in Denmark
and the United States, the impact of the Religious Right on social policy in
the United States, and immigration studies.
Recipient of the Michael Harrington Distinguished Teaching Award (2003)
from the National Poverty Forum, Dickinson College's Distinguished Teaching
Award (2001), and the National Oral History Distinguished Teaching Award
(1996-1998), Rose enjoys teaching a variety of classes. She challenges her
students to ask significant questions and to pursue them, using various
theoretical and methodological approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.