frogprince -

By "brutality" in links I've posted, I presume you're referring to the Phelps Bio? His case, as described there is extreme. My opinions and observations on the subjects are only marginally affected by that case. I have related some more specific "case history" in previous posts elsewhere, so the following is perhaps repetition.

I have had conversations with more than a half-dozen males, over a period of several years, during which they asserted that their pastors had urged them to "discipline" their wives, and in a few cases they were accompanied by their wives who showed visible signs of their "discipline." In one of those cases, the wife affirmed that the pastor had told her "she deserved it" and should just "obey and do what he (the husband) tells you to." The offense was not described; but I took it that she thought it was rather trivial. She appeared to accept the pastor's advice that it was nothing extraordinary. In this half-dozen instances I count only conversations in which specific reference to a specific instance of such "pastoral advice" was clearly indicated.

Two males that I remember specifically, who spoke in some detail, were actually troubled by the advice to "go home and beat her," and both were quite explicit that the "pastor," acting as marriage counsellor, had suggested that as what they should do. One even quoted extensively, and verbatim so far as I could tell, the Bible passages that their "pastors" offered as justification, which I take as an indication that this was not new advice.

Most of the males who spoke fairly openly about this were "drop-ins" that I did not know, and for the most part only saw once or twice. Their opinion was not "popular" and they may have felt that the places I frequented weren't very "friendly" (with some justification?). I do not know which specific churches were giving this advice, but it was apparent that several were involved.

Two or three "regulars" that I knew casually over a fairly long period asserted that they had received similar advice, but claimed "she does what I tell her so I've never had to beat her," or words to that effect. In most cases, it was quite obvious that they considered it an "available remedy," sanctioned by their churches, should the need arise. It was also quite obvious in one case that he frequently used his "right" to administer physical punishment as a threat to keep her obedient.

One female who was employed at a pub where I spent some time appeared sporadically with visible evidence of having been hit, and on several occasion remarked to the effect of "the preacher said I deserved it, so I guess it's okay."

One female known casually over a long period, the sister of a close friend, appeared one day and engaged in a long argument with my friend, her sister, over whether she should divorce her husband. He had beaten her severely enough to need medical attention, and then left her locked in their house. Relatives forced entry to take her to the hospital. She was admitted overnight for treatment, and asserted that her "pastor" had visited her in the hospital and had told her "you didn't do what he told you to do so you deserved it." (She answered the phone while he wasn't there, when HE called repeatedly to make sure she would obey his order not to use it.)

While behaviour of the husband in this instance can only be described as bizarre, I do not doubt her assertion that their pastor, whom they had seen previously for "marital counselling," asserted that it was his "husband's right" to impose any rules he chose, and it was his right and duty to beat her if she disobeyed.

While I don't suspect that the "ministers" intended what they would consider brutality (which might differ from ours), it is my conclusion that the right and duty of a husband to inflict physical punishment on "a disobedient wife" is an entrenched and firmly held tenet of a significant number of fundamentalists' belief.

I have heard "allusions to" similar "religious principles" in places as widely scattered as Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Chicago, from people who admitted to beating, or being beaten, and/or to using the "right" to use such punishment as a threat.

It is not surprising if you have not seen or heard anything other than vague hints. Battery, and especially domestic battery, is a civil crime in most areas. Incitement to commit battery is also a crime in some few places. You are unlikely to hear anything specific - except from a few "lunatics" like *** - unless you are a regular member of a church where one or more pastors/counselors subscribes to this sort of belief and you and/or your spouse seek individual counselling to receive the message first-hand, or if you know (of) specific individuals who have "applied the theory" and are willing to talk (brag?) about it.

Recent articles in my newspaper (within the past year or so) have included remarks by women's hospice workers, to the effect that a large percentage of women treated are married to "fundies" (not their exact word), and citations were given to national studies along with the opinion that my city "was not much different" than many others. Unfortunately, this came before I was aware of how much influence polital activists hiding behind religion had achieved, so I didn't save citations and don't reliably recall the "percentages" quoted.

I don't make a practice of watching the TV services that are plentiful in my area - and in most areas of the US - but on occasions when it's accidental, I hear bits of one or more sermons per week in which subsevience of women to their husbands is stressed in the message. (These are not all local programming.) In a few cases when I've listened to see more fully what they say on the subject, the message is quite clear that women have no rights except what their husbands grant them. I see no difficulty, with the additional discussions I've had with individuals who've "applied the theory," in assuming that at least some of these "ministers" and/or those of their congregation, in one-on-one counselling, would assert the "right and obligation" of a husband to "discipline" a disobedient wife.

I haven't heard (yet) the assertion that women have no souls and are not quite human so they can't go to heaven, as has been parodied; but that line appeared in the suppression of "other minorities" (with Biblical citations) to deprive them of civil rights for quite a few years. In one nationally syndicated sermon I heard a very few months ago on TV, the preacher "addressed the question," and danced around it without answering. His equivocation was that "all those in heaven will be perfect beings so of course they'll all look like men."

I do not believe that this is a phenomenon specific to Kansas. While we have a couple of "fundie" ministers who are locally more vocal than may be commonly seen in many other places, there appear to be plentiful "church leaders" elsewhere who share the same views; although I have no real way of assessing the specifics of how prevalent their influence is elsewhere.

When our illustrious Kansas State Senator, Kay OConnor, *disparaged the 19th Amendment as a "symptom of something I don't approve of and something that "is around because men weren't doing their jobs" as head of the family, it wasn't too surprising. A number of our legislators appear to have come out of the oven a bit too soon.

* Quoted from my local newspaper 03 June 2005.

What was perhaps a surprise(?) is that she reportedly received large volumes of mail in support of her opinion, from across the country. When her (2001) remark was revived in comment on her campaign to be "State Election Commissioner" public comment published at least locally made frequent reference to, and supported, the "Biblical sources" for women's proper subservient, and compliant, role as servants to their husbands. With this misogynistic view of women, the same treatment as is openly advocated for children is to be expected in the treatment of wives. Both are nothing more than the "property" of the husband, to do with as he wishes.

(And recent surveys show that unmarried young women are predominantly "liberal" - but most don't bother to vote.)

John