The Patriarchy Connection: The Protected Man, the Unprotected Woman

Hierarchical theologians tell us that men have an innate need to protect women. 

But the question is, why don't they? 

For example, why does the church tell women who find themselves in abusive marriages to remain instead of helping them get out?

Why do Christian men talk about their duty to protect, but do so very little to protect the women they know are suffering?
 
Because instead of protecting women, patriarchy protects men from women who have been abused. 

The sugarcoated theology of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood tells us that men have authority over women "for their own good," but what good is there in a theology that allows men abuse women while telling them to endure it patiently. How does it protect women?

We see this clearly in the patriarchal Athens. The Greeks were very fond of the concepts of femininity and masculinity. They considered masculinity to be a respectable quality that was reserved to men; women who exhibited masculine traits were not tolerated. Yet, if men can appear feminine and women can appear masculine, why should men be masculine and women feminine, and who decides what is masculine and feminine? If patriarchy defines masculinity as something reserved for men, and yet women can exhibit masculine traits, the concept of masculinity must be reserved for those who have the ability to choose the traits they would like to possess. In other words, masculine traits ensure that those who possess power will keep their position of power. 

If masculinity is about power, femininity must be about a lack of power. And if women must be properly feminine, it must mean that they must be properly powerless. Now the question is, why do women need to be powerless? We know that the Greeks gave men more power to allow them to indulge their flesh without restrain. A Greek man would spend his evenings with courtesans, and nights with a slave, and his legal rights protected him from his wife, who had no choice but to remain in the women's quarters and accept her husband's infidelity.

Christians, however, are instructed to gain control their flesh by the Spirit, wherefore a Christian man does not need more rights to indulge his flesh—or does he? Hierarchical theologians tell us that a husband should command his wife to obey when they disagree, which tells us that it all comes down to preferences. Yet, a man who expects his wife to obey his preferences does not live the life of love, for love is not self-seeking (Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 13:5). In fact, self-seeking is a work of the flesh, wherefore a man who is self-seeking seeks to gratify his flesh instead of gaining control over it by the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-21). 

A man who lives for his own flesh is hardly concerned about protecting those his flesh desires to abuse. If men truly desired to protect women, they would give women equal rights, and the church would excommunicate every man who ever raised his hand against a woman. But we don't see that. Instead we see the church telling women that if they would only submit they would protect themselves.

The dreadful reality of hierarchical theology is that it protects men while it makes every man believe they are protecting women. And people wonder why the church has no ability to help abused women.