Freudian Slip?

These are the quotes I posted yesterday:

Quote #1: The woman's desire is to control her husband, to usurp his divinely appointed headship, and he must master her, if he can. 

Quote #2: It was woman's nature to be ruled by man and her sickness to envy him.

I will begin with the second quote. While not directly from Sigmund Freud, this is Betty Friedan's summary of his view of women. Freud is known for diagnosing (or misdiagnosing) the neuroses of women down to one common ailment -  envy of male reproductive anatomy. He also believed, "Nature has determined woman's destiny through beauty, charm, and sweetness. Law and custom have much to give women that has surely been withheld from them, but the position of women will surely be what it is: to youth, an adored darling and in mature years, a loved wife." Therefore, any desire outside of these confines, any desire for equality with man was only a symptom of her biological inferiority manifesting itself in an envy of what she could never possess. Freud's theory of women then became mainstream in the 40's and 50's through the growing field of popular psychology. Any lack of contentment "with her own constitution" was seen as a "masculinity complex", namely a desire to be like a man. To become "normal" meant giving up any goals of her own and finding her identity and fulfillment through her husband or her son.

A perfect example of how Freud became entrenched in American thought was through the book, Fascinating Womanhood. This must have struck a chord with the public because it sold over 2 million copies, if you believe the cover. (Coincidentally Fascinating Womanhood and The Feminine Mystique were both copyrighted 1963. I can't think of two more polar-opposite books.) The author, Helen Andelin, promises you will have the marriage of your dreams by becoming the ideal woman from the man's point of view. Take note. It is the man's point of view, not God's that counts. Her description of the "angelic" and "human" qualities of this paragon could be drawn straight from the Victorian poem, The Angel in the House. Her advice includes taking fashion cues from the girls' department to draw out the male protective instinct and to hide your intelligence, especially when it comes to science or math, because it would never to do be smarter than the man. When you talk, coo and purr and have an attitude of "bewitching languor." I kid you not. While some of her advice is ludicrous, there are similarities with your average traditional marriage/women's books. She strongly advocates the doctrine of separate spheres which is in keeping with Freud's maxim, "Anatomy is destiny." With the sprinkling of Bible verses and references to "God", Fascinating Womanhood took off in Christian circles, but there was one big problem. It wasn't Christian. Andelin was a Mormon and her beliefs are reflected in her book. She considers Genesis 3:16 as a direct command from God for man to rule over woman, not as part of the curse. Mormons believe the fall was beneficial because it allows a deity's spirit children to obtain physical bodies. Then after testing in this life, the men can become gods. If a wife pleased her husband in this life, she could join him in a celestial marriage on his personal planet and begin the cycle all over again. So for a Mormon woman, her eternal destiny is determined by the success of her marriage. Sadly, Fascinating Womanhood classes are still being held to this day. You can even buy the book at CBD, although I'm really not surprised.

Now back to the first quote. This is from Susan Foh's article in the 1974 Westminster Theological Journal. In this paper she reexamines Genesis 3:16 in the light of the feminism. To be up front, I disagree with Foh's interpretation, and yes, I still consider myself a complimentarian. However, I am intrigued by the fact that her statement sounds so similar to Sigmund Freud, for which there may be three possible explanations:

1. Pure coincidence.

2. Freud is biblical in his theory of women.

3. Foh, like the rest of American culture, both secular and religious, was influenced by Freud without realizing it.

I am inclined to believe the last point. In turn, Foh has exerted her own influence. Through her paper, she changed how many Christians interpret Genesis 3:16 because it answered the "feminist" problem. But even in secular society, a similar solution was offered via Freud - "Stop trying to be like men. Embrace the cultural ideal of femininity, and you will be happy." Wendy Alsup does a very good job of critiquing Foh's view. Luma Simms also makes a similar appeal to return to a more historical interpretation of this verse. So I will not add to what they have written

However, whether it is Foh or Freud or both, the idea of a woman's usurping desire has very serious ramifications when it comes to gender relationships and specifically domestic abuse. Now I want to be very, very clear. I do not believe Foh and everyone who agrees with her interpretation automatically condone or commit abuse. There are people I know and respect who hold this view. But I can't help but wonder how many times has this view been used…

• To discount a woman's cries for help?  Well, obviously she must not be submitting enough or else this would not be happening to her. Go back and submit.
• By an abuser to justify his abuse? If you were a better wife, I wouldn't be unhappy. You're trying to tell me what to do. You're trying to take over. You are only getting what you deserve. 
• To condition women into thinking they deserve mistreatment at the hands of their husbands? It must be my fault because I've been told that Satan always uses a woman to get a man. I don't mean to. Maybe I really do deserve this.

There may not be statistics, but if you read the stories of abuse victims, this is an all-too-common theme. Assumptions are made about an abusive situation based on gender roles which lead to distrust and victim-blaming. But is this right? Is this just? Is this an overly simplistic response to a much more complicated issue?

In Is It My Fault?, the Holcombs make a pretty bold statement which I think is well worth considering:

Most incidents of domestic abuse can be traced back to a single, toxic assumption: that women are inherently inferior to men.

If we are going to practice pure religion undefiled, if we are going to help the widows and orphans of abuse, I think it's worth taking a hard look at our attitudes and honestly ask why we think the way we do about women.

So what is your gut reaction when you hear the story of an abused Christian woman? And what underlying assumptions fuel those thoughts?

                                                                                                                
References:

Fascinating Womanhood, Helen Andelin, Bantam Books, 1980.
Is It My Fault?: Hope and Healing for Those Suffering Domestic Violence, Justin Holcomb, Lindsey Holcomb, Moody Publishers, 2014, pg. 93.
The Sexual Solipsism of Sigmund Freud, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, Dell Publishing, 1983, pp. 103-125.
What is a Woman's Desire?, Susan T. Foh, The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83.