Buehner: Single Women Under Father’s Control


Dave Buehner of Generations Radio launched into quite a diatribe on his radio show, explaining — accurately — how the Bible clearly says that a woman is owned by her father until she gets married, then she is owned by her husband. And therefore they have no freedom or self-determination at any point:

When the government does something like this, their intentions, their self-conscious intention, is to destroy the patriarchal structure of the family. The Book of Numbers is very clear and the Book of Numbers says that ‘when the father hears the vow of his daughter, an obligation to which she’s bound herself, if the father says nothing then the vow stands; but if the father should forbid her on the day he hears of it then none of her vows, none of her obligations of which she has bound herself, shall stand.’ What that means is that a father who has a daughter, she’s not free, she doesn’t have the feminist independence that we hear so much about to make contracts, to buy drugs, to engage in activities without the father’s consent. Now when you tell the father he has no business knowing what drugs his daughter’s putting into her body, when a father has no business knowing whether or not his daughter is out there fornicating with the football team, you’ve destroyed patriarchy even more. I think the government is waging a war against God’s family structure.

It’s almost refreshing to hear a fundamentalist Christian admit that the Bible establishes a system of patriarchy. Many Christians try to deny that, but the verses are quite clear. Women are little more than chattel in the Bible, including in the New Testament.

Comments

  1. says

    So if the dad says no, the suitor just has to “rape” the girl and then they can set up house. (After the payment of 30 shekels for the dad’s lost “property”).

    Amazingly, some people I know can’t believe that I don’t embrace their book of morals.

  2. says

    Yes, but chattel is a compound singular. So all of your cows are chattel, and all of your goats are chattel, and all of your womenfolk are chattel. Put them together then you have chattels. More than one type of chattel.

    So, when speaking of only one type of chattel, the compound singular suffices.

  3. doublereed says

    I don’t think there’s a better Feminist + Anti-Theist argument out there than what this guy just said.

  4. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    All I can think is how sad it is for girls growing up with parents who think of them as life long slaves and incubators.

  5. sarah00 says

    My father’s dead. Has been since I was 12. So who owns me? Or do fathers not die before their daughters marry in Mr Buehner’s world?

  6. space cadet says

    I love (hate, actually) how there is simply no middle ground with these fools.

    …when a father has no business knowing whether or not his daughter is out there fornicating with the football team…

    Women are either pure, virginal flowers or slutty sluts who slut it up with anything that has a penis.

  7. Abdul Alhazred says

    My father’s dead. Has been since I was 12. So who owns me?

    There is always someone to inherit the position of “patriarch” (unless there was some sort of massacre).
    It might be an uncle or some other relative, depending.

    The Bible is very explicit about matters of inheritance.

  8. space cadet says

    @sarah00, #7

    I’m sure they would say something along the lines of “Jesus is your father by proxy, and if Jesus doesn’t approve of (insert some action that is none of their business, here) then He will let you know”.

  9. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Sarah, then your eldest brother takes over.

    My grandmother was divorced in the 60’s. Her father was dead, her brother away in the military . So, she was unable to get a loan for a car in order to get to work. The loan officers let her know plainly what was what. I don’t know if what they told her was Biblical, but they were very clear as to who ownership of her fell to.

  10. Abdul Alhazred says

    @10

    Wrong Testament.

    It’s your uncle, oldest surviving brother, cousin or whatever.

    God said so. :p

  11. says

    But, but, but, but . . .

    You don’t understand! It’s only Christianity that truly honours and values women!

    Eleventy!!111!!!

  12. slc1 says

    Re Jackie @ #11

    I don’t know when this happened but such discrimination today would be in violation of one of the civil rights acts. Someone who was discriminated against in such a manner would have a juicy law suit against the miscreants.

  13. Pen says

    @ 14 Yeah, but not then. In the 70s my mother had to get a letter of permission from my father to open an bank account*. And in the year 2004 a lady taking a questionnaire for a public organisation informed me that I had to put my husband down as ‘head of the household’ because “it’s just a technical term, but it has to be the adult male if there is one”*. I refused to do the questionnaire.

    *Both incidents in France

  14. says

    It’s a queer feeling, hearing people like this explicitly spell out the ways in which in their ideal universe, most if not all of your freedoms would be taken away.

    If you handed my freedoms over to my father, he wouldn’t know what to do with them. He wouldn’t want them– well, except perhaps the ability to make me act as IT professional for my mother’s computer so long as she has one. But aside from that, nope.

    I wonder what Mr. Buehner would say to that. Probably that I have a bad father. I’d say the opposite.

  15. eric says

    *Both incidents in France

    Ahhhhh. Okay, that is important information to know. I have an unwed aunt who became an adult in the US in the 50s and early 60s. In West Virginia and rural Virginia, no less. Yes it was retrograde, but not as you describe France being. I do not believe she needed a co-signer for anything once she had a job and income.

  16. mythbri says

    @slc1

    I don’t know when this happened but such discrimination today would be in violation of one of the civil rights acts. Someone who was discriminated against in such a manner would have a juicy law suit against the miscreants.

    Thanks, slc1, that’s incredibly helpful to Jackie’s grandmother. In the past. When those civil rights acts likely didn’t exist, or were still in the process of being implemented.

  17. scott says

    When I read about this stuff, here or on RightWingWatch or whatever, to try to keep myself sane I have to wonder how many people actually listen to this crap and take it seriously. Am I working myself up over the right-wing equivalent of the papers the Maoists sell on the subway in Cambridge (MA)?

  18. says

    @eric

    You might think about asking her. It was very common even into the nineties for women to need their husband’s permission to have a bank account or to have as much authority over a joint account as their husband. In fact I vaguely recall my sister having some issue with her bank within the last 5 years, but I can’t recall exactly what. I’ll have to ask her. As a single woman, your aunt might have had it slightly easier in that respect, but she may have had to jump through some hoops or encountered resistance.

  19. Thorne says

    I had the opposite experience lately. My wife has several accounts at her Credit Union. I was listed as co-owner on all but one, for some reason, a CS which had matured. When I went to roll it over into a higher (yeah, well, almost) interest account they wouldn’t do it. She had to be there!

    Oh for the good old days.

    Not.

  20. barbarienne says

    I wonder how much of the bank account issues are also other privilege issues. I had no problem setting up a savings account when I was 12. I don’t recall if my mom had to sign something with me. (I would not be surprised if she didn’t, and I’m pretty certain I opened it one day on my way home from school. This was long before the concept of “minimum balance,” when a kid could open an account with birthday-gift checks and odd-job money.)

    It was at Mom’s bank, though, where they knew me because I would come in with her sometimes. So the privileges of being an upper-middle-class white person obviously trumped the disadvantages of being young and female.

  21. Ichthyic says

    she doesn’t have the feminist independence that we hear so much about to make contracts, to buy drugs

    wait, it goes from “make contracts” which I assume would be like any normal way to conduct a business transaction to… buy drugs?

    wtf?

  22. Ichthyic says

    …obviously if women can’t make contracts, buying software is right out, and so is using a computer itself, since all OS’s come with a EULA these days.

  23. gertzedek says

    @fifthdentist — the Torah says the rapist has to marry the woman; the woman has no obligation to marry her rapist. She (or her father) can refuse, and the rapist still has to pay the bride-price.

    And, yes, women are treated like shit in the Torah. Though I do take exception to Buehner taking a passage dealing with religious vows and twisting it to refer to contraceptives.

  24. thebookofdave says

    @fifthdentist #1

    So if the dad says no, the suitor just has to “rape” the girl and then they can set up house

    Yeah, but the suitor really has to mean it. All sales are final when it comes to rape acquisitions. And please don’t cheapen the sacrifice; he actually pays fifty shekels (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

  25. whheydt says

    Re; ichthic…

    @23: Yeah, buy drugs. You know, drugs, like “Plan B”.

    @24: She can still click the EULA, but it won’t be enforcable, since it wouldn’t be a valid contract. Of course, that actually applies to anyone under 18…so be sure to have a minor agree to any EULAs to have to get past to sue a piece of software.

  26. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Now when you tell the father he has no business knowing what drugs his daughter’s putting into her body, when a father has no business knowing whether or not his daughter is out there fornicating with the football team,

    Would that be a reference to that Stuebensville (spelling?) rape case where a young woman was drugged and carried round and raped and that all being photographed?

    Implying the woman’s father was to blame for her rape for not keeping her caged up and NOT, say, the actual rapists or the coach and some of the community that, so I gather enabled, encouraged and abetted the rapists?

    Fuck these scumbags are sick, disgusting shits.

  27. says

    @ Jackie, et. al.

    A Canadian example: Rick Mercer once told a story about accompanying his mother to the bank to apply for a credit card. The Bank employee she dealt with said something to the effect of “Now, Mrs. Mercer, shouldn’t we call your husband about this?”

    Of course, this was Rick Mercer’s mother, from whom the esteemed pundit learned his in-your-face style, so it didn’t go very well at all for the employee. If I recall correctly, it ended with the employee’s manager sternly sending him off to get little Rick a candy bar.

  28. cry4turtles says

    I wonder how much 50 shekels then is worth now in $$$. I’m sure rape victims are now way overpriced. Bonus for the rapist. Talk about “Scott free”.

Leave a Reply