A review of The Case for Patriarchy by Timothy Gordon and Ask Your Husband by Stephanie Gordon.
Modern relationships are at a distinct disadvantage – instead of being guided by the living relationships of family, friends, and neighbors (relationships we see lived out each day around us), modern marriages are often guided by social media and slick presentations on well-funded shows. This guidance is especially destructive to Catholic marriages, which are called to be an icon of Christ’s relationship to His Church.
Even in Catholic social media circles, influencers obsess over the right way to “do marriage,” generally falling on one extreme or the other. In one extreme, Catholic feminists push an egalitarian nightmare in which resentful women anoint themselves priestess, prophetess, and queen of the home – making it essentially a secular household with co-opted religious language. In the other extreme, angry men with 1950s comb-overs and cigars pride themselves on never changing diapers and spend each evening puffing tobacco and refusing to show emotion. Neither is attractive, neither is healthy, and neither really exists outside the world of carefully curated photos and captions.
Unfortunately, Catholics who look online for marriage inspiration often end up picking the least offensive camp (subjectively speaking) and jumping on board. Suddenly, the union of two people in the sacrament of marriage becomes just another way to get likes on Instagram.
But where else can we look for guidance? Those of us raised in healthy, intact homes can look to our parents, of course, but the rest are at a loss. Enter the Catholic Marriage Manual. There are so many of them! No matter what the reader thinks his marriage should be, there is a book to confirm his biases.
Patriarchy and the Gordons
Two of the newest books on Catholic marriage are The Case for Patriarchy by Timothy Gordon and Ask Your Husband by Stephanie Gordon. The Gordons are a married couple with a podcast (Timothy Gordon’s “Rules for Retrogrades”), a handful of other books (all written by Timothy Gordon), and a shared passion for what they call “Authentic Christian Patriarchy.” The Gordons renounce feminism in all of its iterations and seek to build up marriages that are fully contemporary, and yet fully based in traditional Catholicism. Both of their books pull heavily from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (a beautiful catechism), as well as from papal encyclicals.
Why Write Two Books?
It’s obvious when reading the books that the authors worked together and supported each other. So why did they bother writing two books instead of co-authoring one? Primarily, it seems the authors chose to write two books to more directly address two different audiences. Timothy’s book is primarily written to men, while Stephanie’s book is addressed specifically to women. She is very clear that she is not presuming to teach men, but only writing to “her sisters in Christ.”
It does seem a little excessive to have two books on the same subject by authors who agree with each other on every point, especially because one of those authors reminds us on a regular basis that she is writing with “her husband’s active guidance.”
That said, the tones of the two books are unique. The authors draw out different aspects of patriarchal homelife and their personalities and priorities are not identical. I first read The Case for Patriarchy and then Ask Your Husband, and the latter did not feel like simply “part two.”
Critique
Neither Timothy nor Stephanie Gordon are strong writers, and I was disappointed to see how little editing seems to have gone into the books. Both Crisis Publications and TAN Books failed to put out books that can hold up to basic criticisms. The footnotes in both books are often unprofessional, subjective, and easily ridiculed by readers looking to confirm their own biases. I would have expected the editors to insist on removing footnotes like Timothy Gordon’s footnote on page 37 that simply says, “This is a real commercial, I’m not making it up.” Or Stephanie Gordon’s footnote on page 236 reminding us that she has borne children.
Because of the casual footnotes and snarky side comments, both books often read like extended social media arguments. There are too many assumptions for the sake of argument and too many references to Twitter posts. These failings alone make it hard for pro-patriarchy Catholics to recommend the books. But unfortunately, stylistic mistakes aren’t the only flaws.
A Limited Perspective
The primary failing of both books is that the Gordons consistently mistake their subjective (legitimate) relationship choices for objective Church teaching. The most consistent example being spousal friendship.
“Husbands and wives were designed by God to be best friends,” writes Stephanie Gordon, and her husband agrees: “If you’re married but consider your best friend to be anyone but your spouse, you’re doing Christianity wrong.”
Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible to be your spouse’s “best friend” – though I’m not personally a fan of the “I married my best friend” trend. But Christian thought has for centuries both raised up the unique intimacy of marriage and exulted close friendships between people of the same sex. It seems obvious that St. Peter’s “best friend” was Jesus Himself, and not his wife, yet it seems ridiculous to say St. Peter was “doing Christianity wrong” by devoting himself primarily to his life-changing Friend.
Both authors make it clear that men who make male friendships a priority, or who are pursuing greatness in their work are failing their families. This attitude is a disturbing nudge towards mediocrity in Catholic life. Who will create the art, music, and literature to change the heart of the world? Hobby artists don’t paint masterpieces, hobby scientists can only discover so much.
It’s easy to see the flaws that having spouses write similar books can emphasize. Two unrelated people, writing from their own experiences would bring a more balanced perspective to the topic. But reading both books only serves to underline a shared subjectivity.
The Good
So, what is worthwhile in the books by Timothy and Stephanie Gordon? Quite a lot actually. The books themselves are undisciplined and full of unnecessary specifics, but the Gordons aren’t wrong about the effects of feminism on marriage. They aren’t wrong about the role of the patriarch in guiding his family.
In his review of The Case for Patriarchy, Andrew Harrod writes that Timothy Gordon’s “work deconstructs feminism’s numerous nostrums that have upended modern life in the name of a false paradise of sexual egalitarianism.” He’s not wrong – Gordon definitely attempts, and for the most part is successful in, his defense of patriarchy. His book is full of strong citations and thoroughly researched history. His wife’s book, too, has good information and her personality – kind and humorous – manages to seep in despite the stilted style.
If you’re already leaning away from feminism towards a patriarchal domesticity, Ask Your Husband will give insight and inspiration. The Case for Patriarchy will clarify feminism’s problematic history (well-cited and entirely honest, if a little one-sided).
Both books rely heavily on Aristotle, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the authors’ experiences in a culture that intentionally devalues men on a daily basis. For those who see the consistent devaluation of men in entertainment, academia, and even in the homilies at Mass – the Gordons’ books are deeply cathartic. They give us words to cling to and inspiration as we work to slough off the dredges of feminism in our souls.
Recommendations
I would recommend these books to well-formed readers who have strong, Catholic opinions, and are looking for interesting perspectives on the subject – men who have chosen to be patriarchs and are fighting that uphill battle in their homes and in their souls and women who have chosen to love the patriarch of their households and are still trying to shake loose the cultural chains of feminism. But only if both are confident and well-formed.
As you read, remember:
Men: your male friendships are rich and good. Choosing to spend the evening with your guys is not a failure. Choosing to pursue art, craft, or science is not neglectful. Be the Tolstoy, the da Vinci, the Galileo of your family and encourage them to support this calling in your soul.
Remember that for 2000 years, good Christian husbands and fathers have changed the world with their passions. You can lead your family without losing yourself to their expectations.
Women: you are not your husband’s girlfriend. You’re his wife – often the mother of his children. Life has changed you. It’s changed your body and your soul. Be inspired to pursue beauty for your husband and family, but don’t pretend that your beauty will look and delight the same at 39 as it did at 19.
You can be interesting and beautiful, engaged and exciting – he will still need time with his best, male friends. Don’t resent it. Embrace it! You married a man – to paraphrase Steinbeck in Travels with Charley – don’t reduce him to an infant.
These books are necessary – we need more Catholics, both husbands and housewives – to speak up against feminism. We need writers who are willing to share their perspectives and be critiqued. The Gordons, for all their faults, are willing to be criticized for their views. For all my minor disagreements with the authors, I’m grateful to them for that.
11 thoughts on “Patriarchy and the Modern Marriage”
John-Your “mainstream feminists” and “modern feminists,” whoever they are, cannot assume and they have not taken the feminist “high ground,” that they alone get to define who and who is not a real feminist, or that they even speak for a majority of all feminists, and certainly not for all women. There are no “goals of modern feminism” on which all feminists agree, nor is there any coherent statement of what “feminism” is. You are attempting to state and publish one narrow version of one form of “feminism.” It is not hair splitting to note that “feminism” today is meaningless.
An example: “One last example, a real example from this ongoing public discussion, will make clear the logical dead end of the “No True Feminist” fallacy.
Feminists advocate for all women.
Do you eat eggs or drink milk?
Yes.
Well then, you are not a true feminist because you don’t stand for all women; you only stand for human women. I am a feminist, and I stand for all women, that’s why a true feminist does not eat eggs or drink cows’ milk.
Yes, this is a position now being taken by some who call themselves feminists. They decry the “rape” of cows, the taking of their newborn calves from them so that their mother’s milk can be sold, and the poultry industry’s practice of confining hens to tiny cages until they can no longer produce eggs, and the eventual “slaughter” of the used-up hens. Even more heinous, then they sell the body parts of the slaughtered hens.”
from my article: https://the-american-catholic.com/2019/05/14/no-true-feminist-or-scotsman-is-for-that/
Guy, Texas
If you are looking for a more rigorous treatment of Christian patriarchy, I recommend “The Three Marks of Manhood” by GC Dilsaver.
https://tanbooks.com/products/books/spiritual-warfare/virtue-vice/the-three-marks-of-manhood-how-to-be-priest-prophet-and-king-of-your-family/
Meticulously footnoted and researched and establishes the foundations of Christian patriarchy in Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial teaching. A provocative and challenging read for all married couples. God bless you.
This article is all over the place but starts with a premise that feminist notions of equality entail installing the wife as “queen” of the household, implying a dominant role. Equality means equal, not that one partner is handed inherent authority over household decisions. It also strikes me as odd that no mention is made of men’s need to promote beauty for their families (there is, after all, such a thing as masculine beauty), women’s needs to have and go out with women friends (and such relationships being as respected as male relationships), professional contributions of women to the arts, literature, science, politics, medicine, law, teaching and every other profession one can think of (Thank God for Madam Curie, who proved to be far more eminent and successful than her husband) or the reality that husbands should be asking questions of their wives at least as much as the reverse. Feminism and equality are not the enemies, fragile egos and chronic deference to only one gender are. As Sr. Joan Chittister once said, “for too long, society has exercised only half of its brain. Sadly, it shows.”
The author here did NOT say what you attribute to her: “a premise that feminist notions of equality entail installing the wife as “queen” of the household, implying a dominant role.” She spoke of some “Catholic feminists.”
The undefined use of “Feminism” conveys nothing. Today “Feminism” alone is too amorphous to be used meaningfully. As many others, I am a pro-life feminist and there are many who are pro-abortion. There are pro-pornography feminists and anti-pornography feminists. There are pro-trans feminists and anti-trans feminists. Guy, Texas
“People talk themselves in circles like this to avoid the undeniable fact that feminism, at this point, means whatever people need it mean to push an agenda.” Feminism is now this convenient amorphous label that people use to defend a lack of responsibility on the part of modern women, and to give them advantages that men have never collectively had in the history of human civilization. Yet the narrative continues to be that women are an oppressed class in the first world, where they have more resources and choices than most men.” “Because feminism as a label will act as this protective blanket that will keep people from asking too many questions for fear of being branded a sexist. Anyone not willing to give into the whims of entitled women, will from that point forward be considered someone who hates women. When that protective shield comes up, there’s no way you can disagree with them without looking like a bigot. There’s no way to say that it’s impractical or ridiculous. That’s what feminism is now. It’s a tool to bully people into submission on threat of being labelled a woman hating bigot. This is what has become of the concept of female empowerment.” https://medium.com/@naughty_nerdess/feminism-the-amorphous-label-35fd4cad84b5
ium.com/@naughty_nerdess/feminism-the-amorphous-label-35fd4cad84b5#:~:text=Feminism%20is%20now,than%20most%20men.
Using Saint Joan Chittister as an authority on brains is really a stretch.
I’m not understanding Guy’s fine hair-splitting. Whether the author calls them “feminists” or “Catholic feminists,” the point is that ANY form of feminist classification involving women dominating men is on the far fringes of the egalitarian objectives of mainstream feminists. Equal access to education, rights of inheritance, rights to work places free of sexual harassment, joint family decision making, fair distribution of family resources and responsibilities and freedom from gender-biased traditions that needlessly preclude equal opportunities are the goals of modern feminism. Neither the church nor any educated person would find fault with the fundamental principles involved.
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Dear Masha, Thank you for this insightful article. My wife and I were blest in that we simply wanted to be with each other, all the time, no matter what. It was not a 50-50 relationship, but a 100-0 and 0-100. There were not two of us that each had to be personally fulfilled, but us married doing our two=one-flesh-one-spirit thing, for over half a century, 48 of those years married. Bottom line: God puts men and women together this way so they can help each other get home to Him.
Some details of my blessings are in the links below. Again, Masha, TY. Guy, Texas
https://the-american-catholic.com/2019/01/23/dont-marry-a-jerk-or-a-snowflake/
https://the-american-catholic.com/2018/06/25/out-of-the-hetero-monogamy-closet-im-here-shes-dear-get-used-to-us/
https://the-american-catholic.com/2021/06/20/now-that-she-has-died-what-do-i-do/
Guy,
Condolences on your loss.
yours
captcrisis
I really didn’t think it was possible for someone to make me want to defend Stephanie Gordon’s dimwitted screed, but the author is actually WORSE. At least the Gordons acknowledge that husbands are supposed to enjoy their wives’ company. Gopel openly states that women are inferior company to men and that wives just have to endure being left alone while Hubby goes off with the actual humans. She implies that women are really worthless! Can women have our own friends? Can we pursue our own hobbies and interests?
Why do conservative women write anything, anyway? You’re supposed to be doing something for your husband instead of teaching strangers. Any woman who writes bilge like this is undercutting her own argument. She’s a woman and women are supposed to be completely, entirely silent. I should never know the name of any conservative woman. You are all supposed to let men do the important public work. Don’t you have a floor to scrub? By writing this, you’re showing that you are a lying hypocrite who won’t live by her own vicious standards.
Unhappy marriages all seem the same, but each happy marriage is happy in its own way. Compatible couples develop their own unique modus vivendi.
In a happy marriage, you and your spouse live in your own bubble. Everybody else is outside of it — your family, his/her family, the children, friends. And you and your spouse, inside that bubble, see the world from your togetherness vantage point and talk about everyone who is on the outside.
My wife and I have a happy marriage (26 years). We both had been around the bend a few times and we knew how to get along, compromise, make decisions, raise kids. People who are not ready for marriage, or are temperamentally unsuited for it, have to resort to external rules or methods (e.g., read books). From what I’ve seen, this rarely works. A happy marriage depends on what can be developed internally and is unique to each couple.