Episode 205: Do Complementarian Men Make the Best Husbands? A response to Nancy Pearcey
Sep 14, 2023
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses the claim that complementarian men make the best husbands. They examine the impact of religiosity on conservative Christian men, measuring the effects of conservative beliefs on marriages, and the negative consequences of practicing complementarianism. They also compare Canadian and American universities, emphasize the importance of proper academic research and citing credible sources, and critique outdated research and misrepresentation.
01:21:42
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Belief in male authority in complementarian marriages often does not align with actual egalitarian dynamics in practice.
Rose-colored glasses in complementarian marriages can lead to skewed perceptions of marital satisfaction.
Defining complementarianism based solely on beliefs overlooks the importance of actions and mutual respect in determining relationship quality.
Accurate measurement of complementarianism requires assessing specific indicators of hierarchical dynamics and decision-making practices rather than relying solely on self-reported beliefs.
Critical evaluation of academic publications on complementarianism is crucial to maintain scholarly rigor and accuracy.
Deep dives
Beliefs and actions in complementarian marriages
Complementarian marriages often show a discrepancy between beliefs and actions. While some complementarian couples claim to believe in male headship and leadership, in practice they often exhibit egalitarian dynamics. This suggests that the belief in male authority may be more of an identity marker than an actual practice. The presence of this symbolic traditionalism can be seen as a way for complementarian couples to differentiate themselves from others and maintain a cultural marker. However, it is problematic to claim that complementarian men do better when the majority of those who identify as complementarians do not actually act in line with the stated beliefs. Research shows that unilateral decision-making and hierarchical dynamics have negative effects on marital satisfaction and sexual outcomes. It is important to consider the impact of actions, rather than just beliefs, when assessing the success of complementarian marriages.
The issue of rose-colored glasses
The prevalence of rose-colored glasses in complementarian marriages can impact the perception of marital satisfaction. The belief in male leadership and authority may lead individuals to claim higher levels of satisfaction in their marriage, even when specific areas of dissatisfaction exist. However, when examining specific aspects of marriage, such as decision-making dynamics and sexual satisfaction, complementarian couples often report lower levels of satisfaction compared to egalitarian couples. The phenomenon of rose-colored glasses can create a skewed perception of marital happiness, potentially hindering individuals from recognizing areas for improvement and addressing underlying issues. It is important to look beyond global satisfaction measures and consider specific aspects of marital dynamics to obtain a more accurate understanding of relationship quality.
The limitations of defining complementarianism
Defining complementarianism becomes challenging due to the lack of consistency in beliefs and practices among those who identify as complementarian. The distinguishing features of complementarianism, such as male authority and leadership, are often not acted out in practice by couples who claim to hold these beliefs. This raises questions about the validity of defining complementarianism solely based on beliefs rather than actions. It is crucial to consider how complementarian beliefs are enacted within marriages and whether such practices have positive or negative outcomes. Merely claiming to be complementarian does not guarantee better marital outcomes and may overlook the importance of mutual respect and egalitarian dynamics for relationship satisfaction.
The need for accurate measurement of complementarianism
Accurate measurement of complementarianism requires a comprehensive understanding of the distinguishing features and the impact of those practices on marriage. Merely asking individuals about their beliefs without examining the actual enactment of those beliefs can lead to misleading conclusions. Studies that have looked at the correlation between complementarian beliefs and positive outcomes fail to consider confounding variables such as religiosity and the influence of broader cultural factors. To accurately measure the effects of complementarianism on marriage, it is necessary to incorporate specific indicators of hierarchical dynamics, decision-making practices, and empowerment to assess actual practices rather than self-reported beliefs.
The importance of scholarly rigor in evaluating complementarianism
Critical evaluation of academic publications on complementarianism is essential to maintain scholarly rigor and accuracy. An analysis of the sources cited in the discussed book reveals a reliance on outdated research, news articles, and books that lack recent peer-reviewed scholarship. The absence of a systematic literature review raises concerns about the comprehensive examination of current research on the topic. To contribute to informed conversations about complementarianism, it is crucial to engage with recent and relevant scholarly work that explores the nuanced dynamics of belief, practice, and marital outcomes.
Lack of systematic literature review and reliance on newspaper articles
The podcast highlights two main issues with the discussed book. First, the author fails to conduct a systematic literature review, which is a problem for a scholarly work. Additionally, when citing studies, she often references newspaper articles instead of directly citing the original study, which undermines the credibility of her claims.
Reliance on outdated research and cherry-picked sources
The podcast points out that the author relies heavily on outdated research, particularly from the late 90s and early 2000s, without acknowledging the significant changes that have occurred in society since then. Furthermore, the author only cites a single source, Brad Wilcox from the Institute for Family Studies, when discussing the topic of complimentary rols, ignoring contrary research and failing to engage with different perspectives.
Failure to update research and misrepresentation of historical context
The podcast criticizes the author for failing to update the research and evidence presented in the book. By relying on older studies and not considering more recent findings, the author misrepresents the current state of knowledge on the subject. Additionally, the podcast highlights the importance of providing historical context when drawing conclusions, pointing out that societal changes like the rise of social media and other cultural shifts are not adequately addressed in the book.
Inaccurate and improper use of scientific data
The podcast raises concerns about the author's presentation of scientific data, highlighting instances where she cites a marriage book instead of scholarly journals and misrepresents scientific findings. The podcast also points out an example where the author quotes a study that claims all social animals have deeper, more resonant voices for roaring, which is factually incorrect.
Call for higher standards and better scholarly engagement
The podcast concludes by emphasizing the need for Christians to hold themselves to higher standards when engaging in scholarly conversations. It calls for authentic engagement with secular culture and the importance of presenting the Gospel with honesty, integrity, and intellectual rigor, urging Christians to strive for excellence in academic discourse.
