patriarchy in homeschool culture

[this is what “The Patriarchy” looks like in my head]

I grew up in a subculture of evangelical Christianity that’s known as “Christian Patriarchy,” which is what the people who preach and teach this “lifestyle” un-ironically call it. I was also peripherally a part of the Quiverful and Stay-at-Home-Daughters movements, which are all separate things. A family can be Quiverful without preaching Christian Patriarchy or requiring daughters to remain at home until marriage, for example.

However, that’s not what I’m going to be talking about today.

One of the ex-fundamentalist Christian feminism blogs that I read is Wine & Marble, by Hännah Ettinger. She wrote one of my favorite posts on sex, and I highly recommend her as a writer. Yesterday, her sister, Clare, wrote the fantastically-titled post “Fuck the Patriarchy,” about how she was kicked out of her “Homeschool Prom.” It went viral today, showing up on Gawker, Fark, Cosmo, Jezebel, American Conservative, NYPost, and it should be up at the Daily mail and HuffPo pretty soon.

I was curious to see how each of these sites would handle a story about a homeschool prom, so I followed her story all over the internet, and, of course, ended up in the comment sections. Most were your standard internet outrage, but there were some people questioning the validity of her story (because of course there were). It was interesting to me that a bunch of different men thought that Clare was lying or exaggerating supposedly because men who were “ogling” her wouldn’t have asked her to leave.

It actually took me a second to figure out the rationale behind that, because it seemed so obvious that of course they would ask her to leave if they were “tempted” by the “strange woman” who was “dressed like a harlot” (not saying that she was, just that they thought she was). To me, asking Clare to leave was the entire reason why they were there. When Clare said these men were “chaperones,” that was instantly what I assumed.

However, to these (male) commenters, it seemed counter-intuitive that any man would ask a woman they thought sexually attractive to vacate the premises. If they found Clare attractive, why admit to enjoying the show– or asking the show to leave?

That’s one form of patriarchy, all on its own; implicit in many of those comments was the belief that women exist for the sexual gratification of men, and that men will compulsively ogle women they find sexually attractive, that “boys will be boys.”

However, what the chaperones did in pointing Clare out to the “Mrs. D” of the original article was another, more archaic form of patriarchy: the form of patriarchy where men are the guardians of honor– both of their own, and of “their” women. I’m not sure what the homeschooling culture is like in Richmond (not much like mine, if they have a prom), but at least some of the people in that community are probably familiar with books like Beautiful Girlhood:

One day a handsome young gentleman alighted from a train … As he paced the platform, he soon attracted the attention of a young girl. She watched him flirtatiously out of the corner of her eye, coughed a little, and laughed merrily and a bit loudly with a group of her acquaintances; but at first he paid no attention …

At last he noticed, turned, and came directly to her, while her foolish little heart was all in a flutter at her success …

“My dear girl, he said, tipping his hat, “have you a mother at home?”

“Why, yes,” the girl stammered.

“Then go to her and tell you to keep you with her until you learn how you ought to behave in a public place,” and saying this he turned and left her in confusion and shame. It was a hard rebuke; but this man had told her only what every pure-minded man and woman was thinking. Girls can hardly afford to call down upon themselves such severe criticism. (130-31)

Things like this are the subtext at events like “Homeschool Proms” that are chaperoned by conservative Christian homeschooling fathers. When those men saw Clare in a theme-appropriate dress, looking like a woman and enjoying the evening with her friends, what they saw was a “foolish girl” who deserved the “harsh rebuke” of being escorted out by security.

In this culture, it is the sacred duty of every man to police the actions of every woman. Women are not to be trusted with decision making, let alone gifted the ability to make up their own mind on what they want to wear to their Senior Prom. If a man in this culture even notices a woman sexually, it’s a problem, and she deserves to be confronted and chastised because of it.

There’s two options available to men in these situations: either the girl is simply “silly” and telling her that her dress could cause “impure thoughts” is information she should be grateful for, and she should humbly leave in shame and humiliation– or, she is dressing provocatively on purpose, which makes her a “strange woman” who is “playing the harlot” and she definitely deserves to be confronted and removed. When Clare stood up for herself, that put her firmly into “strange woman playing the harlot” category.

It’s rape culture on steroids. It’s “she was asking for it” dressed up in Bible verses and cutesy Victorian language about knights and fair maidens.

Previous Post Next Post

You Might Also Like

  • I hadn’t seen those comments yet, but on some sites, people were saying that she threw her out because she was jealous of her.

  • I think racism is involved too. Her date was black also. I think that the fact that it was not just an interracial couple, but an interracial couple with a beautiful blonde girl. What a bunch of nasty old creepers.

    • Possibly, but other attendees have stated that there were other interracial couples there, and the boyfriend has directly stated that he didn’t think “Mrs. D” knew that he was with her, even when she’d pulled Clare aside the second time.

      • Hmmm….I’m curious if it was “Mrs. D.” Or the Dads that wanted her gone…

    • Very interesting. I grew up in Christian fundamentalism, and I’ve always called a system of patriarchy, but this takes it to a whole new level. There are groups that expect their daughters to live at home until they are married??? This just saddens me. I recall watching a documentary quite a while back about the group that has the purity balls and their fathers give them a purity ring through which the girls promise their dads that they won’t have sex until they are married. First, how unfair to ask a young girl to make such a long term promise about something she knows so little about. But, also, I remember seeing how these families lived. The daughters were expected to regularly write love notes about how much tthey loved their daddy,, and hung them on the fridge. They were obsessed with making sure their daughters constantly felt love for their daddy. The son, of course, was not required to do this. Nor did he have to spend his childhood centrally focused on how much he loved his mother. Not that that would have made it any better. It was all so backward and disturbing. Are these people part of one of the groups you mentioned?

      • They can be interconnected, but it’s possible to be a part of the Purity Movement without being adhering to the other teachings I’ve described. In my experience, however, I’ve never seen a family that was Quiverful/Stay-at-Home-Daughter that wasn’t also obsessed with purity.

  • froginparis

    Well said. I’ve raised my dancing homeschool boys with this ethos: You control your own damn mind. You can capture your own damn thoughts. When you stand before the throne of Christ YOU have to explain what you thought to God about the girl you looked at.

    *steps away from soapbox*

    • Nice to see you online as well as in person. Your boys are an inspiration in many ways, not least in their commitment to dance. And you are so right. “Capture your own damn thoughts.” That’s how I am raising my own boys – and my girls as well.

    • I commend you for teaching responsibility to your boys. However, I now think it is rather crazy to believe that there’s a God who will act as the thought-police and judge our thought-crimes. I used to feel similarly as you but now it just seems silly.
      But regardless, everyone needs to respect our fellow human beings in our actions.

  • Allen

    Of course, that’s exactly what happened. The “chaparones” are all there just looking to call someone out and tell them they are not pure enough or lady-like enough or Christian enough. That is what their self-appointed mission in life! Of course they would do it at the first opportunity. Thank you for putting the pieces together for us, although it seems so obvious once you have pointed it out 🙂

  • This is so ridiculously true. From my experience, and especially my wife’s experience, the men are there to get their rocks off on the girls, and then assuage their consciences by slut shaming the girls that aroused them. Sorry for the colorful language, but it reflects the truth in my experience.

  • Went to the Daily Mail website. They have a reputation of being somewhat a conservative, anti-immigration lot (though not as bad as the Daily Express). The comments seem to be quite supportive of the girl, so that’s good.

  • Sorry for the double post, but if I was ever having some enjoyment and an attractive guy said to me “oooh behave yourself madam” he would seem less attractive to me and be a wet noodle. I don’t really make eyes at guys but yeah.

  • This is the exact same fear of women that’s the reason why so many islamic nations require women to wear hijabs, not go out in public w/out male relatives chaperoning, etc.

    Men, no matter what your religion is, if women scare you and make you think “funny thoughts”, it’s your problem, not their “fault”!

    Go to a co-ed nude beach. After the initial OMG SHE’S NEKKY!!! you should find you soon get used to it, and can deal w/ a nude woman as if she were fully clothed.

    If you can’t deal w/ a woman, clothed or not, then you got some personal issues.

  • Interesting that you should mention the other kind of patriarchy, the “hot women are there for my pleasure” patriarchy. They’re really 2 sides of the same coin though, right? If women are objects and men just can’t stop staring, then women need to be escorted away (for their own good) so that they won’t get raped.

    Going to take a shower now….

  • LJ

    Hi there. I’m a long time lurker of your blog – first time commenter. 🙂 I appreciate your thoughts on this situation. I also got sucked into reading the comments and was struck by how many thought that because “Mrs. D” did the deed, it should not and could not be blamed on patriarchy. I believe, and haven’t really seen anyone address it, that this is yet another side of patriarchy; women policing other women (out of jealousy or out of concern for their men – either way). I’d be interested in your thoughts on that aspect…cheers!

    • Katie S

      I agree with you. Women can be pretty harsh on other women to stay in line with patriarchy’s expectations.

    • Women policing other women is also a part of patriarchy– women who are capable of conforming to patriarchy’s rules benefit from the system, so they don’t like their scrap of authority being challenged.

      However, in most of those comments, there’s a pattern of sexism, however. A lot of them implied that “Mrs. D” was an ugly old bat that was just jealous of how young and beautiful Clare is, and that’s pretty damn sexist.

      • Jen A

        I agree people saying Mrs. D is a jealous old bat are not helping. Calling her insulting names doesn’t address the real problem of double standards.This stuff goes on in public school too. As a parent, I agree with the no booty shorts rule of our school’s dress code. Booty shorts are tacky but the dress code argument lost my support when they say it’s because the boys can’t concentrate on their work with scantily clad girls in the classroom. So my son (and everybody else’s) automatically becomes a drooling, out of control creeper if a girl wears too short shorts? Maybe these dads reacted that way but you can’t paint every boy with that brush. That’s insulting to my son and it’s insulting to the boys at Clare’s dance too.

  • Patrick Prescott

    Men like to compartmentalize. Sure they enjoyed the show and do at a strip club or Hooters, but this was the wrong compartment. I agree with gophergold this is getting close to the Islamic and other religions that hide women from public view. That’s what’s usually done with prized possessions after all.

  • Okay, just read that post by Clare. I actually didn’t even make it to the part where she starts kind of analyzing why what they did to her was awful. If there is a daily rage quota I’m supposed to meet, I have officially far exceeded it. At least I’m no longer sleepy.

  • incredible!

  • Could not agree more.

  • I’ve been studying narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) lately and it suddenly occurs to me, thanks to your well-written post, that most religions (save eastern spiritualist practices) are fundamentally narcissistic.

    Look up the definition sometime, there’s a list of defining traits for NPD that fits the father figures of Christianity like a fuckin’ glove. Read through the following and imagine the “theological advisors” on Fox News, the fundamentalist fathers ruling over their wives and daughters with iron fists, or any televangelist:

    1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

    2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

    3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

    4. Requires excessive admiration.

    5. Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

    6. Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

    7. Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

    8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

    9. Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    Now that I think of it, according to the Bible, how many of those apply to God?

  • The prudish behaviour and attitudes you describe are basically how contraception worked for most of history – before effective contraception was made possible (by all those evil male patriarchal scientists and doctors).

    When pregnancy (and sexual disease) could not be effectively prevented (or safely terminated) the only practical solution available was to use *social stigma* (ie preventative measures) to shame young women into not having sex at all. The stigma came from women just as much as men, and let’s not forget that men’s attitudes to sex / gender / relationships were (and still are) ingrained into them (along with religion etc) at a very early age mostly by their parents – particularly by their mothers (because for most of history the adult men were working outside the home from dawn till dusk every day).

    The so called ‘patriarchy’ is basically a system for best ensuring the survival of the species in harsh conditions with rubbish technology where starvation is a very real possibility. Even in the ‘west’ whole communities often starved to death following a bad harvest or a severe winter. ‘Patriarchy’ focused on providing for, and protecting women – and this included protecting young women from their own sexual urges, which in turn included preventing them from turning on young men. Although prudish attitudes towards sexual freedom have always been expressed in terms of morality, it actually had very little to do with morality, and everything to do with SURVIVAL. Judging overt sexuality, flirting and promiscuity as immoral and shameful was a PRACTICAL strategy for preventing young women from getting pregnant.

    Families and communities simply COULD NOT AFFORD to have their young women getting pregnant without first getting a man to SIGN A CONTRACT agreeing to PROVIDE RESOURCES to wife/ mother and future children for life…… AKA a ‘marriage contract’.

    So the stigma against sexually active (and overtly sexually attractive) women was born out of a need to survive. Now that we are drowning in wealth and resources (relative to 200 or 500 or 1000 years ago) we tend view those attitudes from a purely moral rather than practical perspective. And that can easily make it seem as though women were/ are being unfairly ‘oppressed’ or ‘looked down upon’ …… but in a world of scarce resources, no welfare, little medical knowledge or equipment, no contraception and no effective means to safeguard against sexual disease the shaming and ostracism of promiscuous young women was the only way to prevent sexual diseases, unwanted pregnancy and the creation of yet another mouth to feed. Children and teenagers were also essential as *workers* and a young daughter who got herself knocked up not only became a black hole for resources but also dropped out of the family workforce for a few years as she nursed the baby. This was disastrous for everybody connected to her, hence the social stigma against being sexually active.

    ‘Patriarchy’ just means a society which revolves around the needs and wants of women, in order to provide the best chance of survival for the next generation – and the species as a whole.

    The social stigma against flirty, attractive, and potentially promiscuous young women going around turning men on is an example of ‘patriarchy’ serving the interests of young women even against the desires of young women. It is no different to a mother denying a child sweeties because that’s in the child’s best interests – even though the child would rather live on a diet of sweeties and doesn’t care about (or even understand) about diabetes or tooth decay.

    If 100 modern feminist anti-patriarchy types crash landed on a deserted island with little food available, survival would became paramount. They might very quickly realise they had better be EXTREMELY careful about having sex because getting pregnant might LITERALLY mean the difference between life and death for some or all of them.

    Or ….. they might carry on living by modern post feminist ‘sexually liberated’ social standards, inevitably resulting in all the young women getting pregnant and dying of starvation because there simply is not enough resources or manual labour to keep them and their babies all alive.

    That was the reality for most of human history up until very recently.

    Sure, such prudish attitudes might seem out of date NOW, but most social conventions NOW are totally out of date. We still have royalty, taxation, governments, religion etc … all of which are legacies of a more primitive, desperate and barbaric age which should have been discarded generations ago. It’s no surprise to see a strict patriarchal culture hand in hand with a strict religious culture. They are both ‘legacy systems’ of organising communities.

    Feminists deliberately single out ONLY the attitudes and behaviours which fit their feminist claims that ONLY WOMEN were ever oppressed, and that women were/ are deliberately oppressed by men as a group. That claim is simply not true. The fact is that throughout history EVERYBODY was oppressed (men, women, children and animals). And everybody was oppressed by a general lack of technology, lack of knowledge, lack of medical care and lack of resources ….. not by ‘evil patriarchal men’.

    • So, in the future, if you want to write a blog post instead of a comment, why don’t you just write a post?

      Please read my comment policy before you continue to comment.

      Also, you know nothing, Jon Snow.

      • I apologise if my comment was too long. In my defence all I can say is that it is a complex subject which cannot be understood adequately without ‘diving in deep’.

        I would liken this issue to, say, another complex issue such as black crime figures in cities. On the face of it the statistics seem to indicate black people are more criminally inclined than white people. We can certainly use the statistics to make that argument. But it’s an invalid argument. The truth is far more complex and requires a LOT of deconstructing of history and social factors like welfare, fatherless upbringing, the war on drugs etc etc.

        Please rip my comment to shreds if you think I am talking nonsense. I’m not claiming to be ‘right’, I’m just trying to deconstruct the subject matter and get to the truth of it.

        If you lived just 500 years ago basic survival would be an endless struggle. If you had young daughters what would YOU do to ensure they did not get pregnant and jeopardise their own survival, and perhaps yours as well? Just curious.. it’s a fascinating subject isn’t it? How to express our nurturing/ protection/ survival instincts in a harsh environments with very little technology or resources…..

        The only Jon Snow I know of is a TV journalist. I didn’t get that reference, sorry.

        • Courtney

          If the origins of patriarchy are based on survival then it is not the origins that are a problem, although i do disagree that shaming women is the only way to keep them from getting knocked up, as if womens minds are so small and feeble that they can’t understand the basic concept that they are not financially equipped to raise a child.

          The problem is the way patriarchy has persisted throughout history and used to oppress women even today when patriarchy is completely and utterly unnecessary. And I would argue that there are evil men who perpetuate it for their own benefit and at the very least it is perpetuated by controlling, insecure men and weak, dependent women.

  • Great post! Confirms our decision to raise our son in the public schools and figuring out how to live our faith in the real world rather than the bizarre home school world you describe. We worked through the stuff of sexuality and respecting women as whole people, not body parts. This wasn’t always easy and we didn’t always get it right–it’s a good thing we have Jesus to clean up our messes. But he is married, following Christ, unlike so many college students I’ve encountered who grew up in this subculture who are so “over” with anything that has to do with faith. I’m sure there are good stories coming out of the homeschool movement but sadly, I hear so many like these…

    • Just have to poke my head in and say “not all homeschoolers.”

      Homeschooling culture in America can be pretty awful, no argument. I’m a living testament to that fact. However, conservative Christian homeschooling is not the end-all be-all of homeschooling (although it is probably the most overwhelming, loudest voice).

      People like me are working to change that.

  • This is freaky stuff. It all boils down to ‘women are objects for men’s use – and therefore men should be allowed to control them;.
    This also relates to the ‘licked candy bar’ analogy the Fundies use when discussing purity. In their world, a woman is just a candy bar to be given to a man. In the above case, a woman is something which causes feelings – and if the men don’t like the feelings, then instead of controlling themselves, they have the women removed.
    This whole mindset actually doesn’t reflect very well on men. It makes them into weak babies who can’t control themselves and must have things they want to touch put out of their way.

  • “It was interesting to me that a bunch of different men thought that Clare was lying or exaggerating supposedly because men who were “ogling” her wouldn’t have asked her to leave.”

    It’s not just men. One of my guy friends linked this story on his Facebook page, and a female friend of his questioned its validity.

  • Oh Lord. Protect us from stupidity.
    I am a Christian, although not a “fundamentalist” one, also some kind of a moderate feminist, a respectful birth activist, victime of a sexual assault (that’s what my WP blog is all about) etc. Stutying Bible is a very important part of my everyday life, and I just can’t stand an anachronistic, abusive, out-of-context fundamentalism.

  • very nice post…

  • I am a little drowsy right now but I had to stumble through the post regardless.

    This article is a little offensive but you know that already. Extrapolating explicit or implicit male sexuality to a belief that ‘women exist solely for our sexual gratification’ is a gross, contempt filled antithesis of logical reasoning.

    Of course the action to expel the girl, for whatever reason, is seemingly wrong. The original rationale was that her dress barely met the standards they had and it made people ‘uncomfortable’.

    The real situation is far simpler and innocuous than you would believe. But yes, some males do have trouble in separating out logical thought, if any is present, from sexual feeling. This is why I read blogs in the first place – to get away from this – where people won’t make sweeping generalizations; instead having a modicum of perspective on issues.

    I’m sorry you were bought up in such a close, religious environment. I truly am. Instead of blindly attacking all men under the umbrella term of ‘patriarchy’ why don’t you learn to rationalise these feelings a bit better. Psychotherapy may be appropriate in sever childhood trauma, but it sounds like CBT is more apt in this case.

    I am not trying to offend you, it has helped me a lot with my troubles.

    • You could use some reading comprehension skills.

      Maybe therapy would help with that.

      EDIT (in response to your unpublished comment):

      You should’ve read my comment policy before you decided to call me a bitch. You’re now banned.

  • It concerns me that so many are clumping many good honoring Christians along with this particular group that to me do not represent Christ at all because of the legalistic things that are being done. I feel that I need to voice this because as a Christian and a Homeschool mom, I have never come across this type of behavior and it saddens me a lot. I personally did not read about this or watch it but the things shared in this blog concerned me enough to at least share my thoughts. Being a true Christian shows grace to one another. We may not like things that other people do, but we do not have to degrade or demean someone to change their ways or encourage them to do something that will benefit their life. As to the father and daughter relationship that was spoken about where they write letters and do things for their father does border on something more manipulative and concerning as to what the final goal is. As far as I’m concerned as well as my husband, a real Christian man and a real Christian father would not subject their family or anyone else to this behavior or lifestyle.

  • While I’ve never been much of a supporter of ‘feminism’ I have to agree with the policing thing, at least in regards to christianity and other holier-than-thou religions. I had a friend who was raised by fundamentalist christians, and she wound up messing around with some guy and had sex with him.(Outside of wedlock! :gasp:) She came into class the next day and told me (Is it the friendzone if you’re not wanting to date?) then she actually apologized! She told me she was ashamed of herself and that she thought I would hate her for not being ‘pure’! She was so brainwashed by her parents she thought THAT was the most important thing about her. Needless to say I gave her a hug, explained why I still loved her, and had a long discussion WITH her about happiness, love, and sex.
    *Note I say WITH because I try to never talk TO people*

    It’s worth noting a fundamentalist believes things are either good or bad; irregardless of the consequences, and good or bad is based on their religious books. Compare this to Kantian ethics – which is the philosophy behind fundamentalism (i.e. fundies minus the books).

    Kant, the philospher behind Kantian ethics himself wrote about sexual love “taken by itself it is a degradation of human nature; for as soon as a person becomes an object of appetite for another, all motives of moral relationship cease to function, because as an object of appetite for another a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by everyone” – What does that sound like to you?

    So as you can see, it is very important for these people to NOT become sexually involved, and shun those who are. (because who wants to be an object?)

    On a side-note men can also be objectified; I don’t mind talking to people (okay, people suck; they need to go away), but I don’t like it when women try to flirt with me; just because I’m a guy doesn’t mean I’m going to have sex with you or go out with you! Women, don’t take it as an insult or me being rude if I don’t want to flirt, Yes, you’re beautiful, but I respect my gf too much to cheat on her… This is probably highly magnified by being in a long-distance relationship, and not having heard her voice in 3 months…

    And to my fellow men:
    Maybe the reason you haven’t been geting laid isn’t because “every woman is a lesbian”; maybe it’s because you’re a whiny, insecure, manbaby! I can’t tell you how many friends of mine have complained about men being this way; be nice, honest, and accept that some women just want to dance!


    Peace! – A ‘white-trash, gun-toting, redneck’

  • I’m interested in this post mostly because before signing on and reading your blog today, I have been thinking alot about the tendency of women “disciplining” or “shaming” other women in these close, religious communities. In my own experience, it has chiefly been within the homeschooling community and not as much within my church…even though there was some overlap there. I was in the homeschooling subculture for nearly 20 years beginning in the early 90’s.

    I feel that it is ironic that the homeschooling movement is generally one of espousing freedom of thought and fighting for their freedom from government control or intervention in their right to educate their children in the way they believe and yet, for those who are a part of the subculture, their “freedom” to raise and teach their children are constantly judged and even policed. However, rarely do these women act in such direct ways as the Mrs. D. does in Clare’s story. Most of the time it is demonstrated in subtext or in facetious innuendo.

    One example that has been used on me. “I will pray for you.” On the face of it, it could seem like a nice note of encouragement to someone you care about. However, used in just the right tone of voice and context, it can mean, “You’ve effed up, sister, and now you’re going to Hell.” It is such a powerful and perfect jibe because it leaves the recipient without a comeback or defense. After all, what can you say in response to that? And how can you lodge a complaint against someone who is “simply interceding for you”?

    I’m sorry for what Clare experienced. There is just SO MUCH in her story that is wrong with what happened to her. I hope people can begin to see that one girl getting thrown out of her prom is upsetting for more than simply whether or not she followed a dress code requirement.

  • This is an important subject and I enjoyed reading this post. I am glad that it is starting to see so much discussion. Best wishes!

  • Gross! I know people from Afghanistan who would think men telling women what to do like that is disgusting. The fundamentalist girls aren’t “allowed” any financial or social independence whatsoever…what so they think we’re too dumb to say no to sex? I have a friend who is 33, lives on her own (gasp she has no mayun to protect/control her! And she provides for herself! OH NOES!) and she will only have sex with someone she’s married to.

  • These guys are still running the white house .