Solomon posted in Dalrock’s thread on not listening:
Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”
I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.
Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps
Whether Dalrock intended it or not I think he used the right wording.
From the research I was doing a while ago, I remember the word “Complementarism” was only created in the 1960s if I remember correctly (surprise surprise) during the arrival of second wave feminism. If someone can confirm this I would be grateful. Note that even if it isn’t, it is definitely a more recent term that originated in the 1900s which if it was earlier in the 1910-1920 range then that is the other general starting point of first wave feminism.
edit: Dalrock has the actual source which was from CBMW in 1991 which is even worse because they are trying to marry supposedly ‘good’ parts of feminism with Christianity.
Namely, “complementarism” tries to describe the family roles and responsibilities in a more “friendly” and “politically correct” way than the classical term “patriarchy” — husband led families. However, we know that “patriarchy” has such a negative social stigma to it that naturally Churches and Christians would want to avoid it due to persecution and negative comments.
Obviously, this has backfired because when you give an inch a mile is taken. Instead of standing up to the persecution that may have arisen, they gave in and used a watered down term. It’s little wonder that the meaning of such a word that was already a concession has been twisted and warped to complementarians only giving lip service to husband led families.
The natural order created by God and affirmed in the Scriptures in families is the Patriarchy. Get comfortable with it and be ready to be persecuted for it.