Controversy came into the spotlight with them. Feminists accused them of being sexist and promoting male domination of the home. Others accuse them of being racist.
The Promise Keepers themselves deny this.
Promise Keepers view themselves as attempting to become better husbands, fathers, and Christians. The organization promotes itself as a way to heal racial division and bring men back into their homes and churches.
Why such different perspectives? How can feminists and Promise Keepers
view the same movement so differently?
These different beliefs about what God (or whatever) expects make for
different versions of what the United States should be like. The Orthodox
(or right) believe it truly ought to be "one nation under God." People
should be following the rules dictated within God's revealed truth (the
Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Hebrew Bible...). The Progressives (or left)
believe society ought to allow people to follow any truth that doesn't
endanger others. For example, Progressives would allow homosexuality and
abortion while Orthodox don't want either to exist.
Promise Keeper literature portrays the United States as a good country
gone wrong. McCartney points to illegitimate births, divorce and crime
to describe the United States as a country that lacks a moral center. It
will find this center if men become involved in their families, churches
and communities. He wants men to take back their role as spiritual leaders
of the household and save the country.
What feminists hear in Promise Keepers is an attempt to bring back male leadership in the home and male dominance in society. "Put women back in the kitchen where they belong. Give them only the rights we allow them."
One of the many things I find interesting about Promise Keepers and their critics is how each group sees the other in such black and white terms.
I rode to Washington D.C. with a group of Promise Keepers. Throughout the trip, the men made jokes about how little Patricia Ireland, the president of NOW, understood about their organization. They failed to see any hint of sexism in their movement. Not that they mentioned to me anyway.
Similarly, Patricia Ireland and other critics of Promise Keepers do not seem to allow for the slightest possibility that despite sexist elements of the movement, it might do some good.
One side sees Promise Keepers as wholly good, the other as wholly evil.
I can't fully agree with either but I do agree with elements of both.
How can it be good? Promise Keepers encourages men of all races to try to understand each other. The United States desperately needs people to attempt that. Promise Keepers also encourages men to become involved in the lives of their wives and children. In a culture where men have been more involved in their work than their family, I have a hard time seeing this as anything but good.
I can also see the critics' points. Promise Keepers does have sexist elements. I went to the Chicago rally in 1997. At that rally women were mentioned in three contexts: wife/mother, object of lust, and (once) as someone who might be working outside the home.
While that doesn't prove that Promise Keepers are sexist, it may indicate a fairly limited view of women on the part of the speakers. Bearing in mind that many of the speakers are leaders of the organization, it may indicate a limited view of women in the organization as a whole.
Women in my life (and probably theirs too) have been more than wives, mothers, or objects of lust.
I could write more about why Promise Keepers is good or why Promise Keepers is bad, but I won't. It is both good and bad. It challenges certain men to be more involved in their families, but it doesn't challenge their notions about male and female roles. It challenges men to cross denominations and races, but doesn't challenge them to reconcile with liberals.
I think a dialogue between liberals and conservatives might be a very
good idea.