Power, Gender, and Demagogues

        Jeff Guinn’s discussion of demagogues got me thinking about the nature of power in isolated religious settings. 

        It is not lost on me that the most well-known instances of cults, religious or otherwise, over the last few years are all male-dominated and contain strong allegations of sexual abuse against women and/or children. In fact, child abuse allegations were one of the things that drew the eye and the ire of the federal government against the Branch Davidians in Waco, though the government didn’t act until the ATF stepped in over the Davidians’ stockpiling of firearms. 

The question, in my mind, becomes whether men are more likely to grasp for power as a demagogue than women are, if people are more inclined to blindly follow male leaders than female, or if the presence of a strict religious setting leads to the emergence of a patriarchal hierarchy, given the Christian faith’s male-dominated power structure for the majority of history.  

I would conclude that all of these factors are at play, but the most dominant is the fact that hypertraditionalist sects of Christianity benefit from a hierarchy that they can define as ‘traditional’, and following one man who has all the answers can be defined as biblically supported with relative ease. 

Conversely, I also note that, throughout the history of the Branch Davidians, multiple women have stepped up to lead. However, unlike male leaders who ‘governed’ until their deaths, women like Florence Houteff and Lois Roden tended to rule until deposed by a different male successor. 

Furthermore, I think the repeated pattern of Florence and then Lois taking power only after their husbands’ deaths indicates that in certain religious circles, women are only able to claim positions of power by merit of being involved with powerful men. The ability of a woman to rule the Branch Davidians is contingent on the men before and after her, whereas the ability of a man to rule seems to be seen as inherent and not even worth questioning. 

A fascinating counterexample is the fact that many sources suggest that Vernon Howell’s – at that time David Koresh’s – power was derived initially from his relationship with Lois, the at-the-time leader of the Davidians. Regardless of the nature of that relationship, on which sources differ, Vernon Howell was granted entry to the inner circles of the Branch Davidians by Lois, and it was this position that he would later use as his platform to justify taking command. 

This power-by-proxy might explain some of why so many of David Koresh’s later female followers were so willing to go along with his proclamations that he should be married and reproduce with as many women as possible. In a male-dominated, hyper-religious setting, engaging in a relationship with the leader of their cult of personality was a form of power for these women. 

Power is difficult to quantify, and in spite of the characteristics of a demagogue that Jeff Guinn shared, leadership is difficult to quantify too. However, the correlation between type of power available to someone in a religious setting and the opportunities afforded by gender are noteworthy. Faith can be its own form of power, but I can't help but feel that even the most devout faith leader likely differentiates the power of their faith from power in truth. It's the latter that they wield over their followers, and it's the latter that I feel is curtailed by gender.