Doug Wilson’s Inconsistency on Women Voting

August 20, 2025

Doug Wilson’s Inconsistency on Women Voting

Pastor Doug Wilson has made a number of public statements about women and voting. On the surface, they may appear consistent, but when placed side by side they reveal a tension in his reasoning.

At times, Wilson frames the issue as one of female competency. He has described the 19th Amendment, which gave women the vote, as “a bad idea” — implying that women tend to make poorer civic decisions than men.

At other times, he frames the issue as a rejection of individualism. For example, in one of his blog posts, he wrote:

“So it is not that we don’t want women voting. It is that we don’t want individuals voting as autonomous units. When solitary individuals vote in our church elections, they are doing so as a smaller household. Ordinarily this is the husband and father. But when a woman is the head of the home (e.g. a widow), she is the one who casts the vote.”

In another video, he said:

“When women were granted the right to vote, the nation had already accepted the lie that a nation is nothing more than a collection of individuals… We thought we were giving the franchise to women when we were in fact taking it away from families.”

So which is it? Is the problem that women are bad decision-makers, or that individualism eroded family representation?

The True Biblical Patriarchist Position

From a true Biblical Patriarchist perspective, the answer is both — but Wilson’s proposed solution (household voting that sometimes includes widows or single women) is not consistent.

1. Women are More Prone to Deception

The Apostle Paul writes:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
(1 Timothy 2:12–14, KJV)

The Scriptures plainly state that women are more susceptible to deception. This is not an insult, but a recognition of God’s design. Women are more inclined to make decisions based on emotion, while men are called to lead with rational judgment and firmness.

2. When Women Rule, the People Err

God warns through the prophet Isaiah:

> “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
(Isaiah 3:12, KJV)

Allowing women to exercise ruling authority — whether in politics, church decisions, or society at large — leads to error and destruction.

3. Headship Belongs to Men Alone

For a fuller defense of this position, see my article: Deborah Did Not Lead Israel.

God’s order is clear:

> “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
(1 Corinthians 11:3, KJV)

Men are called to represent their households in the covenant community and in society. Allowing widows or single women to cast household votes, as Wilson suggests, still violates this principle — because it allows women to exercise authority over men through the power of the vote.

What About Deborah?

A frequent objection to Biblical Patriarchy is the example of Deborah in the book of Judges. Many argue that because Deborah was both a prophetess and a judge, this legitimizes female political leadership. But this interpretation ignores the biblical distinctions between prophecy and rule.

First, we must recognize that in Scripture, not every prophet was also a civil ruler. Moses, for example, was both prophet and ruler over Israel (Deut 34:10; Exod 18:13–16). Others, like Nathan or Huldah, were prophets who delivered God’s word but never governed. The prophetic office does not automatically equate to ruling authority.

Deborah falls into this second category. Judges 4:4–5 describes her as a prophetess who “judged” Israel, meaning people came to her for counsel because she spoke God’s words. But she never exercised civil rule. When God called Barak to lead the army, Deborah merely relayed the message. And when Barak hesitated, the prophecy was that the honor would go to a woman — Jael — not that Deborah would assume leadership (Judges 4:9).

Deborah herself underscores that it was Barak who led Israel to victory: “Awake, awake, Deborah… arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive” (Judges 5:12). The song of Deborah gives glory to God and highlights Barak’s leadership, not Deborah’s rule.

Thus, Deborah was a prophetess and counselor, not a female ruler overturning God’s order. As Isaiah 3:12 makes clear, when women rule over men it is a sign of judgment, not blessing.

Conclusion

Doug Wilson is right to oppose individualism and to emphasize the importance of the household. But his allowance for female voting in cases of widowhood or female headship undermines the very patriarchal order Scripture commands.

From a Biblical Patriarchist perspective:

Women should not vote in civil or church elections.

Only men, as the ordained heads of households, should represent their families.

This is not merely a pragmatic observation about women making “bad decisions,” but a divine order established in creation.

Until we return to God’s design for male headship and authority, both the church and the nation will continue to err.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Posted in: biblical patriarchy, christian nationalism, Doug Wilson, Feminism and the Church, Household Voting, Women Voting

2 responses to “Doug Wilson’s Inconsistency on Women Voting”

kaiserwilhelmbrandenburg

May 3, 2026 at 11:15 am

I’m an English monarchist who believes the murder of Charles I and the American rebellion against George III were both wicked so I’m probably not the best to talk about voting but I agree with you on most other things so here goes.

Do you only think male heads of households should be able to vote or should unmarried men vote. If all male heads can vote, then what is stopping the mass of middle and low income men voting themselves the property of those who have more than them. Here in England we have a huge welfare state because the people vote for it, the government gave everyone the vote and they decided they wanted ‘free’ healthcare / pensions / education so that is what we have. Even if women lose the vote, there are many men who would vote badly.

I have doubts that you can deny women the vote, whilst you affirm all men are created equal and therefore one man having authority over the rest because of who his dad was is bad. The concept men are created equal led to men and women are created equal as women said ‘man’ meant men and women.

Most Christians think women are made fully in the image of God and should have the same political rights (really power) that men have. I’m curious to know how you would block calls for extending the vote to women.

Also what would you do about men who want women to have the vote, would they lose the vote too? John Stuart Mill argued that because women pay tax they should vote as taxation without representation is wicked. Are you going to not tax women or would you argue that women are an exception to the above rule.

I’ve always felt that women being blocked from becoming pastors in ‘conservative’ congregationalist churches but being able to vote for a pastor to be quite absurd so I’m glad you touched on that.
biblicalgenderroles

May 22, 2026 at 1:00 pm

You raise several thoughtful questions.

First, I reject the modern assumption that voting is a God-given right that belongs equally to every adult. Scripture never teaches this. For most of biblical history people did not vote for their rulers at all. Israel was governed by patriarchs, judges and kings. The New Testament was written under the Roman Empire. The Bible spends a great deal of time teaching us how rulers should govern, but says nothing about universal suffrage.

You correctly point out that many men vote badly. I agree. My argument is not that every man is wise. My argument is that God established society on the basis of male headship. The failures of some men do not erase God’s design any more than the failures of some fathers erase fatherhood.

You also mention equality. Here we likely disagree at a more fundamental level.

Men and women possess intrinsic value because both bear the image of God. But intrinsic value is not the same thing as functional value. Throughout life we recognize that some people are more valuable than others for particular roles and responsibilities. The question is not whether men and women have value as persons. The question is whether God designed them for the same functions.

Scripture says, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9). Yet a few verses later Paul also says, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). In other words, God created an interdependence between the sexes. Men need women and women need men. Human society cannot continue without both working together according to God’s design.

Therefore, men and women are equally valuable in the sense that both are indispensable to God’s created order. But they are not equally suited for every function. God made men and women different, and those differences mean that each sex is more valuable than the other in certain roles, responsibilities and offices.

For example, if a nation needs soldiers, firefighters, rescue workers, or men willing to physically defend their families and communities, the average man is generally more valuable because God designed men with greater size, strength, aggression and risk tolerance.

Likewise, when it comes to pregnancy, childbirth, nursing infants, nurturing young children and building the home, women are generally more valuable because God designed them with gifts and abilities that men do not possess in the same measure.

The modern world hears this and immediately assumes that saying someone is more valuable for a particular role means they are more valuable as a person. That is a category error. A quarterback may be more valuable than a lineman at quarterback, while the lineman is more valuable than the quarterback on the offensive line. Neither conclusion says anything about their worth as human beings.

I would also go further and say that Scripture consistently presents man as bearing God’s image in a more direct representative sense. Paul writes that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). Throughout Scripture God reveals Himself using masculine titles and imagery. He is Father, not Mother. He is the Son, not the Daughter. He is King, not Queen. The husband represents Christ in marriage while the wife represents the Church.

Regarding taxation without representation, that principle only makes sense if democracy is assumed to be morally necessary. Scripture never teaches that. For most of history women, children and many men paid taxes while being represented through households, clans and rulers rather than through individual ballots.

As for men who support women voting, I would not argue they lose the vote simply because they disagree with me. My broader point is that democracy itself is a flawed system because it treats society as a collection of autonomous individuals rather than households. The biblical model is patriarchal. God built society upon the family, and He built the family upon male headship.

Ultimately, my position is not driven by hostility toward women. It is driven by the conviction that God’s design is better than modern egalitarianism. If we affirm male headship in the home and in the church, then it is entirely reasonable to question whether universal suffrage and egalitarian democracy are actually improvements over the older Christian order that shaped Western civilization for centuries.