Being a stay at home mom should be illegal?

“We should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed…So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.” This is the advice given by Australian journalist Sarrah Le Marquand writing for the Daily Telegraph in Australia.

Her advice comes as a result of public outcry in Australia regarding a study that recommended stay at home moms would be better off in the work place then at home:

“It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.

So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.”

Now to be fair to Sarrah Le Marquand she has advocated for women to be able to choose to stay at home with their children until they reach school age:

“And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable. It also stands to reason that for many (but certainly not all) families, it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that time at home should be a privilege afforded to more new mums, which is why a few years back I was a lone voice in supporting Tony Abbott’s grossly misunderstood and thus ill-fated paid parental leave scheme, which proposed all female employees receive their normal salary for six months.”

So this is Sarrah Le Marquand’s full position – she is arguing in this article that while women should have the choice to stay at home with their children while they are infants and younger, once they reach school age they should be forced by law to enter the work force full time alongside their husbands.

Near the end of the article she reveals what the ultimate goal of her advocating for forcing stay at home moms back into the workforce is:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

The last line says it all. Forcing stay at home moms to enter the work force would be the final assault on gender roles as God designed them.

This is the logical progression of equality movements.  When you don’t get the results you want, then you use the government to force the results you want.  When you don’t have of the racial or ethnic representation in a given area whether it be higher education or certain areas of employment you force it through government quotas. When women don’t make the same amount as men you force it by taking away merit based pay systems. And when some women refuse to try and make themselves equal with their husbands by working outside the home like their husbands – you force it upon them.

Is it really better for both genders when women leave the home for careers?

I get emails and comments on a regular basis from women who after years have pursuing careers outside the home have come to regret that decision.

Recently I received the following comments from a woman that had what she described was her “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper only to realize the devastating impact her career had on her children and her marriage.

“Since the advent of feminism, women have in fact become slaves to the status quo and materialism. Children are being raised by institutions and strangers and, frankly, the consequences of that alone have been terrifying to watch unfold. Homes are falling apart and marriages are crumbling. Every woman struggles with going back to work after having a baby…

I am a mother to three girls, and over the past 11 years, I’ve worked and stayed home for periods of time. I am currently working in what I thought was my “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper, but this decision has brought my family and marriage nothing but pain and stress. My husband and I have prayerfully decided that, after the end of this year, I will stay home again and care for our family, permanently this time. I will not return to work again.

Although our budget is tighter when we don’t have two incomes, we are infinitely happier and, as this is God’s will for our family, He always provides abundantly for us.”

This woman’s experience is by no means unique. It happens to millions of women across the western world who buy into feminism’s lie to women that “you can have it all”.  When we break God’s gender roles that he has assigned to man and woman we will reap the consequences both on an individual level as well as a societal level.

But there is more than just anecdotal evidence to support the premise that the mass exodus of women from being keepers at home to career women has been bad for western culture.

See these comments from a study entitled “THE RISE OF DIVORCE AND SEPARATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1880–1990”:

“Marital dissolution for reasons other than widowhood has increased dramatically over the course of the past century. Only about 5% of marriages contracted in 1867 ended in divorce, but over one-half of marriages contracted in 1967 are expected to end in divorce (Cherlin 1992; Preston and MacDonald 1979). Scholars and commentators have consistently explained this change as a product of the changing sexual division of labor. Writing in 1893, Durkheim (1960 [1893]) pointed to the sexual division of labor as a source of interdependence between men and women, producing what he called “organic solidarity.”

Less conservative scholars use different terminology, but most stress the same agent of change. They argue that the rise in economic opportunities for women was a necessary condition for the increase in divorce and separation (Cherlin 1992; Degler 1980; McLanahan 1991; Ross and Sawhill 1975). According to this interpretation, women in the past who lacked independent means of support were often trapped in bad marriages; as the opportunities for female wage-labor expanded, women were increasingly able to escape and live on their own. Thus, the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages

The rise of individualism associated with urbanization and industrialization has meant increasing emphasis on self-fulfillment and growing intolerance of unsuccessful marriages. In essence, the cultural argument suggests that marriages in the past tended to be governed more by social norms and less by rational calculation to maximize individual happiness. Since the nineteenth century, increasingly individualistic values could have simultaneously contributed to rising female market-labor participation and to rising marital instability.”

The key phrase that from the analysis of women working as it relates to marriage stability is this one:

“the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages”   

I would go a step further.

The Bible tells us that it is God, not man that instituted patriarchal authority:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:22-24 & 28-29 (KJV)

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5

The Bible clearly establishes patriarchy – male headship over women.  It establishes the relationship of man to woman in clear and unequivocal terms.  Men are to be the leaders, protectors and providers for women. Women are to be dependent upon their fathers and then ultimately their husbands for leadership, provision and protection in the same way the Church is to depend on Christ for these things.

Western culture, and really the cultures of the entire world used to embrace this basic principle of society.  Only since the mid 19th century with the rise of egalitarianism which spawned feminism did the Western world turn its back on God’s design and we are reaping the natural consequences of that decision.

What if we reversed Sarrah Le Marquand’s advice?

What if instead of making it illegal for stay at home moms to stay home after their children reached school age we made it illegal for married women to enter the workforce at all? I know GASP! That is crazy right.  What if we restored by law the dependence of women upon men and reversed all the so called “progress” of the woman’s rights movement?

The fact is we know from the history of mankind that if we made it more difficult for women to work outside the home or own property husbands would once again have the help meets God designed for them and children would have their mothers back.  Women would once again be able to fully concentrate on their homes rather than dealing with the struggle between work life and home life balance that feminists like Sarrah Le Marquand think is so great but other women know has a horrible effect on their lives and that of their families.

Yes there would be some negatives. Some women would again be trapped in bad marriages or abusive situations.

But we have to ask ourselves this question.  Which was better for society? Was society worse off by having a patriarchal authority or by eliminating patriarchal authority to address injustices against women? I would argue that if the measure of a society is the strength of the family unit and not the size of our homes or bank accounts we have the answer to that question.

I have said it before and I will say it again.  Feminism will come to end one way or the other.  Either governments will abolish feminism before they collapse due to its negative effects on their cultures or those governments will collapse giving rise to new governments that will have the courage to do what must be done.

Are Biblical Gender Roles a “broken system” that God wants torn down?

“Christ didn’t die to make our garbage nicer garbage. He died to overcome it, to take it away. There are many broken and imperfect systems in scripture and throughout the world, and patriarchy is one of them. God isn’t in the process of making broken systems nicer. Christ didn’t die so that we can ultimately have kinder injustices. God is tearing down broken systems.”  This was the opinion expressed by Kelly Ladd Bishop in an article she wrote for the Huffington Post entitled “The Foolishness of So-Called Biblical Gender Roles”.

You might think this was an attack on my blog by the title but it was actually against some other groups that hold to similar (but not identical) beliefs in Biblical Gender Roles.

Bishop made these statements as well:

“Taking an unjust system and making it nicer is foolishness.

However, this is exactly what many evangelical groups are doing with patriarchy.

Patriarchy, at its core, is a system of injustice, where women are not fully autonomous, but are under the authority of men…

Besides the exegetical problems with teaching a gender hierarchy, which are plentiful, the basic idea that God ordains a gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character, and the entire message of redemption in scripture.”

“gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character”? Really? I think Bishop and I must be reading different Bibles. No the actual problem is that she reads the Bible through her own feminist lenses. What that means whenever she comes across a passage that places men over women it must be a mistake.  It was part of a sinful culture that God just overlooked. God was just going along with the crowd.

The God of the Bible is not a God who tolerates sin. No mam.

God is not silent on the issue of Biblical Gender Roles, he is not implicit but rather he is very explicit on the subject.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God… Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” – I Corinthians 11:3 & 9 (KJV)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing…

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” – Ephesians 5:22-24 & 33 (KJV)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” – Colossians 3:18 (KJV)

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” – Titus 2:4-5(KJV)

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives…

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” – I Peter 3:1 & 5-6 (KJV)

It looks like to me and these other Bible believing groups she attacks that Bishop’s assertion that “gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character” does not have a Scriptural leg to stand on.

Gender hierarchy is about God displaying a wonderful symbol of the relationship between God and his people.  In the Old Testament this was pictured in God’s relationship with Israel, and in the New Testament it is pictured in the relationship of Christ to his Church.

Kelly Bishop – you are right that “Christ didn’t die to make our garbage nicer garbage. He died to overcome it, to take it away.” He died to so that you and other Christian feminists could put away the garbage of your selfish ambition and rebellion against his design for your life.

Why Christian Egalitarianism is not Biblical or Christian

EgalitarianWomanShakesFists1

Egalitarians reject the historic and literal reading of the Word of God where it shows distinct roles and purposes for which God made man and woman. Those who embrace the historical Christian view of the roles of men and women are in modern times called Complementarians.

What do Complementarians believe?

Complementarians believe that God designed man and woman to “complement each other”, like two opposites that when they come together form a whole, thus the term “Complementarian”. These are Christians who believe that the traditional gender roles that men and women have had throughout history are not only “traditional”, but also by the design of God as seen in the Scriptures. Complementarians believe that men and women are equal in their souls, their humanity and their worth to God, but this is where their equality ends and their differences begin.

For instance, Complementarians do not believe that men and women have equal responsibility (opportunity or right) to exercise leadership in the home and the church. They believe God gave clear direction that men are to exercise authority over women in the home and in the church, and that women are called to graciously submit to the authority of the men over them, as well as accept the boundaries that God has place them within.

What is the difference between “two part” Complentarians and “full” Complentarians?

Complementarians generally believe in a hierarchal view of marriage, sometimes called Patriarchy (male lead marriage and family). While there are many variations between Complementarians, the biggest difference that Complementarians have amongst themselves is on the role of women outside the home and church. “Two part Complementarians” are those who believe that man’s authority over woman is limited to the Home and the Church. “Full Complementarians” believe that in all three areas of life – in the Home, the Church as well as society in general, women are to be under the authority of men.

An example of this would be, full Complementarians (also called Patriarchalists) would believe it is unbiblical for a woman to be President of the United States, whereas most two part Complementarians would believe it would be ok for a woman to be President.

I am a full Complementarian.

What do Christian Egalitarians believe?

Probably one the best representations of Christian Egalitarianism is found at http://www.cbeinternational.org/content/cbes-mission. Here are few excerpts from their mission statement:

Believers are called to mutual submission, love, and service.

God distributes spiritual gifts without regard to gender, ethnicity, or class.

Believers must develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, home, and world.

Believers have equal authority and equal responsibility to exercise their gifts without regard to gender, ethnicity, or class and without the limits of culturally-defined roles.

Restricting believers from exercising their gifts—on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, or class—resists the work of the Spirit of God and is unjust.

Believers must promote righteousness and oppose injustice in all its forms.

How do Christian Egalitarians use the Scriptures to support their beliefs?

Christian Egalitarianism starts first and foremost with an idea, that there are no boundaries upon people based upon their gender, and that God did not design specific roles for men and women. In the Egalitarian view, aside from their reproductive differences, men and women are equal in every way and both men and women can fulfill any role in the home, the church or society at large interchangeably. Marriage is partnership of equals, with no earthly head, but only Christ as it’s leader.

It is with these ideals in mind that Christian Egalitarians chose to reinterpret the Scriptures. These are the three primary Biblical sources through which Egalitarians reinterpret all the Bible:

  1. The “help meet” of Genesis chapter 2 is not Adam’s subordinate because the Greek word “Ezer” is usually used of God’s help toward man in the Old Testament and God is not man’s subordinate. In the Egalitarian view, Eve was no more Adam’s helper, than Adam was Eve’s helper, they were in fact equals made for each other. Egalitarians see Adam’s rule over Eve as part of the curse of sin, not the original design of God.
  2. They believe that the phrase “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” in Galatians 3:28 means that God abolished all gender roles and boundaries for Christian believers. If man ever was the head of woman, this no longer exists in the Christian world.
  3. Whenever the Bible speaks of man being the head of woman (I Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5) it does not mean “authority” in their view, but instead means “source”. “Head” in these passages is simply referring to the fact that God created woman from man when he took the rib from Adam’s side.

Egalitarians sacrifice the Scriptural teachings of Biblical inerrancy in their allegiance to their Egalitarian views and they write off whole passages of Scripture as being “scribal additions” where they cannot explain away the phrasing. Some of these passages include Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:24 and I Peter 3:6.

In my next post in this series on Christian Egalitarianism, we will explore the “help meet” of Genesis chapter 2 and differing beliefs between Christian Egalitarians and Complementarians.

What did God mean when he called woman a help meet for man?

The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women Part 2

Polygyny

My first post on this subject, “The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women” sparked a lot of interest, and most of it was negative as I would expect. Most people have a hard time stepping outside their cultural norms and value systems and looking at things from a wider historical perspective – so the negative responses I received did not offend me or shock me.

What I wanted to do here is answer some of the objections and questions that people raised, as well as clarify some things I was trying to communicate in the first post.

In the first article in this series, I proved that men marrying younger women, and even multiple younger women (polygyny) in past civilizations was not wrong and it was not immoral even though our modern culture frowns on these practices today.

It is not wrong (present tense) in some cultures outside the United States that still practice it today (older men marrying younger women) as they are brought up in a culture expecting to be married at a young age.

Believe it or not there are still many states where the age of marriage with the consent of the parents is as young as 14. According to one study almost 9 percent of marriages in the United States are by those under the age of 18[1].  Out of those 9 percent of “child marriages” as they are classified – 1 out of 9 is age 14 while the remainder are between 15 and 17 years of age.

But what I was trying to say in the last article, and it somewhat got lost, is that even though we are living in a monogamous society, and an equal opportunity for both genders society, this does not change man’s biology.

All men, are biologically capable of impregnating 20 or 30 women in one month. A woman on the other hand, is biologically wired for monogamy, even if she has sex with 20 men in one month, she can only be impregnated by one man at a time. Yes I know there are rare exceptions where a woman has dropped two eggs and had pregnancies from two different men but this is not her design, this is not the norm of how a woman’s body operates.

Man’s biological capacity for polygyny, is not only located in his reproductive organs, but also in his brain. Even though Western men are living within the constraints of a monogamous society, they are still drawn to a variety of women. But in our society men are taught to hide and subdue this natural polygamous mental wiring, because they are taught that they should only desire one woman. There are of course expectations, where some men have a very low sex drive, and some men have no sex drive at all so they will not desire multiple women – but again these are exceptions and not the norm.

The key word is “capacity”

A word I continuously used in my first post, and I continue to use in this post is “capacity”. For instance all men and women (unless they are born with some rare medical condition) have the biological capacity for having sex. But just because they have the capacity for sex, does not mean they will actually ever have sex in their lifetime.

In the same way while all men throughout history have had the biological capacity for polygyny, it does not mean they were able to act on it, or even if given the choice, many did not act on it.

Someone might say, “Well we all have the capacity for sin too, but just because we have the capacity for something does not make it right”. I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

If we did not have examples of some of the greatest heroes of the Bible like Abraham, Gideon, David and many others who were practicing polygynists I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If we did not have the Old Testament regulations specifically allowing men to take other wives through various means I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God himself did not say to King David that he had given King Saul’s “wives” into David’s “bosom” (II Samuel 12:8) I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God did not picture himself as a polygynous husband with two wives (Ezekiel 23) I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God did not have the names of the sons of Jacob, a product of a polygynous relationship with 4 different wives inscribed on his Holy City for all eternity (Revelation 21:12), I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

What about the 50/50 ratio between men and women – wouldn’t polygyny take away wives from other men?

The first problem with this train of thought it is that it assumes there has always been a ratio of 1 to 1 for men and women throughout history. We do not know that in the beginning God did not have more women than men born so as to populate the world faster.

Secondly, for arguments sake, let’s say that for all of human history since the dawn of creation there has always been a 1 to 1 ratio between men and women. Let’s go back to my key word “capacity”. Just because man has the capacity for sex, does not mean that all men are going to get married. Just because man has the capacity for polygyny does mean all men throughout history have been able to act on their capacity for polygyny.

Many men could not marry, either because they were slaves or servants (who could only marry if their master allowed them to), or they were in poverty and poor men generally were not able to marry. You usually had to show a father you had the ability to care for his daughter, before you could marry her. Some men would later fall into poverty after marriage, in which case they would have to sell their children as slaves so they would be cared for.

So my point is, there were a lot more eligible women for marriage, then eligible men, which made it possible for many men to have polygynous marriages.

But that brings us to modern times. In our modern America a man does not have to have the means to care for a woman to marry her. In fact it is very common for poor men and women to marry each other and not long afterwards go on public assistance, especially after they have children.

But even in our day, there are still many more eligible women for marriage than eligible men. The reasons are very different than they once were. Now many men don’t won’t want to marry, and our free sex society allows men to follow their polygynous urges without any sort of marital commitment so that is what men do now(they whore around instead of getting married). This is of course just many of the reasons men run from marriage today.

“In 2011, the Pew Research Center found that 51 percent of Americans were married, compared to 72 percent in 1960.”

Huffington Post – “Marriage Rate Declines To Historic Low, Study Finds”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/marriage-rate_n_3625222.html

This leaves a lot of women looking for men who are willing to enter a committed relationship and get married. There are many intelligent and economically well off men that would gladly take on multiple wives as our Biblical forefathers did if our society allowed.

There is no “one-flesh” mutuality in a marriage when a man marries a much younger woman or has more than one wife.

There is a sense in which marriage is a mutual thing.

“In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman”

I Corinthians 11:11(HCSB)

Man needs woman, and woman needs man, we mutually need one another.

However that is where the mutuality of man and woman ends, and the differences between man and woman begins.

A man and woman do not need to be the same age, or the same maturity to be married. As long as the man is in a position to lead and protect his wife, she can be much younger, and much less mature.

Contrary to what modern America teaches, marriage is not a partnership of equals, but a patriarchy.

In the same passage above where Paul talks about men and women needing each other, he also talks about why woman was made:

“A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory.  For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

I Corinthians 11:7-9(HSCB)

“Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.”

Ephesians 5:24(HSCB)

What does “one flesh” mean in the Bible?

““Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said:

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”

Matthew 19:4-6(HSCB)

“Don’t you know that anyone joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For Scripture says, The two will become one flesh.”

I Corinthians 6:16(HSCB)

So what the Scriptures tell us is, a man can become “one flesh” with his wife, and a man can become “one flesh” with a prostitute. What is the only two things those two relationships have in common? Sex.

This tells us that the primary meaning of “one flesh” when it comes to the relationship of a man and woman refers to their sexual relationship.

The sex act is the binding symbol of the union between a man and woman. In Biblical times, a marriage was not sealed until a man had sex with a woman, which then bound them together by law. I am not saying that there is not an emotional connection that often occurs between a man and a woman as a result of sex, we know this can and often does occur.  I am also not arguing that in marriage there is not more to the one flesh concept than just the sexual reference.

Is there a secondary meaning to “one flesh” in regard to marriage?  Yes. Christ shows us this in the Gospel of Mark:

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark 10:6-8 (KJV)

So the Bible refers to “one flesh” in regard to a man and woman in two ways.  We are told that a man can become one flesh with a prostitute and we are also told that in marriage that a man and woman are no longer two, but one referring to the spiritual, intellectual and emotional union of a man and his wife.

But here is the issue – in our current culture Christian teachers primarily emphasize the second way one flesh is used(one in spirit and mind) and they place little to no emphasis on the most literal meaning of a couple becoming one flesh which is the sexual aspect of it.

But how can a man become “one flesh” with more than one wife?

But how can a man be “one” with more than one wife? Would that not make them many? If this was an intimate relationship of many people with one another, then that would be a polyamorous relationship which is different than polygynous relationship.

In a polyamorous relationship there can be multiple men and women all married to one another.  So you could have three men and two women or one man and three women.  They all consider each other’s spouses in every sense of the word.  Of course we know that such a relationship is a wicked perversion of God’s design for marriage.  A woman must always be married to one spouse and that spouse must be a man who is called her husband according to Romans 7:2-3.

In a polygynous relationship, a husband has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his wives(the wives are not married to each other – they are married to him). He is a husband to each of them, just as God pictured himself as a husband to two wives in Ezekiel 23.

I understand that may be a difficult concept to understand but this is all based in the Word of God. You may struggle with this concept in this life but if you are a Christian when you get to heaven you can ask Jacob – whose sons from his polygynous relationships with 4 different woman are inscribed on the city of God for all eternity (the twelve tribes of Israel).

I encourage the reader to look at my series on “Why Polygamy is not unBiblical” to understand this better.

References:

[1]Yann Le Strat, Caroline Dubertret, Bernard Le Foll (2011), Child Marriage in the United States and Its Association With Mental Health in Women, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/3/524

The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women

PolygynyAndYouth

Previously I wrote about why polygyny is not only NOT unbiblical, but it was regulated, allowed and practiced by many of the Old Testament patriarchs. But what about the biological case for polygyny? Did God design men’s bodies for polygynous relationships? What about the marriage of young women to older to men?

Imagine that you were able to take a time machine back to a time in human history around 3000 years ago, deep in the Middle East. You meet a traveler who says he is coming back from a trade journey for his master. You ask him about how he became a slave and he tells you that his parents were in poverty, and that they traded him to his master for some cattle. He says this helped his parents to come out of poverty and to build a life for his other siblings.

He asks you to come meet his master. He tells you that his master was a great hero to his nation, and he is a kind and generous man, a man that worships the one true God. In the distance you can see what looks like a small village. You see what seems to be a celebration of some kind so you ask your companion “what are they celebrating?”

He responds that his master is getting married. As you come closer he points out his master and his bride to be sitting on the ground beside him. The man appears to be his mid-40’s while the girl sitting next to him looks no more than 14. This must be a mistake.

You ask him again – “that girl is his daughter right?” He responds – “No she is his bride to be. My master is very excited, she is his 15th wife and he is hoping she will give him his 70th son!” After wiping the shocked look off your face, you ask you’re travelling companion one more question – “What is your master’s name?” He responds – “My master’s name is Gideon”.

The story I have just given you, while fictional, is based on a true Biblical character and based upon what we know of the culture and times most likely happened (minus the time traveler with one of Gideon’s slaves- LOL).

“Now Gideon had seventy sons who were his direct descendants, for he had many wives. His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he named him Abimelech. And Gideon the son of Joash died at a ripe old age and was buried in the tomb of his father Joash, in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.”

Judges 8:30-32(NASB)

When does a girl become a woman?

While culturally we consider a girl to become a woman at the age of 18, biologically speaking, adulthood is reached when sexual maturity is reached. Before the modern era, a girl became a woman when she experienced her first period (usually around 12 or 13), she was then eligible for marriage and usually her father had her married off not long after this.

Lucien Deiss in his book “Joseph, Mary, Jesus” writes:

“How old could Mary have been? Young girls usually were betrothed as soon as they became a woman.  It was believed they reached puberty at about twelve or twelve and a half. Boys it was believed reached the age if puberty a year later. Marriage could take place one year after puberty a year later. In general, it was held that men could wait until the age of eighteen or twenty before marrying so that they could have time to build a house and plant a vineyard.”[1]

In “Jesus of History, Christ of Faith” we read:

“The women normally married as soon as they were physically able to bear children, which the Law defined as twelve and a half years of age.” [2]

Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated this about the Jewish view of early marriage:

“As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.” [3]

Zvi Yehuda in his book on Jews that came to Iraq from all over the world for over 400 years writes:

“Where traditional family structure was unchanged, Jewish girls were betrothed by their parents at age 9-11 and married at age 12-13. A Jewish girl who reached the age of fifteen and was still unmarried was considered an old maid with no chance of a husband.  A girl bride was not asked for opinion in choose her mate and parents occasionally married off their daughters to men dozens of years older than the bride.” [4]

The evidence is clear. Both in Jewish tradition and over historical accounts we know that Jews married their daughters off young.  Why? Because of God’s first command to mankind to be fruitful and multiply.  Men needed more time to prepare a home for their wife – but women as soon they became women(had their first period) and passed the age of 12 were usually betrothed or married and most likely had their first child by the age of 13 or 14.

Teenage mothers were the norm before the modern era

As we have previously pointed out, most scholars believe that Mary was 12 to 14 years old when she was espoused to Joseph to be married. They believe she would have been between 13 and 14 when she gave birth to Jesus. While the Bible does not state her exact age, if she were older it would have stated this as it did with Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist).  Since the Bible makes no mention of her age, then it is assumed she would have been in the normal first child bearing age of women in that era, which would have been around 13 or 14. Joseph is thought to be a bit older than her (perhaps in his mid-20s or older) because he died well before Jesus’s ministry and Mary was a widow.

Just a note – if you look online there are a few Christians (but a small minority) that have tried to argue with the notion that Mary was a teenage mother and instead argue that she was at least 20 years old as this was God’s age of accountability and God would not have asked her to carry his Son at such a young age.

There are few problems with this theory of Mary being much older. The first problem is that first time mothers in their 20’s were considered to be older mothers, and the Bible would have said something about her older age, like it did with her cousin Elizabeth if she were in her 20’s.  Another problem with the magic “20” number is that in most instances of the Old Testament this applied to men being fully accountable, not to women, and even in the one instance in the book of numbers where men are not specified, it does not specify women either, so the assumption always goes to it talking about men aged 20 or older.

Women were accountable to their father as long as they were in his house. He could override any decision she made, financial or otherwise while she lived in his house. His authority over her then transferred to her husband when she got married.

Some Christians want so desperately to believe, against the evidence of historical and cultural data we have of the period and location, that there is no way Mary could have been a 14 year old mother. But this starts with their pre-conceived notion, based upon our modern western culture we have all been brought up in, that marriage of girls at such young ages is an immoral act.

Bearing and Rearing Children is a young woman’s game

Biologically speaking, a woman’s best time to conceive and bear children is from the time of her first period (for most girls between age 12 and 13) and age 24. After age 24 chances of birth defects and problem pregnancies begin to rise. At age 30, a woman has used or lost 90% of the eggs she will ever have and this is why women in their 30’s typically have a much more difficult time getting pregnant.

The reason that God designed a woman to have children at a younger age, as opposed to an older age(like 30s and 40s) is because of the extreme stress that is placed on the body during pregnancy, as well as the energy and physical stamina that is required to care for and wean a child in their younger years.

What about Sarah and Elizabeth in the Bible?

Yes there are few instances of God miraculously causing older women to conceive, but this was by no means the norm of his design. We cannot take these two special cases and try to make a doctrine that God intends for women to wait until their older years to have children.

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

A teenage girl might physically able to bear a child, but she is not psychologically ready

This argument does stray a bit from what is strictly a biological topic, but I think it needs to be addressed. I completely agree that most teenage girls in our culture and time period are not psychologically prepared for having children. But that is because our culture babies children in ways cultures of the past did not.

In Jewish tradition, a boy began his journey to manhood at the age of 13, and a girl began her journey in womanhood at the age of 12. While boys were not fully responsible (for taxation purposes, and conscription purposes and some other legal purposes) until they reached age 20, they were in many ways treated as men from age 13 on. Since women did not have the rights men did, a woman was a full woman at the age of 12 and her status and rights did not change from that point forward.

A young 12 year old girl would have witnessed births by many women by the time she reached 12 and would be fully aware of periods, child bearing and birth long before these things happened to her. She would already have been learning about child care well before she reached puberty. Her whole life would have been leading up to the time when she could finally marry and have children of her own.

So in many ways, a 12 year old girl in pre modern times would have had the maturity level of what many 18 or even 20 year old girls have today.

Also we must keep in mind that before the modern era, families took care of other and were much closer. So when a 13 or 14 year woman had her first baby, her female relatives, whether they were cousins, or aunts, or even her mother were all there to help her learn the ropes of motherhood. Today the tribal family structure has all but been eliminated.

Men can father children at any age beyond puberty

Unlike women who ovulate once a month, and are only fertile for about 5 days, the typical man (unless he has a medical condition) is in essence “fertile” every day. A man completely replenishes his sperm every 24 hours. Before recent research, doctors used to tell men to wait every other day to have sex with their wives during her fertile period. Then they discovered that is was in fact better for them to have sex every day, as all the sperm is at its best every 24 hours or so.

A man since he was not responsible for caring for the child, but for the teaching and disciplining of the child, did not need to have the physical strength and endurance that a woman needed in her duties of child rearing, and this is why a man has no expiration date on his ability to produce children.

The fact of God’s creation in human biology is, men are built for fathering multiple children with multiple women at the same time. They are also built for fathering children with multiple generations of women, as their first wives age and cannot have children, they can continue fathering children with younger women.

This is why men have such a stronger sex drive and can compartmentalize relationships with multiple women, much better than the average woman could with multiple men. Not to mention that a man has a never ending supply of child producing sperm. On the other hand, women are designed with a shelf life when it comes to having children. How else do you explain the extreme disparity between the male and female reproductive systems?

What about my own daughter?

As I write this article in August of 2014, my daughter is 12 years old.  I could not imagine her being married at such a young age. But why could I not imagine such a thing? Is it because it would immoral or wrong? The answer is no.

The reason I cannot imagine it is because of the culture I have been raised in and the culture I have raised my daughter in. Because she has not been raised to prepare for marriage at age 12 she is not ready to be a wife and mother yet. Could she be ready in a few years? Perhaps.

Let’s say my daughter was 16 and a wonderful Christian 25 year old man who was a mechanical engineer approached me about courting my daughter.  I was able to check out the church he attended and verify with many people his Christian character.  He makes over 100K a year, owns his own home and can provide for my daughter well. Would I consider letting him court my daughter and possibly marry her as a 16 year old young lady? The answer is yes. 

Just a quick note on the difference between courting and dating.  Dating is when a couple choose one another apart from any parental involvement and they go out alone together doing various activities together.  They may or may not be going out together with marriage in mind.

Dating is a relatively new phenomenon originating in the last century. Before that marriages were arranged either between parents or between the father of the daughter and a potential husband. Courting came on the scene later.  But courting, unlike dating, is always with the prospect of marriage in mind.   Also a big difference between courting and dating is the couple is never alone together.  They always have a family member from one side or even both sides along with them wherever they go.

How does all this apply to us today?

After reading all this, you might say – “so what if before modern times women got married and had babies way younger, and men had many wives – that’s not how are society is structured today, so how does any of this apply?”

There really are two issues here that apply to our modern times, and in this post I will only address one of them, as I believe the other issue merits its own post.

The first issue is the fertility crisis that the world will soon be facing in the coming century. In most modern countries, because women are waiting so long (average age of first time mothers is now around 26 in highly westernized countries) the birthrates in these countries among the indigenous populations has plummeted. Many European countries are far below replacement levels (just having enough babies to keep their population stable) and even the US population only keeps a modest growth because of immigration (legal and illegal). If we did not have the immigration we have now, we would be experiencing population decline.

I will reference this book in another article on this subject, but I highly encourage the reader to check out the book “What to Expect when no one is expecting” by Jonathan Last.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594036411

The fertility statistics in this book are a real “inconvenient truth” to modern day feminists. We face a much greater threat from dropping fertility rates than any climate change, real or imagined. But I will have more to say about this subject in separate post dedicated to conflict between women’s rights and the survival of the human race.

But the second issue, and the one that this post is primarily dedicated to is the biological capacity of men for polygyny.

Even if practically speaking, we as men in western culture are for the most part living monogamous lives it helps us and our wives to understand ourselves better when we all come to the realization that men are biologically built with the capacity for polygyny.

There are some men who have lower sex drives, and have less polygynous natures than other men, so that they would never desire to act on their capacity for polygyny. But the vast majority of men have a high sex drive, some higher than others, and definitely if our society allowed it would act on their natural polygynous desires and biological capacity of for polygyny.

This is why happily married men still routinely check out other women.

This is why it is not perverted for a 50 year old man to check out an 18 year old woman.

This is why men typically want to have sex multiple times a week, whereas many women would be happy with sex a few times a month.

Man’s capacity for polygyny is not only Biblical, it is also biological.

References:

[1] Deiss, Lucien (1996), Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Liturgical Press, p. 25, ISBN 978-0814622551

[2] Zanzig, T. (1999). Jesus of History, Christ of Faith. Terrace Heights, Winona: Saint Mary’s Press, Christian Brothers Publication. p. 89

[3] Weitzel, Eugene. J. (2010). I Want to Be a Husband and Father for Life and a Catholic Priest Forever. U.S.: Xilbris Corporation. p. 113

[4] Zvi Yehuda, “The New Babylonian Diaspora: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Community in Iraq, 16th-20th C.E.”, p.97

Related posts:

The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women Part 2

Women’s ovaries don’t agree with Feminism

How did God make man?

How did God make woman?

Why polygamy is not unBiblical

Removing the cultural lenses

Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

WomenForPresident

Why were there no female priests in Israel and no female Apostles? Why were there no female queens appointed by God to rule over Israel? Was it just cultural sexism or was the lack of women ruling over men based on the what these people understood and accepted about God’s design of gender roles?

Moving forward to our modern culture, does the Bible allow for a woman to President of the United States?

A brief history of Women seeking America’s highest office

Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are not the first women in American history to seek America’s highest office. In 1884, Belva Lockwood, an activist for voting rights for women and for African Americans campaigned for president.

In 1872 and 1892, Victoria Woodhull ran for President of the United States the first time from the Equal Rights Party, and the second time from the Humanitarian Party.

Many other women since then have either run for President from very small parties, or have sought the nominations of the Republican or Democratic parties.

What does the Bible say about a woman being President?

Obviously there was no such thing as a President in Biblical times, so the Bible would not specifically mention it. But the Bible does teach Patriarchy (male leadership over women).

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Home:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Church:

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

I Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in Society:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3(KJV)

Other Biblical facts that go against women in leadership positions over men

Christian Feminists have spent the last century attempting to explain away the clear teachings of God’s Word that I have mentioned above. In addition there are many more facts they cannot overcome.

Never in Israel’s history was there ever a female high priest, or female priest period.

Never in Israel’s history did God appoint a female Queen to rule over Israel.

None of the Apostles were women (you would think if God believed in gender equality, he could have carved out at least one slot out of 12 right?)

There is not one recorded instance of a female Pastor in the New Testament.

While I would agree with my feminist Christian friends that the absence of something does not necessarily forbid that thing, it certainly makes for a stronger case when we have verses that clearly say that man is the head of woman, the husband is the head of the wife, and in the church a Bishop is “a man” who is “the husband of one wife” and one that “ruleth well his own house”.

But what about women leaders in the Bible?

This is the primary weapon that Christian feminists have used to assault the patriarchal system that is clearly taught from Old Testament and into the New Testament. Below I will mention each one of these women who are raised as an objection to the Bible’s teaching on Patriarchy in society, the church and the home. Then I will mention a brief note on each explaining her role.

Miriam – prophet. – It never specifically says she exercised authority over men.

Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a “woman”. It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.

Hulda – prophet during the reign of Josiah. She served at a time when Israel had forsaken God, one of their darkest hours. Josiah sought to restore worship and the Word of God and sent messengers to her to seek the will of God.

Anna – a widow who became a prophet and pronounced Jesus to be the redeemer of Israel

Lydia – business woman in the Philippian Church, but the Bible never refers to her as a leader or a Pastor.

Priscilla – helped Paul while he was establishing churches at Corinth and Ephesus; with her husband Aquila, corrected Apollo’s preaching and helped him to learn of the new way in Christ.

Junias – contrary to feminist teachings, she was not an Apostle, but she was honored by the Apostles for her work in the Lord.

Phoebe – a servant in the Church at Cenchrea, She was not a deacon as feminists assert.

Let’s address the Deborah and the Hulda in the room

Only two of the 8 women mentioned often by Christian feminists truly exercised spiritual leadership over men.

The time periods when Deborah and Hulda were prophets were times of great moral and spiritual decay for Israel. Men were no longer exercising moral or spiritual leadership as we can see in Barak’s refusal to go to war without Deborah by his side.

Let me be blunt – God called women into spiritual leadership roles, as an exception to his design, in order to shame the men into bringing the nation back to God, and into exercising their God given responsibility to lead in the church, the home and in the nation.

In no way does the Bible EVER paint women in leadership roles as a positive thing, but it is something God uses to shame the men into action.

“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)

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules

God made these exceptions to his own design at limited and specific times:

  1. God allowed a donkey to speak to a Balaam in Numbers chapter 22.
  2. God tells the prophet Isaiah to go and prophesy naked for 3 years in Isaiah chapter 20.
  3. God tells the prophet Hosea to go marry a prostitute (something clearly forbidden for priests) in Hosea chapter 1.
  4. God took Enoch (in Genesis 5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) directly to heaven without them first experiencing physical death.

My point is – God can and does make exceptions to his design at various times. But unless God actually directly commands an exception to his design, as in the case with Deborah and Hulda, we have no right to deviate from his design of patriarchy in the home, the church or society at large.

What God says women are to do

Christian feminists spend so much time looking for exceptions to God’s design that they stumble and fall over God’s clear direction to women, as to the normal way a Christian woman should live her life.

God says his normal design is for women is to be helpmeets to men and this is how women are commanded to live:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

“The aged women… That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5(KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here in regards to God’s design for women. Young women are to marry, have children and manage their homes for their husbands. They are to be obedient to their husbands, to love their husbands and children and to be discreet. When women are older they are then to teach the younger women how to be good Christian wives and mothers.

The Bible does not forbid women from spiritually leading other women, as long as that leadership does not contradict with a churches authority, or a husband’s or father’s authority.

This would allow for Christian women’s conferences, for Christian women to teach ladies Sunday school classes, and for women to write books or blogs as long they are not exercising spiritual or physical authority over men.

I have given all this Biblical evidence, and answered the false arguments of Christian feminists to say this – a Christian woman has no business running for or assuming the office of President of the United States. In fact a Christian woman has no business being in a leadership position over men, whether it is in the home, the church or society at large. God says “the head of the woman is the man” we would do well to follow his design.

But do we need to submit to female leaders in Government as Christians?

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Romans 13:1(KJV)

God tells us that rulers, good or bad, are allowed to come to power by his will. We are commanded to pay taxes and be subject to our rulers. That includes if they are women. If a woman run’s for President, that is something between her husband and her, and between God and her. We can and should teach God’s design, but at the end of the day, we each have a personal responsibility before God.

Would I vote for a female President?

Depending on the situation, yes. The reason is if the female candidate comes closer to Christian positions than the male candidate, I must support the lesser of the two evils. For instance if the female candidate is pro-life and the male candidate is pro-choice, I will most likely vote for the female candidate unless she is way off in some other way.

Update 10/13/2016

The 2016 Election and the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I originally wrote this article back in 2014 long before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the candidates representing our two major political parties here in the United States.

As I write this update to this article today our nation is faced with a huge choice coming in less than a month.  This article has spiked on google as Christians search out the truth of how they should vote.

Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman the only reason I as a Christian man am not voting for Hillary Clinton? No.

But in the world of politics we often have to choose the lesser of the two evils.

The prophet Daniel served under Kings that lead sinful and immoral lives and as long as they did not ask him to sin against his God he served them faithfully.  The point is sometimes we don’t get a simple choice between a godly person and an ungodly person in politics.  Sometimes the choice is between two ungodly and sinful people and I believe that is the choice we are being presented with in this 2016 Presidential election.

I would have considered voting for Hillary, despite her being a woman which is a violation of God’s design if she did not have these things on her record:

  1. She is a proponent of abortion and especially the heinous partial birth abortion.
  2. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives through their insurance.
  3. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them accept and participate in gay marriage(bakers, photographers, wedding planners, county clerks and judges).
  4. She is for going after churches that endorse conservative Christian candidates and who call out liberal candidates as unchristian.
  5. She believes in legalized theft of private property through the government seizing the private property of some(money) and simply redistributing it to others.  It is one thing to take taxes to pay for basic government services – that is a Biblical concept.  It is another when you take what one man has rightfully earned and simply give it to another man who has done nothing to earn it.
  6. She does not believe that a nation has the right to defend its borders, language, culture and economy.  One of the first duties of government is to defend it’s nation from all outside threats whether they be military(including terrorists), cultural or economic threats.

Hillary Clinton has many other flaws including being a liar and a corrupt politician. Is Donald Trump a liar too? Yes he has been caught in many lies. So perhaps on this issue of lying they may be equally flawed.

Donald Trump despite his flaws(and they are many) is a candidate whose positions on the issues of our time comes far closer to a Biblical perspective than does Hillary Clinton’s.

These are the reasons I will be voting for Donald Trump in the next month:

  1. He proposes that we strike the IRS provision put in by Lyndon Johnson in 1954(Section 501(c)(3)) that punishes Church leaders for making political endorsements or criticizing political candidates by removing their status as non-profit organizations.  This was a major violation of the first amendment right to free speech as well as freedom of religion and it must be struck down.
  2. While he has been careful on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage in his statements, if he appoints any of the judges on his list of judges these judges will bring a screeching halt to the gay rights movement assault on religious liberty.
  3. Speaking of judges – these same judges that Donald Trump has pledged to appoint to our various levels of Federal courts will uphold private property rights(another Biblical concept) as well.
  4. He has taken a pro-life position and is against partial birth abortions.
  5. He believes one of the most important duties of government is to protect the nation from outside harm whether it be cultural, economic or military threats including terrorism.

I am glad that God has allowed us in this election cycle to be able to vote for a man in keeping with his design that men should rule over women. I am glad that the male candidate is closer to the Bible in his positions than the woman so we will not have to go against God’s design in voting for a female president.

Other related articles:

How a Christian wife should handle a controlling husband

You were made for him

 

Feminism will come to an end one way or the other

Woman_suffrage_headquarters_Cleveland

On August 18th 1920, the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution forever changed the course of the American nation. This amendment giving women the right to vote, began the process of the feminization of America. America was not the first nation to give women the right to vote, but it was one of the most influential world powers to do so. The system of patriarchy that had served the world since the beginning of creation, was now being taken down in favor of a grand new experiment.

It was not something that happened overnight. It took over forty years from the time Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment in 1878 for it to be finally ratified in 1920. It was passed under immense pressure from women’s groups and the pressuring of men to give women “fair” and “just” treatment.

I believe if you could go back and show the men who voted to give women the right to vote how their vote affected our nation over the next century, the amendment would have been massively defeated.

Feminism will eventually end in of one of two ways

Previously I wrote a post about how Fathers can save our families from feminism. I believe this is one of two ways feminism in America and Western Civilization will end. Fathers teaching their daughters to reject feminist ideals and to embrace their God given roles as wives and mothers would certainly be the less painful way that feminism will end. But if Fathers do not step in and lead, and teach their daughters what is right, a more painful end to feminism will occur.

Emotion verses Logic

While there are more emotional men, and more logical women, the reality is most men are more logical and most women are more emotional. Most men tend to think with their heads first, and their hearts second. On the other hand, most women tend to think with their hearts first and their heads second.

But in the end logic always beats emotion. Emotion may seem to triumph over logic for a period, perhaps even for decades or centuries. But eventually logic prevails.

Emotion says if, we as a nation are nice to our enemies, and we lower our defenses, or withdraw, they will leave us alone.

Logic says an enemy does not want to fight with a nation they cannot beat. So having a larger military, and more advanced weapons actually promotes peace.

Emotion says if we as a nation deal gently and proportionally with our enemies, then they will appreciate the merciful treatment and stop seeing us as enemies.

Logic says if you crush your enemies with overwhelming force, they will think twice before opposing your interests.

Emotion says if you have a more diverse culture (with different languages, religious beliefs and value systems), you will have a better culture.

Logic says if you have a more diverse culture, you will have a more divided culture and a weaker nation. Logic does not say everyone must think exactly the same on all issues, but the more similar the people are to one another in their religious beliefs, their language and value systems, the more unified the nation will be.

Emotion says if you are softer and gentler toward criminals, you will have less crime.

Logic says if you are harder on crime, and give harsher punishments then you will deter crime.

Emotion says you should not have a gun in your home, because you might use it in the wrong circumstance or hurt your spouse. Your child might find it and get hurt, or you might react wrongly and kill someone with it.

Logic says when criminals know that every home in a neighborhood is armed, with citizens who are willing to use these weapons, crime goes down because these criminals don’t want to be shot in the face as they try to enter someone’s home.

Emotion says we as a nation cannot let anyone starve.

Logic says if a man does not work, he does not eat. If we as a nation continue to give people unending government assistance we will create a larger and larger segment of the population that is dependent on the other segment. Eventually the boat will tip over.

Emotion says every person, man, woman or child should be able to choose to do whatever makes them happy.

Logic says each person should do what they are biologically designed to do. If they are a man, they are designed to lead, protect and provide for women and children. If they are a woman, they are designed to bear children, feed those children and nurture those children into healthy adults.

Emotion says men and women should not have to marry, but should be able to have casual sex and just live together.

Logic says the best relationship is a committed relationship within the institution of marriage, where both the man and woman have clearly defined roles. The security of marriage provides security to a nation and a civilization.

Emotion says women don’t have to have children, it is their choice.

Logic says the most critical and important role women play in civilization is the bearing and raising of children. If women don’t have children (at least 3 children per woman to make up for women who cannot have children) then eventually the human race will become extinct. If those children are not given the nurturing care of a loving mother they are more likely to get into crime, or be less productive and more dependent citizens that will way down on the resources of the nation.

Conclusion

If we as a nation, and as Western civilization, keep following emotion eventually Western civilization will fall. The reason our civilization will fall is because of the feminization of the West. It is because we think more with our hearts, than with our heads.

It is because we won’t protect our language, borders and culture, for fear of offending others.

It is because we won’t protect marriage from easy divorce because we don’t want to make two people live together who don’t have feelings for each other anymore.

It is because we won’t make women stay home, bear and raise the next generation of young people for fear we are being unfair to women.

It is because we won’t be tough on crime.

It is because we won’t be tough on government corruption.

It is because we are unwilling to crush our enemies with overwhelming force and fight to protect our interests.

It is because we are unwilling to let lazy people starve and go homeless.

It is because we continually take what people have earned, and it give it to people who have not earned it all in a futile attempt to eliminate differences in income and economic classes (which will never happen).

It is because we continue to spend more than we have, both as individuals and families, and as a nation.

It is because we are willing to kill the innocent (the unborn), but unwilling to kill the guilty.

In the end though, Feminism will not survive. If we cannot turn around our society the easier way through the influence of fathers teaching their daughters what is right, and teaching our young men to reject feminist women when they look for wives, then eventually western civilization will collapse, and with it feminism.

Then a new society will form, built on the ashes of the old, and mankind will have learned that the greatest mistake it ever made was giving women the right to vote and by extension allowing the feminization of society.

Men’s Rights Activist Murders 7 Women

As someone who believes in Biblical Patriarchy, I guess that makes me a “Men’s Rights activist”. However I would in no way condone this man’s actions. Life is not fair, some men get the girls and other men don’t. You don’t have the right to take out your frustrations about not “getting any” by murdering women.

Contrary to popular belief in some feminist circles, you can believe in Patriarchy, or male dominance of society and still believe that women should still be treated with dignity and respect. Now there may some disagreement about what dignity and respect means, Biblically it does not mean equal freedom. It simply means not treating a human being like an animal, and not abusing them.

As far as the whining goes, there is enough of that to go around on both sides with men and women. If we are strictly talking about dating, men whine when they don’t get the nice looking girls, and women whine when men leave them for nicer looking women.

However Tangled then goes off the deep end by saying white men do most mass shootings because they think they are entitled.
So when a black man goes in a shoots up a party store, or does a drive by shooting he doesn’t feel entitled to do so?

She also makes the connection that to hate feminism (as MRAs do) means that all MRAs hate women. The reality there are extremist feminists and extremists MRAs that yes do spill utter hatred of the opposite sex, but that does mean all feminists are man haters or that all MRAs are woman haters.

Personally I hate feminism, but I do not hate women. I pity feminists (both male and female advocates of the ideology) and pity their young children who are often left without a mother to care for them.

Patriarchy is Biblical in society, not just the home and church

Open Bible, with textured granite background.

I was raised in mostly conservative Baptist complementarian churches. I even researched my complementarian views in my early 20’s (along with everything else I believed). I questioned many things, read many comparative religion books as well as writings on equal rights and feminism in particular.

I came to the conclusion that the complementarian teaching I had learned was not only Biblical, but logical as well. I believed and saw that science confirms that man and woman, though they are both human, are designed with different purposes in mind. I believed (and still believe) that freedom within the bounds of God’s laws and commands makes for the best society. God’s designed society with order. Headship in marriage and in the church gives society that order.

I believed the best place for a woman was to be in the home, but I did not believe it was wrong for a woman to pursue an education and then a career. I did not believe it was wrong for a woman to be in leadership positions of business, politics or other places of society.

That was almost 20 years ago for me (as of the time of my writing this paper). What I did not realize is that I like most Complementarians had left some big questions unanswered.

  1. How can a woman pursue an education and a career without neglecting her first duty to her husband, her children and her home?
  2. How can a woman be in a position of authority over men, even in society? She can never be her husband’s authority, he is always her authority, Biblically speaking. She can never be her father’s authority either.   So for instance if a woman were to become mayor of the city she and her husband(or father) lived in, or governor of the state, they lived in, or President of the country they lived in – she would in essence be in authority over her husband – how could this be right or acceptable?

Then I came to realize that the complementarian views I had been raised with came about to soften the Bible’s teaching on the headship of man in society as feminism in American took root and these teachings became unpopular.

I realized that the complementarian beliefs that limit male headship to only the home and church were inconsistent with the Scriptures. God did not limit man’s authority over woman to only the church or the home, he meant for it to be present in the home, the church and society at large.

It is clear that God has designed a consistent pattern of authority to be followed in this world:

God the father is the authority of God the Son

God the Son is the authority of man

Man is the authority of woman

This does not change in this world. When God creates a new heaven and new earth, then this authority structure may be altered, but for now it remains.

I will talk on female prophets in another article but I will simply say this for now. A prophet does not always carry the same authority over others, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Deborah did not want to be in any authority position over men, they asked her to go with them into battle because they lacked the courage God expected of them. She even said to their shame that God would give their enemies into the hands of a woman. Deborah did not sit at the gates of the cities or go into the cities exercising authority over the people, the people simply came to her for advice as she sat under a tree outside the city gates.

Never once do we see Deborah defying her husband or taking authority over him. Never once do we hear Deborah crying for women to have equal rights with their husbands, or to be given more positions of authority in their society.