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.

The scourge of Feminism

CompeteorComplete

Mankind has witnessed almost every type of wicked and sinful behavior imaginable since the beginning of history. But one evil had never before been witnessed in the history of the world until just the last 150 years, and that is the scourge of feminism.

In 1848, the first woman’s rights convention was held at Seneca Falls, New York. One of the most famous statements decreed at this convention was:

“He [the legislative and judicial patriarchy] has so framed the laws of divorce as to what shall be the proper causes, and in the case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women–the law in all cases going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”

In these early years of feminism some women and men thought they were fighting for simple fairness and justice. Many legitimate questions were raised:

Businesswoman asking why

Why should women not have the same rights as men?

Why should women not have a fair distribution of property and joint custody when being divorced?

In later years these questions would also be raised:

Why should women not have the right to vote?

Why should women not be paid the same as men for the same job?

Why should women not be able to lead companies?

What should women not be able to be politicians?

Why should women not be able to be soldiers in the army?

Why should women not have the right to do with their bodies as they will (abortion)?

How we answered the first question is how the scourge of feminism was born

Women should never have been granted the same rights as men, because women have a different role to play in society than men. Men are biologically designed to lead, conquer, provide and protect. Women are built to be soft and gentle, both physically and psychologically, to bring love and comfort to men, to bear their children and raise and care for their children.

The Bible tells us why men are designed bigger and stronger and aggressive, and why they are designed with a natural desire to lead, provide for and protect women. It is because God designed man in his image, in his likeness. Man’s leadership, protection and provision for woman is symbolic of God’s leadership, provision and protection of his people.

Woman on the other hand was designed as a symbol of God’s people. God meant for woman to submit to and serve man in the same way that all of mankind is meant to submit to and serve God. Her physical beauty is given her as a symbol of the beauty of God’s holy people, his church.

When the people of the Seneca Falls Convention questioned “the supremacy of man” over woman in society they were in essence questioning the supremacy of God over man, because the relationship between God and man is symbolized in the relationship between man and woman. Yes there have been female queens and prophets and other leaders earlier in history, but never had the supremacy of man over woman ever been questioned in the way the Seneca Falls Convention questioned it.

The effects of Seneca Falls Convention

Before the Seneca Falls Convention, divorce was almost non-existent in the United States. If a man and woman did divorce, the father would retain full custody of the children and all property, and his wife was lucky to leave with the clothes on her back.

After the Seneca Falls convention, for the first time in the history of mankind, a man’s wife and his children were no longer seen as his property. Over the coming decades women were granted property rights and women started be able to divorce their husbands and also retain custody of their children. While divorce of the 19th century was not as easy as the modern no fault divorce we have now, it was still encouraged by granting women new rights in divorce.

After women were given new rights to children and property in divorce, the divorce rate tripled in the United States, although still being low by today’s divorce rate of about 50%.

After 1848 women began gaining more and more rights until they finally gained the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. This was perhaps the most pivotal moment in the history of Feminism in the United States. Now women would be able to influence public policy and there would be no end to the rights and privileges they could grant themselves by electing politicians who would favor their causes.

The Second-wave feminism of the 1960s

The “second-wave” feminism of the 1960s began an all-out assault the traditional family. Women burned their bras and declared their independence from men. The patriarchal systems that had ruled mankind since the beginning of time needed to be torn down in their view.

They sued to have the right to abortion and the right to do as they would regardless of their husband’s wishes. No fault divorce began to spread throughout the country making divorce rates rise again. By the 1980s divorce rates in the United States rose to their peak of just over 50 percent and women had gained the right to murder their own children and their husbands had not a word to say about it.

The lasting consequences of the scourge of Feminism

Young couple having marriage problems

For the first time in the history of the world these things are now happening as a direct result of the scourge of Feminism:

Marriage is no longer the sacred institution it once was. Women end marriages based on their feelings, and not based on God’s law. Women are the ones who file for divorce in almost 70% of all cases.

A man’s wife can have an affair on him and then she can decide to leave him for another man, file for divorce and take full custody of his children and half or more of everything he owns.

A man’s wife can murder his unborn child without his knowledge.

Women can accuse men of sexual harassment with little or no proof, and men can lose their jobs and livelihoods as a result.

Women can sue companies for supposed “gender discrimination” when they don’t get promotions or treatment that they feel is “fair and equal”.

Those who hold to Feminist ideals have taken over government positions, institutions of higher learning, churches and communities and have engaged in an all-out assault on masculinity.

While divorce rates have tapered off, cohabitation rates have grown. If the separation of couples who have lived together in long term relationships were counted as divorce, the divorce rate would be far past 50 percent in the United States.

Because of the rebellion of modern women many men run from the idea of marriage. Why would a man want to marry a woman, knowing at any time she could take his children and half of everything he owns if he does anything to make her unhappy?

As a result we have an ever growing number of single mothers or divorced mothers raising children. Crimes rates are up, poverty rates are up, all because of the disintegration of the family unit which is a direct result of Feminism.

Not only has the family unit suffered, but the church and our communities have suffered as well. We have become soft toward crime and criminals, we have softened our approach to our enemies abroad. Feminism like a disease has spread to almost every corner of our society.

What can we do against these seemingly overwhelming odds?

For those of us who embrace God’s design of man, woman and the family there is still hope even in the midst of all the carnage that Feminism has created.

We need to encourage men to be men. To lovingly, but firmly lead and provide for their families. Fathers need to teach their boys to not be ashamed of their masculinity, but to embrace it. They need to be gentlemen, and leaders. Women need to be taught their place in God’s creation, both by the churches as well as their husbands. Women need to be taught to embrace the fact that God created them to be a gift to man, and their greatest honor is to bear and raise the children of mankind.

This will take a great deal of courage on the part of men and church leaders. I believe we also have to use tact in how we approach women with these subjects. We need to treat women with love and respect, but we also need to lead.

Bible passages like these need to be preached from the pulpits of churches all across America and husbands and fathers need to teach these truths to the wives and daughters:

“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)

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 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)

“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)

This new approach to directly confronting feminism in our homes and churches will not come without a cost. Pastors need to realize that some members will leave their churches when they stand on the Word of God and God’s design for man, woman and the family.

When men grow spines in their homes with their wives, their wives may threaten divorce or actually divorce them and they must be ready for this. There is no sin in a man standing for what is right, and if his wife leaves him for this the sin lies with her.

Single men when seeking wives need to be honest about their God given convictions. This might make finding a wife in America or other westernized countries more difficult and Godly Christian men may sometimes need to seek wives from countries abroad that have not been as poisoned by Feminism. I wrote another article where I talked about how Godly men can have the greatest influence through their relationships with their daughters.

We can begin to take back our society, one marriage, one family and one church at a time, if we will only have the courage to follow God’s ways and do what is right, no matter the cost.

 

Sources: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Co-Fa/Divorce-and-Custody.html

 

 

Is marriage a partnership or patriarchy?

PartnershipOrPatriachy

It is very common in modern American culture to refer to one’s spouse as their “partner”. Even one of the definitions of partner according to Webster’s online dictionary is: “someone’s husband or wife or the person someone has sexual relations with”.

But often times what is read into “partner” is a “partnership of equals”, like two people who own a business together. They must agree on all decisions and if they don’t then have to go to court to settle their differences.  This idea of marriage being  a “partnership of equals” does not have any Biblical support whatsoever.

Take for instance the translation of the NIV:

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

I Peter 3:7

I am not a KJV Only person. I quote from the KJV a lot on my site (if there is no version by a verse then it is KJV) but I also will quote from other versions like the NASB and sometimes I quote from the NIV. But the NIV really takes liberties with some passages and translations especially when it comes to gender and marriage and this is one of them.

Nothing in the original language(Greek) of this verse says anything about the wife being the weaker “partner”. The literal rendering is “weaker vessel”. Here is the KJV version of this verse:

 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

I Peter 3:7

“Vessel” is referring to her body, including her emotional state. A woman’s emotion can sometimes be her greatest asset, and at other times her own greatest enemy. A man has to use wisdom in listening to his wife and understanding her insights. She is also weaker physically, but a man should never treat his wife with disrespect because she is the weaker vessel, instead he should honor her for the position that God has given her as his wife and the mother of his children.

This passage, rather than teaching equality in marriage, teaches that man and woman are equal heirs of the grace of God, men don’t get more grace then women, and women don’t get more grace then men. God loves us equally, and Jesus Christ died for men and women the same. In our souls men and women are completely equal.

Our vessels however –are not equal. Just as woman is the “weaker vessel”, man is the stronger vessel.

Rather than being a partnership of equals, marriage is actually a hierarchy which reflects God’s design in creation. In this same passage in I Peter just before God speaks to husbands about the proper treatment of their wives he speaks to wives about the behavior he expects them to have toward their husbands:

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;While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

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.

 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

I Peter 3:1-7

A wife is to “be in subjection” to her husband and have a “meek and quiet spirit”. She is to follow Sarah’s example who obeyed her husband and called him “lord”.  This does not paint a “partnership of equals”, but rather a leader and follower, a master and servant relationship, a hierarchy.

But obviously this is no ordinary hierarchy, because it is also a relationship based on love. Ephesians 5 beautifully shows how marriage is a hierarchical relationship that must be bathed in love:

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.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

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

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 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 5:22-33

So again we can see the clear teaching that husbands are the head of their wives. God created a beautiful picture in marriage of the relationship between God and his people. Man is symbolic of God in marriage, and woman is symbolic of the people of God. Man is called to lead his wife as Christ leads the church and the wife is called to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ.

The scriptures are clear – marriage is a patriarchy (male lead), not a partnership.

If marriage could be compared to anything I believe a sports team would be a much better comparison. The husband and father would be the like the coach, the wife and mother would be like the team captain. The coach sets the polices and calls the plays, and the team captain carries out those polices on the field (the home) with the other players (the children). Just as a team captain has authority over the other players, so too the mother has delegated authority from the father over the children. Just as a team captain can influence a coach’s decisions, so too a wife and mom should be able to influence her coach’s (her husband’s) decisions.

How God made man superior to woman

HowGodMadeManSupToWoman

We live in a world that is doing everything it can to deny the gifts that God has given to man. And I don’t mean mankind, but male human beings. Men are not superior to women, yet they have many superior abilities when compared to women. For several decades it was politically incorrect even to discuss these differences between men and women. But we do not need a scientific study to show what has always been right before our very eyes.

It is great though that with new MRI technology we can now verify differences in how men’s brains work from women’s. Not only can we see and observe the differences from the outside, but now we can see them on the inside as well in the most complex organ of the human body, the brain.

There are many non-Christian scientists and psychologists today that can no longer follow the politically correct agenda of feminists and egalitarians. More and more scientists and studies are verifying the vastly different physiological and psychological differences between the sexes.

Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common membership in the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific lie.

– Anne Moir and David Jessel (pg. 30 “Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women”)

As Christians we applaud and agree with the finding of these differences. Our only disagreements come when we talk about the source of these differences, evolution versus the intelligent design of our God and creator.

Superior, inferior or just different?

Before I go further into this I want to say a few more things about what has become a controversial topic – mainly the FACT that men have some superior abilities to women in many areas.

If you give this blog a fair reading, you will see I do not hate women. I do hate, and I believe God also hates, the ideology of feminism. It seems today like every time some study comes out that women are better at this or that than men – everybody is applauding it from the rooftops.

But in our society we are not allowed to say men are better than women at anything and anytime it is brought up excuses are made and it is simply a “cultural” thing, otherwise women will always be equal to or excel past men – or so we are told. On the rare occasion that women can’t deny a male advantage in something, then they just say “so what” and want you to shut up.

This site will make no apologies for giving glory to God’s marvelous design of man (and I mean males). There is a difference in saying “men are awesome, and women stink” and saying “men are superior to women in certain ways”. The fact is, in many ways women are inferior to men, but so too men are also inferior to women in some ways. To say so is not rude, or mean, it is simply a Biblical fact that is backed up by science.

There are some things about men and women that aren’t an issue of being superior or inferior to the other – they are just about differences. An example of this would be the different ways men and women approach sexuality. One is not superior to the other, but they are different, and complementary.

But I don’t think we are being fully truthful when we say that a man having 50% more strength than a woman is just a “difference”. No way! It’s a superior capability. When I talk about how woman is superior to man I will gladly acknowledge that women have superior hearing and color-perception to men; again, it is not a difference, it is a superiority!

With all that said as an introduction, I will begin our discussion of how God made man superior to woman with this verse:

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

– Psalm 139:14 (NIV)

 

Men are superior to women in strength, endurance and athletics

God made man taller and stronger than woman. In the United States men are typically 6 inches taller than women. Men on average have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength than women. Men are much leaner than women with typically 50% less body fat than the average woman carries in her body. Of course there are exceptions where a man may have very little muscle mass and a woman has more muscle mass, but these are just that – exceptions. Both science and general observation show that men are typically larger and more muscular than women without working out or doing anything artificially to change their bodies.

There is a popular misconception that women have a higher tolerance to pain than men because of the horrendous pain they endure before, during and sometimes even after childbirth. But that is actually a myth.

“This study has serious implications about how we treat women after surgery as well as women who experience chronic pain…. Because women have more nerve receptors, they may experience pain more powerfully than men, requiring different surgical techniques, treatments or medicine dosages to help manage their pain and make them feel comfortable.”

– Dr. Bradon Wilhelmi, a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

http://www.livescience.com/433-ouch-women-feel-pain.html

Not only do men have less nerve receptors in their skin (so they feel less pain), but their skin is also up to 25% thicker than women’s. Men not only have thicker skin, but they also have better clotting ability which makes their wounds heal faster. Men also have stronger bones, tendons and ligaments.

Men are more aggressive and competitive than women

A male’s major sex hormone, testosterone, impacts his behavior…testosterone is the hormone most associated with male aggressiveness, competitiveness, and assertiveness…. Furthermore competitiont raises testosterone levels and rivalry fuels aggression. For example, the testosterone levels among athletes are actually highest at the end of a competition rather than at the beginning…

Testosterone also helps a man focus on a project, competition, mission or venture…. Researchers at Georgia State University found that the “high performers” tested in each field (business leaders, politicians, sportsmen, and the like) had higher levels of testosterone.

– Dr. Walt Larimore, MD (pg. 42 “His Brain, Her Brain”)

http://www.amazon.com/His-Brain-Her-Differences-Strengthen/dp/031024028X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396807524&sr=1-1&keywords=his+brain+her+brain

When we take into account that men have superior strength, stamina and sensory motor skills along with a built-in desire to compete and be aggressive, it is no surprise that the vast majority of the best athletes in the world are men.

Professional sports is an area in which we want to see nothing but the best. The WNBA gets a tiny fraction of the audience that the NBA does. And no, it’s not cultural! Common sense, and a general observation of the world around us tells us it’s more fun to watch men play sports than women, men are the best athletes – period.

Men’s aggressive and competitive natures, along with their tendency to take more risks makes men highly suited to starting up new businesses or managing businesses. Again, this is the primary reason why even today, generations after the rise of feminism, men still heavily dominate the entrepreneurial and management aspects of the business world.

The state of our military today is a sad story. We have allowed the politicians to force the military commanders to allow women in combat. I don’t care about what the liberal mouth-piece generals say when they put them on TV. A man’s body is vastly superior when it comes to combat. You put that woman on the front lines in battle and you are going to get a lot of men killed when they go out of their way to protect her, or she is just going to get killed. This is yet another common sense thing, which any person, educated or otherwise can see with their own eyes. It would be funny if it were not so sad and pathetic.

In summing up this section, we can see the fact that God has designed man larger, stronger and tougher than woman to naturally equip him for the protection and provision roles he has assigned to man. If only our world would regain some of the common sense it used to have and acknowledge what is right in front of their very eyes.

The denial of God’s unique design of man and woman is not just some disagreement. It is a fundamental doctrine taught all throughout the Scriptures, and it is wickedness and foolishness to deny the creator’s design and plan when he made man and woman.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them….

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…

– Romans 1:18-19 & 21b-22 (NIV)

 

MansBrainSupToWoman

Men are superior to women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)

Psychological tests also reveal patterns of sex difference. On average, males finish faster and score higher than females on a test that requires the taker to visualize an object’s appearance after it is rotated in three dimensions. The same is true for map-reading tests, and for embedded-figures tests, which ask subjects to find a component shape hidden within a larger design. Males are over-represented in the top percentiles on college-level math tests and tend to score higher on mechanics tests than females do.

…males on average have a stronger drive to systemize, and females to empathize. Systemizing involves identifying the laws that govern how a system works….

– Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, Cambridge University

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08baron-cohen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A man’s brain is made to systemize things, to analyze, construct and explore. When we accept that God gave men some superior abilities to women in these areas then it will come as no shock that 73% of computer scientists are men. We won’t cry “discrimination” when we hear that six out of seven engineers are men.

I have worked in software development for about 15 years. I would agree that probably 1 in 4 software developers are women. The honest truth is though, most of the female developers I have worked with (even with them representing about 1 in 4 developers) were not always as good at problem-solving as the men. That is not to say there are not some very sharp female developers. I have one in mind who I worked with several years ago who was a great problem-solver. And anyone in the hacker area knows there are some genius-level hackers that are female. So my point is not to say that no woman can compete with a man in the area of computer technology, or any other STEM field. The point is there are far, far fewer women that can compete with men in this area; it is not a matter of discrimination, it is just a matter of how God distributes his gifts.

I would bet though, that the women who are great at programming or other technology use different parts of their brain to do what they do than what men do. So I would still agree that a man’s brain is naturally wired for these STEM fields, and a woman’s brain if she is good at them will be sort of “hotwired”, uniquely wired differently than the average woman and it allows her to do these types of technical jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/20/stem-fields-and-the-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/

A man’s drive to systemize will manifest itself in many different ways depending on the man. Some men have a need to systemize mechanical things and that’s why they love working on cars or fixing things around the house. Other men love to systemize things by exploring their world whether in traveling to exotic lands or mountain-climbing or other dangerous endeavors. Still other men utilize their systemizing abilities in a much less physical way, and a more cerebral one. Some men want to explore and systemize the world around them through religion, politics, philosophy, science, and technology. One cross-over area that men of many different backgrounds like is video games. Video games allow men to systemize, compete and conquer. It is no wonder that the vast majority of video gamers are men.

There are more highly intelligent men than highly intelligent women

While men and women have about the same average IQ (according to intelligence testing), men vary much more than women do. What that means is there are more men at each spectrum of intelligence than women (below average and above average). However, after crossing the average intelligence threshold the amount of men who have above average IQs begins to dominate the women, bringing us to the point where there are eight genius-level IQ men to every one woman genius.

When we accept the strengths that God has given man in his brain, then we are not shocked to discover that there are eight male geniuses to every one female genius. We don’t say “the survey must be wrong”, or “it’s just a cultural thing” – NO! We accept it is how God made man.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

Men are built for conquest and leadership

These biological differences are critical for women to understand because boys, and the men they grow up to be, have brains that are built to be more aggressive, more impulsive, and more assertive–their design is to earn their self-worth. They are compelled to discover their calling and meaning in life. They are made to conquer the world around them, and they begin their conquests at a surprisingly early age… By six months of age, boys are far less fearful than girls, and “fearlessness” is associated with levels of testosterone (the higher level of testosterone, the higher the level of “fearlessness”); by thirteen months, boys are demonstrably more aggressive and assertive than girls; and by thirty-six months, boys dominate mixed-gender groups of children.

– Dr. Walt Larimore, MD (pg. 116 “His Brain, Her Brain”)

The first question a man usually asks another man when they meet for the first time is, “What do you do?” …most men identify themselves by their work. God created men to “do” something in the field. Watch young boys as they pick up sticks and turn them into imaginary guns or tools. Recently a mother told us she had prevented her son from having any toy guns or using sticks as pretend rifles, but when he made his cheese sandwich into the form of a pistol and was shooting a friend, she cried out in exasperation, “I give up!”

Mothers should never give up because this is simply part of a boy’s nature. He is called to be a hunter, a worker, a doer. He wants to make his conquest in the field of life. The academic term for this is the “instrumentality of the male.” From childhood there is something in a male that makes him like adventure and conquest. He wants to go into the field to hunt or to work some way.

– Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (pg. 168 “Love and Respect”)

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Respect-Desires-Desperately-Needs/dp/1591451876/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396807479&sr=1-1&keywords=love+and+respect

Men are built to conquer the world around them. They are built to lead, and boys follow boys and stop following girls at a very young age. Men find their value in what they do, in what they accomplish. As we previously established, men are systemizers, and the best place for they to systemize is out in the world. I believe it is Biblical that a woman’s place is in the home: not saying she can never go out, but that caring for the needs of her husband, her children and her home should be the focus of her life.

However, it would be Biblically, and even biologically correct to say that a man is the polar opposite in this area. A man’s place is outside the home – hunting, working, achieving, exploring, building and yes, even fighting. Some men are built to be warriors, whether on the athletic field or on the battlefield.

Mothers need to respect and help channel their boys’ God-given need for conquest and not try to make their sons more like their daughters. Wives need to respect their husbands’ need for achievement, to work, and to make his mark on the world.

So mom, when you see your little boys playing cops and robbers – let them! When you see them wrestling, let them! When your boy wants a toy gun for his birthday, get it for him? When he wants a shooter video game, let him! With some of the violent shootings in the last decade parents have been paranoid about letting their little boys play with guns and shooter video games.

Let me help you with something – those people who did those shootings did not do what they did because of playing with toy guns or video games as a child. There is one of two reasons mass shootings occur. One is because of parental neglect, or verbal or physical abuse that warped the child’s mind. The other reason is one we don’t like to accept in this day and age. Some children are raised with two loving parents, and maybe even a mom who took care of them when they were little. They are simply born evil and sadistic and psychotic, plain and simple.

If men are wired for conquest and leadership, should men also be involved in the home and with their family? Absolutely! Are there times when a man is called to sacrifice his job because it is hurting his family? Yes. But while men need to be good husbands and fathers, they also have a drive and need to make their mark on the world, and the woman who ignores this, or tries to downplay this as selfishness, does so to her own peril.

Men have a deep need for respect

A man’s need for conquest, to work and to achieve is also directly related to his need for respect. I really appreciated when Dr. Emerson Eggerichs came out with his book “Love and Respect”. He may not have been the first author in recent decades to talk about a man’s need for respect, but the fact that he focused basically half a book to it was great.

Men and women both need love and respect, but God has wired man so that respect is his first need and the emotional side of love is secondary to that. If a man feels disrespected by his colleagues or especially his wife and children, this will cause him a great deal of pain and he will most likely react in very negative ways towards disrespect.

When a woman accepts and appreciates her husband’s need for respect, she will most likely see a transformation in her marriage. Women who take the attitude that “I will respect him when I think he has earned it” will never experience the full happiness in marriage that is possible if they would just show him the respect that he needs.

Men are wired to be the primary provider for the home

God has made man with a built-in desire to be the primary provider for his family. If his wife has a more successful career than him, in many marriages it eventually destroys the marriage. His self-respect, as well as his wife’s self-respect is tied to his ability to be the primary provider (the one who makes the most money). It is not uncommon for men who become disabled (and their wives are forced to support the family) to become very depressed; it violates the man’s nature down to his very core.

This is not some simple pride thing as some feminists have tried to say, but a built-in desire given by God in men. It would be the same as woman’s built-in desire to have children (often times called her “biological clock”).

Well into feminism’s second generation, there are finally a significant number of women reaching parity with the men in their fields–not to mention surpassing them–and winning the salary, bonuses, and perks that signify their arrival… Yet this proud professional achievement often seems to have unhappy consequences at home.

Neither the newly liberated alpha women nor their shell-shocked beta spouses seem comfortable with the role reversal.

According to psychologists (and divorce lawyers) who see couples struggling with such changes, many relationships follow the same patter. First, the wife starts to lose respect for her husband, then he begins to feel emasculated, and then sex dwindles to a full stop.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/

Suppose that both men and women are happier – all else being equal – the more money their spouse makes. In such a world, couples wouldn’t care whether the man or woman earns more, so the population of couples would have what we call a “normal distribution,” and would be captured in a bell-shaped curve. But that’s not what we see in the real-world data.

Instead, there is a sharp drop in the number of male-female couples at exactly the point where the woman starts to earn more than half of household income.

This finding supports earlier research from speed-dating sessions, which found that while women prefer men to be intelligent and ambitious, men have these preferences for women only to the point where women threaten to earn more than they do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/business/breadwinner-wives-and-nervous-husbands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Aversion to wives earning more than husbands could be leading to fewer weddings and more divorces, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper released this month by Marianne Bertrand and Emir Kamenica, University of Chicago Booth School of Business economists, and Jessica Pan at the National University of Singapore.

Compiling results from surveys taken by the U.S. Census Bureau and by the Labor Department, the reserachers came to several conclusions. One was that marriage rates decline as the probability that a woman earns more than a man increases.

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-05-15/higher-paid-women-less-married-more-divorced/

Even people that are in favor of feminist changes in our society see the problems. We just disagree about the causes and the solution. Both sides agree that men are generally not attracted to women who are smarter or make more money than them, and when they do get with a woman who becomes more successful it usually takes a terrible toll on the marriage.

Feminist advocates just argue it’s caused by a culture that says men need to be the primary breadwinner. In their view it is just about changing hearts and minds and then men and women will all live together in a wonderful utopia. Those of us who oppose these feminist changes will maintain that it is something that is wired biologically into men, and if it is biological, no amount of social brain-washing of men will change this.

Marriage rates are declining, while divorce rates stay close to 50 percent. Divorce rates have slightly declined from their high in the 1980s. But what is not mentioned is that one of the contributing factors to the divorce-rate decline is that people are just not marrying as much as they used to. Couples are just cohabitng much more. I would argue that if we could get good studies on the breakup rate of long-term cohabiting couples and then combine that with divorce rates, we would go well beyond the 50-percent divorce rate we had in the 1980s.

Either way you slice it, most relationships between men and women do not work well when the wife is more intelligent and makes more money than the husband. In the rare instances where it does work, I guarantee you will find a feminine man who is low on testosterone, or a man who had a domineering and aggressive mother who beat his father down. Even in relationships where a man is forced to stay home because he is disabled, if he is honest he will tell you it drives him nuts that his wife has to support the family. It does not just go against our cultural values, but it goes against male biology itself.

Men are built to compartmentalize

None of us will ever agree with everything in a marriage book. But the book “Men Are Like Waffles – Women Are Like Spaghetti” is still a great book and I highly recommend it. The very title of the book, as well as their other descriptions in the book, gives a great picture of the different ways a man’s brain works from a woman’s brain.

If you look down at a waffle, you see a collection of boxes separated by walls. The boxes are all separate from each other and make convenient holding places. That is typically how a man processes life. Our thinking is divided up into boxes that have room for one issue and one issue only…. The typical man lives in one box at a time and one box only. When a man is at work, he is at work. When he is in the garage tinkering around, he is in the garage tinkering. When he is watching TV, he is simply watching TV. That is why he looks as though he is in a trance and can ignore everything else going on around him. Social scientists call this “compartmentalizing”–that is, putting life and responsibilities into different compartments.

As a result, men are problem solvers by nature. They enter a box, size up the “problem,” and formulate a solution….

In contrast to men’s waffle-like approach, women process life more like a plate of pasta. If you look at a plate of spaghetti, you notice that there are lots of individual noodles that all touch one another. If you attempted to follow one noodle around the plate, you would intersect a lot of other noodles, and you might even switch to another noodle seamlessly. That is how women face life. Every thought and issue is connected to every other thought and issue in some way. Life is much more of a process for women than it is for men.

This is why women are typically better at multitasking than men. She can talk on the phone, prepare a meal, make a shopping list, work on the agenda for tomorrow’s business meeting, give instructions to her children as they are going out to play, and close the door with her foot without skipping a beat. Because all her thoughts, emotions, and convictions are connected, she is able to process more information and keep track of more activites.

– Bill & Pam Farrel (pg. 11, 13 “Men Are Like Waffles–Women Are Life Spaghetti”)

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Like-Waffles-Women-Spaghetti-Understanding/dp/0736919619

Bill and Pam Farrel did an amazing job with this illustration of how men and women process life differently. Are there exceptions where some men may be great at multitasking? Of course there are. But the vast majority (I would safely say 90%) of men are exactly as Bill and Pam describe. We will cover God’s design for women in a separate paper, but their description of how women process the world is spot on as well.

Conclusion and Application

Whether you are a Christian reading this, or a non-Christian I invite you to examine the evidence both from biology as well as your own general observations of human behavior. Will there be exceptions? Yes. There are some men who have behaviors and abilities that more mimic the typical woman, and there are some women who have behaviors and abilities that more mirror the typical man. But these are rare.

As believers we have a source of truth that not only confirms the differences we see in biology and typical gender behaviors, but it also gives a reason for the differences. It gives us a purpose, if we will only believe and accept it.

To the men I say, will you accept how God has made you? Will you accept the purpose for your differences and use them in accordance with his plan? Will you lead your families, protect your families and provide for your families even if your abilities are not as strong as other men in various areas? Will you pray to God to strengthen your weaknesses?

To the women I say, will you accept how God has made men?

Moms – will you accept that it is ok that your boys are more aggressive than your girls? Will you accept your little boy’s need to compete, his need to conquer the world around him? Will you resist the ungodly world’s call to feminize him, to soften him or to emasculate him?

Wives – will you accept your husband’s God-given need to lead you, protect you and provide for you? Will you stop trying to compete with him, and just complete him with the unique gifts God has given you as a woman?

We must all accept that God has built man to systemize, to compartmentalize, to conquer and to compete. Accept that a man needs to be respected, even before his need for love. Accept the differences God has made, and do not try to minimize them or ignore them. Our world is doing that now, to our own destruction.

You may have noticed I left out a huge area of God’s design of man, and that is his sexuality. I have opted to cover that in a completely separate paper because I really don’t believe I can do it justice in just a few paragraphs. Look for a separate post on human sexuality coming soon.

Other sources:

http://www.dermalogica.com/is-a-man%27s-skin-really-different-from-a-woman%27s%3F/ys_shave_4,default,pg.html

http://drjamesdobson.org/Solid-Answers/Answers?a=ff773023-2693-410d-b9e1-662f6985be4e

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201207/the-battle-the-sexes

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08baron-cohen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0