Topic
What Doug Wilson says about women
Douglas Wilson has spent more than 30 years explaining women to themselves, in books like Reforming Marriage and Her Hand in Marriage and on his blog. His conclusions include wives obeying their husbands, households voting with the husband casting the ballot, and a general reluctance about women holding office. Here they are, in his own words, so nobody has to take a man’s word for it.
Individual Women Should Not Have The Right to Vote
Over the last year or so, from time to time you may have wondered to yourself why I have taken it into my head to go around talking about the 19th Amendment so much. This, along with my supposed interest in repealing the right of women to vote. Why on earth would I ever do something like that? Well, you can’t expect me to talk about slavery all the time, can you?
What I envision is a system we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting in our polity, in our church system. About 7% of the votes are cast by women because we have a number of women who are heads of their households.
In the civic realm, the 19th Amendment, by giving the franchise to women as individuals, transformed male voters into mere individuals, and wound up disenfranchising the household. So the issue for me is not who got the franchise, but rather who lost it.
[Leila Fadel: “And you’ve called for repealing women’s right to vote, which is protected by the 19th Amendment. Why?”] Because it’s a good idea... I don’t want women voting as individuals because I don’t want men voting as individuals. So what I envision is a system that we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting... The vote would be cast by the head of the household.
Her husband wouldn’t vote instead of her; her husband would cast the vote... representing the whole household. [Sam Harris: “But presumably he would have the power to simply decide what the household should be voting, right?”] Yes, if they disagreed, he would break the tie... Under the current system where the husband and wife both go vote, if they agree with each other, all you’re doing is multiplying the total tally by two. And if they disagree with each other, then they’re just canceling each other out. They might as well just save the gas money and stay home and have a nice steak dinner.
If you say I think men should vote and not women, snip, then that's going to be inflammatory, and actually rightly so. [Host: "Mhm."] But if you say that our concern is the disenfranchisement of households, why are households not represented in America's political system?... And so I just absolutely want to see the household represented in American polity.
There are plenty of unqualified, inflammatory things I could say this month. Some might even be true. Millennials are betas. Women are bad at voting. Men are bad at leading women. Empire's great. Hamas got what it deserved. Abolitionists are silly. White people are the worst. Black people are the worst. People are the worst. I could spend my entire month triggering simpletons.
Women Who Misinterpret Scripture Should Be Called Cunts
So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of cunts.
And I said basically in a piece, I said, "Look, this is not my language. This is not how I talk, but these two women have reduced women to that, right? They've reduced women to that. So, all they are saying is that they are a couple of C-words." Yeah. Okay? And I said, "This is not me saying this. This is what I'm translating for you. I'm telling you what they are claiming. They're radically reductionist, right? And so then So, I used that word just consciously, decidedly, because I was opposing something that was horrific."... What I've seen is that people will gather—they'll go through all my writing, I write a lot—and they will gather up the few instances where I've used a jalapeno. They gather them all up and put them on one cracker and then make a meme out of it and say, "Look at this bad person." Well, I'm not going to apologize for any of that.
Polygamists Should Keep All Their Wives and Continue Having Sex With All of Them
The polygamist and all his wives, if they profess faith, should be received into the membership of the church. He should continue to live with them as wives, including an ongoing sexual relationship with all of them. [...] Polygamy cannot be considered a sin in the same way that adultery is. It does fall short of the creation pattern, but it is a sin which can be culturally tolerated until the leaven of the gospel causes it naturally to disappear.
Women Who Refuse Male Protection Tacitly Accept Rape
Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment; women who refuse protection from their fathers and husbands must seek it from the police. But women who genuinely insist on 'no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape […] Men are designed by God to initiate and lead, and women are designed to respond.
Say a woman — for some egalitarian and very foolish reason, declines to have her dinner date walk her back to her car in some urban center after dark. Let us say she is raped and murdered. According to what RHE says, my response is going to be some variant of “served her right.” Now you would have to be a fool not to see the connection between her refusal of an escort and what happened to her, but you would also have to be pretty vile to say that walking to your car deserves the penalty of rape and murder. You would also have to be pretty high up among Obama’s advisers to falsely accuse someone of being that vile. One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape. Does this mean they deserve to be wronged? Of course not. Does John Piper deserve to be mugged because he won’t carry a gun? Do I deserve to have my truck stolen because I left it unlocked? Did the oysters in The Walrus and the Carpenter deserve to be eaten because they were so stupid?
[Leila Fadel: “When they’ve walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit, implicit in principle, not overt acceptance of the propriety of rape. This is from a 2016 blog.”] Yeah, correct. I’m not saying anything about the propriety of rape. What I’m saying is the women who do these things, they’re the ones saying that. So, if you refuse the protection of good men, then I’m saying you’re the one asking for it. I’m pleading with you to stop asking for it... Let’s say someone parks his car in a bad part of town, leaves his wallet on the dashboard with $20 bills sticking out of it... What I’m saying is that the idiot who left his wallet on the dashboard, he was arguing for the propriety of theft.
Women with Tattoos Are Uglified
When a woman is loved and secured by her father, and then by her husband, the result is that she flourishes in loveliness. Love bestows loveliness. When that is lacking for whatever reason, she might fight to hide the deficit by means of bangles that shine, or she might start adding blemishes of her own because she feels blemished. [Nancy] Mace has said that she got the tattoos during a time of personal turmoil. She’s been married twice before, and when she broke up with her third fiancé, she turned to the ink... A woman could do this because she believes it is an adornment. Well, I would continue to believe that it was an adornment fail.
Tattoos on women do not adorn. They are not lovely. They do not elevate. They are uglifying, not to mention being low-rent. Nancy Mace was an elected representative in Congress and a gubernatorial candidate for the state of South Carolina, but in this image, she looks like a waitress from Waffle House. She is now a tattooed lady instead of what she ought to be, which is a lady. She is an attractive woman, but now she looks like she is a woman having a personal meltdown. She looks like she just showed up at the domestic abuse center.
a significant number of the tattoos look like they were done by a drunken chimpanzee who had been inadequately trained. But either way, it is my view that the woman is not thereby adorned. Something negative has happened. Now, the outrage that the comments above have quite possibly created is an outrage that is grounded on the fact that I'm a man and a pastor at that criticizing women. Moreover, I'm criticizing women over something that they can now do nothing about, however much they would like to, and however much they regret how much they had to drink that night.
Women Are “the Kind of People That People Come Out Of”
And I say, yeah, we’re stereotyping. Guilty. [Pamela Brown: “So what does that mean? What role do you think women play in society?”] Women are the kind of people that people come out of. [Pamela Brown: “So you just think they’re meant to have babies? … They’re just a vessel?”] No, it doesn’t take any talent to simply reproduce biologically. The wife and mother who is the chief executive of the home is entrusted with three or four or five eternal souls.
Women Should Not Hold Political Office
The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is, does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient, and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that. In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace.
Because of the growth of feminism in our culture generally, women have risen to positions of influence in our civil realm. While the Bible does not prohibit women in civil leadership per se—the instance of Deborah comes to mind—the Bible does say that when feminine leadership is common, it should be reckoned not as a blessing but as a curse.
But when you have a society full of beta males and wimps and capons and then half the people receiving PhDs in political science are women, and then we've got more and more women in the Senate and the House and everybody's saying, "Yay, progress," I don't see it as progress at all. I'm happy to budget for the occasional weird thing.
Women Were Designed to Serve Men
The foundation is established as we teach our daughters how to keep a home. The heart of this concerns the attitude the girls develop about service to others, particularly service to the men in their home. Are your girls learning cheerfully to pick up after others, set the table, do the dishes, prepare the meals? Or are they learning to complain that the boys don’t have the same kind of chores that they do? What does it prove when the daughters are complaining around the house about inequities in domestic chores? It proves that egalitarian nonsense is finding a Foothold in your family.
Godly women want to feed their men. Godly women are designed to make the sandwiches. This is not an absolute law, like the one about making babies, and there are times when a man fends for himself and makes quite a decent sandwich. But in the general scheme of things, the apostle Paul wants the women to make the sandwiches. In Titus 2:5, Paul is saying that the older women should be teaching the younger women to be oikourgos —busy at home, keepers at home. That includes the sandwiches.
So, God created man first and the Apostle Paul argues from this. He says man was created first, not the woman, and he says basically the man was created for the garden to tend the garden and the woman was created from the man in order to tend the gardener. So, man has a task in the world and the woman has a task in attending to the one who has the task in the world. He needs a helper... And of course, he wants to love his wife as Christ loved the church and he wants to tend to her because if he doesn't, then she's not going to be equipped to help him with the task that God assigned him in the world. But men are called to a vocation in the world and women are called in their vocation to a particular man.
Wives Must Have Sex Whenever Their Husbands Want It
Must my wife have sex with me whenever I want it? Don’t be a fathead. It was a serious question. Yes, she must have sex whenever you want it. And you must refrain whenever she wants to refrain. You have authority over her body, but never forget that she also has authority over your body.
The Puritan and reformed view hammered out three basic reasons for sex. One is union and communion, fellowship together; one is propagation, having children, reproduction; and the third is prevention of immorality. Okay, so if a wife won't sleep with her husband, they are both—they're trying to be married in a world where plenty of other women will. Now if he strays, that's his sin, that's his adultery, he has no business doing that, but Paul says that this is a preventative... and this is also preventative when it comes to things like sexual temptation, sexual temptations like pornography.
The third complaint occurs when a wife is actively sinning against her husband, either through infidelity, gross lack of submission, refusal to have relations with him, and so on. If a woman is sinning in this way, a husband does not have the right to overlook the problem. If he cannot bring the situation around, then he is responsible to get help from the outside.
Women Are More Prone to Cheating Than Men
I think if you're talking about straying, sexual straying, I believe that men are more prone to temptations like pornography, that sort of thing, and I believe that women are more prone, and this is I'm taking from 40 years of pastoral experience, women are more vulnerable to the temptation of actual adultery... I'm not saying that men don't cheat and I'm not even saying that women don't have problems with porn. I'm just saying the ratios are different... The man is almost certainly likely to have more temptations with pornography than his wife does, and the wife, if they've got a crummy marriage, if they're not running on all cylinders, she's going to be more vulnerable to someone at church who's nice to her or a counselor who's thoughtful and listens or, you know, that next-door neighbor guy who got the lawnmower started, whatever.
Feminists Are “Harridans, Termagants, Harpies and Crones” and “Small-Breasted Biddies”
So feminism — smash the patriarchy feminism — wants us to be ruled by harridans, termagants, harpies and crones. That sets the tone, and the pestering is then made complete by small-breasted biddies who want to make sure nobody is using too much hot water in the shower, and that we are all getting plenty of fiber. And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read.
Wives Who Don’t Do the Dishes Should Face Church Discipline
Suppose a man instructs his wife to have the dishes done by a certain time every day, and she fails or refuses to do it. Now he should restrict his requirements to things within the bounds of common fairness—say, he requires only two hours of work a day where she has four available. So there is nothing unreasonable about the expectation; she simply refuses to do it. When he makes an issue of it, she threatens him with great unpleasantness if he presses the point. What happens next? As her head and governance, he is required to remember the ultimate sanctions the Bible provides in situations of ultimate hardness of heart. Just as civil disobedience must be referred to the civil authorities, so also must failure to submit to government in the home be referred to the elders of the church (1 Tim. 3:5).
If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e., that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. […] If she continues to rebel after patient effort, he should at some point call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.
Husbands Are Responsible When Their Wives Commit Adultery
Because of how God made the world, men are always responsible for everything that happens in the feminine world—whether they want that responsibility or not, and whether or not women want to acknowledge it. Consequently, feminism is not primarily the work of dissatisfied women; it is the work of ungodly men. When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for all the problems. Some may be inclined to react negatively to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.
Keeping Your Maiden Name Is Rebellion Against God
The feminist reaction to this, and their rejection of taking a new last name (in order to keep their father’s name!), is not just a small bit of modern silliness. It is a fundamental rebellion against God. So when our Susan Miller becomes Mrs. Robert Carter it is not just “something we do.” It is covenant security.
A Husband Must Win the “Struggle for Mastery” With His Wife
But never forget that it is a struggle for mastery, and never forget that although I just called it an isolated issue, it is not really isolated. It is a symbolic issue, and it symbolizes the whole. It is a proxy battle. If you win there, if you refuse to bend, there is real hope.
No-Fault Divorce Should Be Outlawed
When I conduct a marriage ceremony, the vows are traditional vows and the bride promises to love, honor, and obey. And the husband does not vow to obey his wife. The wife vows to obey her husband... If he makes a decision that goes contrary to her wishes, she should be submissive and obey. She should be a sweetheart about it. Yes... [Cenk Uygur: “In a Christian nation, would a divorce be allowed in that circumstance or no?”] Jesus teaches that divorce is lawful when there’s been adultery, when there’s been infidelity, and the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians teaches that divorce is permissible on grounds of desertion. So desertion and infidelity would be the two main criteria that would justify a biblical divorce.
The things that would change would be things that would be at the statutory [level]—some would be constitutional amendments or they might be dealt with other ways. I’d want to see abortion outlawed everywhere. I’d want to see Obergefell overturned. I’d want to see no-fault divorce rejected, overturned.
[Cenk Uygur: "But if a wife is just miserable because the husband's just making terrible decisions she can't stand, that's not one of those two things. She's going to have to suck it up."] Yeah. Yeah. And vice versa.
Wives Must Submit To Their Husbands In Everything
The fact that husbands cannot mandate or manufacture this does not make it any less mandatory. Wives are to be submissive to their own husbands in everything. The marriage service rightly includes a vow for the bride to obey her husband.
[Spencer Macnaughton: "Say a wife and a husband are together and the wife says, 'I want to go to med school and become a doctor.' And the husband says, 'Nope, I want you to stay home and be with the kids.' Should she stay home?"] Yeah. [SM: "She should. OK. Because she submits to the husband?"] Because she submits to the husband. Let's say this is a counseling case for us, and the wife wants to do something and the husband has said, "No, I really don't want you to do that." We would say, "You married him and you vowed before God and witnesses that you would follow and obey him. And this is one of those cases where he's made a decision and it's a lawful decision and you should submit to it."
Women have a deep creational need to be loved and led, so that they might submit and follow, and men have a deep creational need to be respected and followed, and when these needs are thwarted or otherwise frustrated, the end result is deep unhappiness for both sexes.
Natural revelation teaches us the natural submission of the wife to the husband. These realities are in our bones, and the revolt against them lies at the foundation of our current cultural madness.
Sin is not sin against the dictates of secular man. Sin is against God. He, and only He, can define sin. Fornication. Adultery. Illicit remarriage. Abortion. Sodomy. Cross-dressing. Murder. Theft. Envy. Malice. Boasting. Disobedience to parents. Disobedience to husbands. Idolatry. Greed. Lying. Covetousness. Sabbath-breaking. Bearing God’s name in vain.
The God who gives us our commands is the same God who designed and created us. His commandments are therefore good, righteous, and true, and they fit perfectly within the creation order. As wives seek to learn how to live these principles out, they are trying to overcome sin. They are not trying to overcome their nature. Rather, they are growing up into their true nature, which is the only liberation that matters.
In our time, because of the peculiar form our disobedience has taken, the most important word is obey. And it is the most important word whether or not it is included in the vows. Like a father who has abandoned his family, that word can dominate through its absence.
When she is fighting down her desire to look up to you, she's not just disrespecting you. She's disrespecting her own womanliness. She's insulting her own feminine nature. When she's calling you a loser, there's an echo in the back of her mind calling herself a harpy.
If you at CNN, you’ve got bosses all the way up, and you make a distinction as you ought to between your equality with them as a human being and the fact that they happen to have authority over you in this job… When I go into work, he has the right to tell me what to do. And I don’t have the right to tell him what to do. [Pamela Brown: “So that’s the dynamic you see in marriage?”] Yeah. Within the confines of marriage, the husband is the head, the wife is submissive, his helpmeet.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
When the wife is wearing the pants they're both miserable, the husband is miserable and the wife is miserable.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
Some men may object by saying that their wives demand to be left alone. All they are doing is respecting their wives’ wishes. There are two responses to this. One is that whether or not the wife has demanded to be left alone does not alter the fact that Christ has demanded that she not be left alone. […] Second, wives need to be led with a firm hand. A wife will often test her husband in some area, and be deeply disappointed (and frustrated) if she wins. It is crucial that a husband give to his wife what the Bible says she needs, rather than what she says she needs.
Submission that is invisible is not really submission at all. As submission is cultivated in the home, it needs to be expressed. It cannot exist as a set of hidden resolves or good intentions. Respect must be verbalized, and the demeanor of submissive deference must be plain to everyone in the home.
Men, women, and children, all together, need to be shepherded by qualified men.
Wives Refusing to Submit to Their Husbands Is Why America Is in “the Godforsaken Shape It Is In”
Not to put too fine a point on it, because so many wives refuse to be submissive to their own husbands, and because so many husbands have refused to take up the mantle of responsibility that was assigned to them by God, our marriages and our families have put everything else out of joint. In short, America is in the terrible shape it is in because you, Herbert T. Husband, apologized to your wife yesterday, not because you were in the wrong, but because you just wanted to make the conflict go away. America has got the spiritual staggers because you, Sally A. Wife, asked your husband what you should do about a particular situation, didn’t like what he said, and so you waited two days and went ahead with what you thought was clearly the better option... So, am I maintaining that such petty domestic issues are the reason why America is in the godforsaken shape it is in? Well, yes... Abandonment of responsible masculinity is a grave sin. Rejection of feminine responsiveness is a grave sin.
It is simply assumed that loving your wife means finding out what her desires are, and then just giving her what she wants, whatever that is. So long as those desires are not overtly sinful, it is thought that the husband’s job is to find out what pleases her, and then to please her. Now, this is an excellent approach when shopping for her birthday present, but it is a disastrous approach when it comes to your overall relationship. It is marriage bane. Here is why: her desires are not simple... ‘And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’ (Genesis 3:16). This desire for the husband is not a desire for a romantic weekend getaway or more special time together. It is a desire for mastery... In any relationship—roommates, friends, siblings, parent-child, or husband-wife—one person needs the other one more... the person who needs the other person less is the one who will tend to call the shots.
Each marriage, each family is a brick. The church is built out of these bricks. The civil society is built out of these bricks. And if most of the bricks are cracked or flawed because the wives are sly and manipulative, and the husbands are an amorphous jellied mass, who should be surprised when the houses built from these bricks are so rickety?
Were you dismayed by the midterms? And so you want to save America but don't know what to do? Start here. Wives, knock off the manipulative emotional games and submit to your husband. Obey him. Go into sweetheart mode. Husbands, lay yourselves out for your wife, taking full responsibility for her.
Women Can’t Do the Job of Protecting Society, and an All-Female Secret Service Would Delight Assassins
[Spencer Macnaughton: "But the police should never be women."] Yeah, because they won't be able to do the job. Problem is, those women are going to be defeated. Men are aggressive, stronger than women... Let's say we elected a woman president and she said, "As my first act I want the entire Secret Service detail that accompanies me all time, I'm the first woman president, I want all the Secret Service detail to be women also." The assassins are going to say, you know, "Good job. Ha! Just made my day."
Women Should Not Serve in Combat
And a nation which defends herself with women in combat no longer deserves to be defended (Dt. 20:7).
There are certain places that ought to be male-only spaces, and combat is one of them, and being closed up in a submarine is another one... Men are good at smashing and breaking things; they’re good at fighting. And when you have this egalitarian dogma that women and men have to be the same, what happens is it’s like saying everybody has to be able to dunk the basketball. If you’ve got an egalitarian dogma that says everyone has to be able to dunk, the only thing you’re going to wind up doing is lowering the net.
A man is not supposed to put on a frilly dress and a woman is not supposed to put on an AR-15 and a helmet and go out... because women are not supposed to be in combat roles, because that’s not their role, that’s not their assigned role... Where there is a man, where there is a husband, he’s the head. That’s assigned. In civil affairs, it says in Isaiah that a nation is under a curse when women and children rule over them.
I think that if you have women on board a submarine, and we went to sea a couple of times, submerged for two and a half months, you’ve got 130 people locked up in this steel tube under the water for two and a half months. You put three women on board. That’s like, ‘Why shouldn’t I throw catnip into the pack of cats?’ [Spencer Macnaughton: “Well, there’s going to be gay people in the submarine too.”] Yeah. That’s another problem.
A nation defended by her women is a nation no longer worth defending. When women are placed in the front line of defense, every Christian man should walk away from the cause of that nation as being beneath contempt. Taking this a step further, a nation as far gone as to think that women in combat is a viable way to go is a nation which is no longer defensible in principle—even if there remains a misguided desire to defend it. […] the nation which we call the United States has already been lost.
As I mentioned before the interview, I was in the submarine service, for example, and whatever idiot thought of putting women on submarines… [Pamela Brown: “What would you say to a female submariner who’s been doing the job and kicking butt doing it?”] I’d say, yeah, we don’t want you down here kicking butt. [Pamela Brown: “Why?”] Because, I went to sea a couple of times. We were submerged for two and a half months. All right, two and a half months. Let’s say 130 guys in a submarine with three women on it. Okay, so let’s put 130 horny sailors and three women and submerge them out in the middle of the Atlantic for two and a half months. What could go wrong?
To keep women out of combat is nothing more than simple, biblical prudence because women as a group are not suited for combat. Put another way, women do a poor job fighting. […] The Bible tells us that women are not as good as men are in the important work of violence. […] When a nation has finally come to the point where it is defended by the women, that same nation no longer deserves to be defended.
The prohibition to women in Deuteronomy 22:5 is one which blindsides us. We knew abortion and homosexuality were abominations, but here we are told, no woman shall put on “the gear of a warrior” (keli gabar).
Only Men Should Receive Pleasure from Sex
In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed[…] True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.
[Cenk Uygur: "In your book, you wrote that quote, 'A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants,' while quote, 'A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.'"] Yeah. [Cenk Uygur: "...can you see how women would look at that and go, 'Are you nuts?'"] Well, I would say... look at us after 50 years of sex education. Don't people know what goes on? Are the people who get upset about this, do they believe that the man doesn't penetrate? [Cenk Uygur: "The conquering and the colonizing a little less so."] Yeah. So the colonizing has to do with he plants his seed and a new, distinct life gestates within her... And on the conquest part, anybody who has any understanding of the history of erotic poetry... That's the language of conquest. So, when both parties are in love, when both parties are attracted to each other, that's part of the attraction.
But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine.
Little Girls Flirt and Manipulate, and a Clingy Girl Is Fishing for Male Attention
Always remember that boys and girls run on different kinds of fuel. Certain things work for both of them, but boys run on respect-fuel and girls run on love-fuel. Little girls flirt and manipulate; little boys brag. […] The more insecure she is about it, the more she needs attention, and the more she needs attention and love, the more she fishes for male attention. For a long time she’s a nuisance, but then all of sudden she turns thirteen and magically guys start paying attention. Now she has something to negotiate with and many girls are just clueless about what’s happening.
Every Form of Feminism Is An Insult to Jesus
Every form of feminism in the church is just such an insult aimed straight at the Lord Jesus.
Christian Men Should Leave the Military, Which the “Feminist Agenda” Wants to Make an “Offshore Brothel”
Christian men who are in the military should get out at the first lawful opportunity, and move to a community where they may defend their families instead of their current unwilling defense of the feminist agenda—which agenda appears at present to be a desire to turn the U.S. Navy into an offshore brothel.
A “Plain or Overweight” Girl Who Isn’t a Sexual Temptation Risks Becoming a Pimp
Parents should also watch out for another kind of girl, one who might be called vicariously needy. She herself is not a sexual temptation to boys—say, because she is plain or overweight—and so she lives out her emotional needs vicariously, trying to get other couples together. In effect, she becomes a procuress, whether she knows what she is doing or not.
Girls Who Fall Into Sexual Sin Usually Lacked Their Father’s Love, Starting With Climbing on Men’s Laps at Seven
A young man with a sexual problem has a sexual problem. But a young girl with a sexual problem usually has a security problem. […] This, from a seven-year-old girl, was a nuisance, and she found herself further ignored, brushed away, or disliked. This only served to make her more insecure. That is when she started climbing on the laps of visiting uncles and friends, but she knew on some level that they did not really like it, which made her more needy. And then a miracle happened—she developed her figure, became sexually attractive, and all of a sudden she was awash in male attention.
God Assigned a Woman’s Place as the Home, Not Working Outside of It
God created men and women with different orientations, and He is the only one with the authority to make the assignments. The woman’s assigned orientation is toward the home.
Adam was created to tend the garden and to exercise dominion over the earth. Eve was created to help him do this. In other words, her creation was subordinate to his, and her divinely appointed task was to help him fulfill his mission.
Because one of the male strengths is simple-mindedness, men tend to evaluate all things according to the sort of criterion (fixed in their minds sometime in junior high) best illustrated by arm-wrestling contests or a footrace. Life is simple—stronger and faster is better. And because life is also a contest, everyone is measured by whether or not he or she is “winning” it. Unfortunately, more than a few foolish women have been sucked into this mindset. And ironically, we call this attempt by some women to be more like men “feminism,” which is more than a little bit like calling an attempt by cats to be like dogs felinism. […] The modern feminist whines that we should all come to respect her distinctives after her decades-long attempts to obliterate them, her repeated attempts to compete with men on their own terms, as well as her losing badly in many such attempts. One response could be that we will respect her distinctives when she does. We will bow when she learns to curtsey. […] But such an attitude is appropriate only for those women who have abandoned home-orientation in exchange for that great modern privilege of dumping the kids off at day care.
He should want to marry a woman who shares a biblical work ethic with him; she should understand her work orientation as being homeward (Tit. 2:3–5). A woman who rejects domesticity, who wants to live like a Barbie married to Ken, should be avoided along with all other sexual pests. A biblical man should want a woman who wants children and who wants to be home-oriented.
When a Christian woman is asked what she is doing, her answer may be exactly what some pagan feminist might answer. “I’m studying for a physics test. Why?” But when a Christian woman is asked why she is doing what she is doing, her answer must radically diverge from any answer which an unbeliever could give. Her answer, in other words, should be oriented to the home. “I am studying physics in order to glorify God through being a godly and effective wife and mother.” In other words, she must relate her activity to the scripturally-assigned purpose for that activity. If, for example, she is a younger married woman, she is responsible to integrate what she does with what Paul assigns as the general duties of younger married women.
Men Shouldn’t Have One-on-One Friendships With Women Other Than Close Family, Because Women’s Bodies Look “a Lot More Fun”
A man should resolve before God that he will have no one-on-one friendships (or close working relationships) with women unless they are with his mother, grandmother, sister, or wife. […] The answer, and I hate to belabor the obvious, is that under the clothes, their bodies are different, and hers looks like it would be a lot more fun than some male co-worker’s body.
Sexism Is Not a Sin
Nevertheless, the dominance of the husband is a fact; the only choice we have in this regard concerns whether that dominance will be a loving and constructive dominion or hateful and destructive tyranny. […] Conditioned by feminism, the modern world would dismiss this as a sexist gaffe in a sexist book, and they are at least partially correct. If we admit that “sexism” is a sin, then the Bible is a sinful book. But “sexism” is not a true sin, for sin can only be defined in terms of God’s law—it is not determined by the law of man or by the law of woman.
He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord—Dominus—at the cross.
The beginning of any honest treatment of the subject must be a frank admission that, when measured by our contemporary standards, the Bible is a sexist book. This would be a bad thing if sexism were truly a sin, but in the world God made, that is not the case.
Violent Rape Is “God’s Judgment Upon a Culture,” and Some of What Society Calls Rape Shouldn’t Count
So the only way to condemn any rape is to turn to the standards of God’s law. But once we have done this, we discover that some situations which our society calls rape should not be included. Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people […] Violent rape is God’s judgment upon a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. But this does not mean that they as individuals “deserved” it.
Calls Women in Sexual Media “Performing Cows of Bashan”
The wife cannot be as exciting as some of these performing cows of Bashan, and the husband does not have the sexual stamina or prowess that such materials imply he should have.
Wives Should Call Their Husbands “Lord”
As Peter teaches, women need to understand they are being led by a lord. “As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror” (1 Pet. 3:6). Unfortunately, many women are led (if it can be called leading) by men who believe themselves to be nothing more than walking, talking, living, breathing impositions. How many Christian women today can be considered as daughters of Abraham? How many of them could imagine calling their husband lord with a straight face? Him? But a husband is one who cultivates with authority.
Women Shouldn’t Be Insulted by Their Husbands’ Sexual Temptations
God has given the sexual relationship in marriage as a protection against immorality. It is important that this purpose be remembered, especially by wives. Women have a tendency to be insulted at their husbands’ temptations, and an insulted and offended wife is no protection at all.
God Requires Wives to Be More Dependent on Their Husbands
She discovered early on that you needed her more than she needed you, which meant that on a carnal level, she had all the leverage. She had enough leverage, or so she thought, to overturn God's requirement that she be more dependent on you, and so you wandered into a bad place.
Children Must Be Taught Gender Stereotypes
So children need to be instructed, they need to be helped, they need to be taught. And in order to teach them, you have to teach them stereotypes... And but stereotypes, if you're not a snowflake, you're not going to have your feelings hurt by a stereotype. Right? Men are taller than women. And no, don't show me your six-foot sister... More men are going to be chess masters than women will be. More women are going to win quilting competitions than men will, pie baking contests.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
Believing in Evolution Causes Women to Need Antidepressants
Our nation has been more greatly blessed than any other nation in the history of the world, and this helps to explain why we consume such a gargantuan amount of antidepressants. Now before you dismiss that as some kind of November snark line, allow me to repeat the point. Almost one in five American women are pill-coping. And the reason we are so wretched and miserable on the eve of yet another Thanksgiving is that we have more to be grateful for than just about anybody, and have flatly refused to render thanks to the Father of the Lord Jesus for all our blessings, which makes us the biggest ingrates ever. […] Darwinism achieved its one and only real accomplishment. The theory made it unnecessary to acknowledge the majesty of God, or to render thanks to Him. Why are we no longer singing harvest home hymns as we bring in the sheaves? Well, science and smart guys at the university have put their imprimatur on our ingratitude. […] We need to repent of our solemn acceptance of Darwinian absurdities.
No statements here match that search. Search all statements