What Does Scripture Say about the “Oppression of Women”?

“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” –Gen 3:16

One popular modern theology interprets this as a prophecy of the “gender wars”: essentially, Eve will “desire” to control her husband, while Adam would rule over her, which is to say that Adam would be the (most often) successful one.

This modern-crowd-pleasing proposition refers later to Ephesians 5:22-23 to assert (essentially) that a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church does not “rule” over his wife according to the curse (which, according to the claim, is really more of a prophesying of a sinful interaction). For anyone who fears scriptures as a whole, this is profoundly insane.

First and foremost, if someone who “loves” us couldn’t possibly be the same one who “rules over us,” how is it that Christ loves us?

Luke 19:27
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”

These words were spoken by Christ, who does indeed rule over us–and will have slaughtered anyone who opposes his rule–and also loved us enough to sacrifice his flesh for us. To claim that one who loves someone else enough to die for them will not possibly rule over us because “to rule over” is an “unloving” thing to do is calling Christ unloving. Eager acceptance of the newly-popular Genesis 3:16 theology might indicate modern attitudes toward Christ as well.

What is the primary confession of our faith? Is it not “Jesus is Lord“? And the word “Lord,” by definition, being he who rules over us? To claim that to rule is by nature in conflict with loving, then one must claim that either Jesus is not actually our Lord and Master–our ruler–or that Jesus is unloving.

Secondly, the agenda in the theology is clear enough: to justify the feminist claims regarding the “oppression of women” that allegedly occurred throughout human history along with some acknowledgement of feminism fundamentally opposing virtually everything said about women in scripture–and all principles associated with them, of course. If God prophesied this (allegedly) profoundly “sinful” phenomenon, He offered absolutely no follow-up as to its solution nor did He hint at the more ideal alternative. And this is the same God who rebuked Israel for a multitude of various offenses to Him, even issues as trivial as tithing (Malachi 3) which Christ calls a “gnat” of an issue relative to others which are “camels” (Matt 23:24). Furthermore, it is quite notable that 1 Peter 5:3 advises elders not to “lord it over” the flock without calling attention to a gender issue, as the potential of elders “lording it over” younger is acknowledged but even still, nothing in scripture to acknowledge any danger of husbands sinfully “lording it over” their wives. The Bible also directly confronts the issue of racism (Exodus 23:9). Personally, I would grant that this could arguably be implied to a certain extent (not to “lord it over” anyone, including wives), but absolutely not to the extent that we could possibly infer that women were particularly oppressed throughout history in such a way that offended God, without Him ever raising even an implied objection to it, let alone a direct one. Then again, Sarah, wife of Abraham, was commended for calling Abraham “Lord” in the New Testament.

Thirdly, therefore, in what context does someone call someone else “Lord” or “Master”? Aren’t these the titles of a ruler by one who is ruled? 1 Peter 3:5 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. Genesis 3:16 reads, once again: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The same God who commends Sarah (in the New Testament, as worth noting to some who would erroneously claim that this might make a difference) for calling her husband “lord” and obeying him also does not desire for her husband to “rule over her”?

Fourthly, there is 1 Timothy 2:12-14, in which Paul states that a woman ought not usurp authority over a man in part because Eve was deceived (and “in the transgression”), not Adam. Did Paul reach this conclusion completely on his own, or is his conclusion remarkably in alignment with God’s reaction to Eve’s sin (Gen 3:16) which declared the gender who would be the one carrying authority?
Fifthly, as somewhat aforementioned, oftentimes “that was in the Old Testament” is a general-purpose answer for unwanted aspects of culture. Aside from the previously stated points involving New Testament references to the Old, the proposition that God’s “curse” to Eve regarding being ruled by Adam ought to be considered revoked would also make it the only one of God’s curses to cease its application; since we’re under the New Covenant, does that also mean that women no longer experience labor pains as severely, and no one has to work from the ground, and no one returns to dust any longer in addition to God’s (alleged) prophecy to Eve being revoked? Why should only one particular aspect of God’s curse to Adam and Eve be rescinded by the New Covenant while the others remain firmly in place?

In short, this is another blatantly intellectually-dishonest but crowd-pleasing theology that carries implications of attitudes not only about marriage, but also about Christ Himself as the loving ruler that he is. Do we not know how to reconcile God’s dictatorship with one who also loves us? What could cause anyone who fears God’s word to accept such an interpretation?

The reality of God’s command, for reasons previously stated, is indeed the bane of feminists’ existence: it is indeed a command to Eve to align her desires for Adam’s rule as a punishment for being more easily deceived. This is why Sarah was commended for obeying her husband and calling him “lord” (1 Peter 3:5), and one of the two reasons why Paul would not permit a woman to usurp authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12-14). This takes nothing away from Adam’s ability to love Eve any more than Jesus’ rule over mankind takes away from how much he loves us, though the fact frustrates (fundamentally feminist) efforts to put an accusation in God’s mouth against men as a group and embellish Ephesians 5:22-23 to encompass any human definitions of “loving” or “unloving.”

Test yourself to see if Scripture is truly your final authority of the truth: there is no biblical account of the “oppression of women” inasmuch as society committed an evil all throughout the course of human history in God’s sight. Clearly, men sin against women, just as women sin against men, men sin against men, and women sin against women.

Obedience to God, and the Cares of this World

From the Parable of the Sower:
Matthew 13:22
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.
When I was younger, Ecclesiastes was a book of the Bible to which I really took. I’ve always thought of it as sort of a thinking-man’s entry point to Scripture, as it is written by a wise man who went through the myriad of experiences that the world had to offer; he’d been through it all, and tells you all about it just so he can tell you this one, simple conclusion at the end of the story of his journey:
Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
Like many or most of us, my daily grind is busy and complicated–for certain reasons at the moment there is not much I can do about it (although in the long run I intend to do what I can to minimize stressors however possible). I’ll confess to you, there were times when I was so deep in business I could not avoid for such a long time, I paused and thought, “what does my walk with Christ even have to do with any of this?” Now, of course, there is a lot you can throw at that thought from Scripture, like working as unto the Lord, “whatever your hands find to do, do with all your might,” among others–this is all true, and very good things for sure. But the objectives, career-wise, pertain to the cares of this world and–speaking for myself–it can indeed be tempting to see my goals for doing what I need to do for sustenance in this world to be the only thing I’m here to do. (As it happens, I find that feeling a strength-sapper. Somehow big money just doesn’t motivate me on its own in any case)
I can feel the sheer weight of how much needs to be done, including my own personal goals and agendas–none those are bad things, especially provided: Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed. (Proverbs 16:3) And yet sometimes the look of it all can cause the temptations of anxiety, and thankfully we have our Lord for this too: Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about you. 1 Peter 5:7
The title of this blog is the “Self-Defensive Christian Man.” How can we protect ourselves from the cares of this world? Let me tell you what lifts the burden from my shoulders: getting up in the morning and saying a prayer like this:
“Father God, let this day be one of total service to You. As my loving provider you are the source of every aspect of the strength of Your unprofitable servant. Empower me to love and serve you, love and serve others, and myself, not because you need what I give You Father God, but I thank You that it is Your pleasure to impart to me my fulfillment as one of Your true sons through Your Son Christ Jesus and the wonderful work You have for me to do for you today, whatever that may be. Speak to me all throughout the day through the power of Your Holy Spirit. Thank you Father God for the gift of salvation through Your Son Christ Jesus.”
I declare:
PhiIippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Much love to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

White-Knight Syndrome

Every man needs to be aware of the dangers of white-knight syndrome. Quite simply, ironically enough, it’s the true source of feminism’s horsepower–ironic, because it’s a warped remnant of old-school chivalry that has resulted in men victimizing other men in the interest of feeling like the hero in a storybook rescuing a damsel in distress, when in reality what they do is deprive other men of justice. Feminism’s true power lies in their reliance on this traditional paradigm–traditionalism, which they appear to oppose, but are only exploiting.

A white knight is Jezebel’s wet dream, hence feminism, which manages to endure the “empowerment” by victimhood paradox, because of white knights who victimize men out a desire to be “one of the good guys” against villainous men who overpower the more helpless and (allegedly) harmless gender. As much as many women might like, men cannot be altogether disposed and many man-haters know this full-well that men are still required to take on tough duties in the society that women can enjoy, and the “white knight” is exactly the “useful idiot” she needs.

I mentioned in my last post that if white knights’ true desire is the well-being of women, then ultimately they are their own worst enemy to that end too, because in their zeal to take out “bad bad men” who victimize women, to the point where innocent men become collateral damage, we’ll run out of men who are able to help women. Of course, that’s a secondary issue, because their original crime is depriving other men of justice which they have no right to do.

But, as for that secondary issue, this needs to be a wake-up call for women: wondering why so many men don’t want to marry? In large part, because they know what happens to men in family courts upon divorce, and not too seldom at that. The wake up call for women ought to be that they need to be just as interested in the well-being and justice of men as for themselves and other women regardless, but there are consequences affecting what men can do for women in the event of such a spectacular apathy.

I will digress momentarily from the main drag of this article. This issue of women’s apathy bothers me more than white-knight syndrome, because the “do unto others” is not happening and I cannot fathom the excuse for women so accomplished at voicing their needs and grievances and making themselves their own top priority–an area which men need to get better at doing if, once again, they expect to keep their strength to help themselves, other men, and women, hence my efforts with this blog. Society’s demonstrable deficiency in protecting men from female adversaries (on every level) is causing disaster for absolutely everyone.

Here is an example of a young man who knows exactly what he is doing with an understanding of reality–a woman assaults him (NOT in self-defense) but he doesn’t dare attack back. At one point she gets a finger inside his mouth and pulls at his cheek (fishhook) and, in that position, only a few pounds of force of a pull could rip through anyone’s cheek. But again, it’s a risk–as he demonstrably fully understands that he must take, to allow himself to be assaulted, with his camera being his only line of defense when she would later accuse him of assaulting her; she, a modern woman, is fully aware of white-knight syndrome culture and attempted to exploit it.

This video is the only way he survived the double-victimhood of being assaulted and a false accusation, as her accusation against him was automatically believed and only this video changed others’ minds. There is no way of knowing how many men were not so savvy and fortunate so as to be spared such a fate.

Link to source:

Who can even say how many men, currently locked up and/or misrepresented within violence statistics,  didn’t suffer such a double-victimhood if a woman is automatically believed? White-Knights, you have a problem, and you need to fix it.

Men, let’s be a service to women.

Men, let’s be a service to other men and ourselves, for our own sakes, and so we can keep it up.

Women, you might consider carefully how you’ve likely been the recipient of chivalry and consider that men aren’t a bottomless pit of strength that they may seem, and think about putting something into the men’s side of the economy please. I’ve seen enough of these anecdotes of women attempting to falsely accuse a man (proved wrong only by blatant evidence like a recording) to tell me that it’s not just a few conniving women who are aware of their abilities to do this to a man–to cry victim and summon white-knight culture against a man. No, I believe story after story like this indicates that the average woman knows full-well that she possesses this unjust amount of power over a man, and the apathy of women toward the well-being of men is reprehensible. Thank you very much to those of you (women) who do get involved in men’s issues. I know it takes courage. Let’s be on the same team.

The Real Reason Why Men are Under Attack

My last post was written as a discussion on the true meaning of masculinity and femininity, which is authority and submission, and the rebellion of femininity manifesting in subordinating truth to feelings. This time, I’m going to pull out the sword of Scripture to expose what’s really going on:

1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.


So a man is the image of God, but a woman is not? To the latter statement, yes and no. (Genesis 1:27) When God incarnated–as Jesus–in the flesh, he incarnated as male, not female, and that was no coin toss.


John 14:8
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?


Referring again to 1 Corinthians 11:7, and the whole opening of the chapter, Paul speaks of the importance of thoroughly recognizing the matter that male–not female–is the image of God among the congregation. We are all commanded to recognize the fact.


The appeal of attacking men–that is to say, because they are men–is like the attitude of someone throwing darts at a picture of his adversary. A man, quite simply, looks like God, as he is the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7), which, to a woman, means submission, and that she was made for his purposes, just as the church–the bride of Christ–was made for Christ’s purposes. To attack men, and take away all meaning away from masculinity, is to attack and give oneself an image for delusion’s sake of defeating the one whom he resembles: God.


Feminism is Satanism with but a paper-thin coating, fundamentally a rebellion against authority, and the Satanic ritual demonstrating spite for God in His true form as Lord and authority is an attack on men whom He created in His image and also to represent Him. A man’s head was to be uncovered in the congregations, because his “head,” quite literally, was underneath nothing, while a woman’s head is underneath (a sign of) authority (1 Corinthians 11:9).


As I discussed in the discussion of masculinity versus femininity, femininity absorbs that which masculinity imparts and then reflects and returns it–this is what the church does with and from God, receiving ALL of her purpose and provision from Him, and submitting to Him and giving God everything they have which was originally all from God. Femininity, therefore, is the glory of man, receiving purpose and provision, and returning it as man’s helper in submission.


Awfully PC, right?


Again, how much do we try to customize our concept of God more than looking at who He really is, which is our Lord to whom we utterly submit?


1 Peter 3:1-2
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.


Peter advises women married to unbelieving men that the best strategy for ministry is submission. Submission to an unbelieving husband? Yes, because her submission as a woman is a glorious demonstration of the submission for which men and women were both designed before God as His bride. A feminist rebellion against men is the exact opposite, a sentiment of rebellion against God for whom we are all created.


Of course, feminism is very overt in its attacks on masculinity, and therefore femininity as well since femininity exists in response to masculinity, but this can take much more covert forms. Misandry is utterly rampant with only a small (albeit rapidly growing) amount of opposition. Quite frankly, if you save men and masculinity, you will save women and femininity–even apart from the abstract discussion, it is very apparent that men are called upon to clean up the problems of women and for good reason. I fear the way Christianity sees little need truly to come to the defense of the attacks made upon men, everywhere from their masculinity to their well-being as human beings, not just because of the needs of men but because men will also be ill-able to help the needs of women who need men (just as men need men, and men need women as well) when there is so little active defense against an utterly malicious threat. It is fashionable to complain about men today, with minuscule interest in helping on the whole. And, our culture is woefully inhibited in protecting men from women who mean them harm.


And white knights, you are a major problem to the well-being of women, counter-intuitive as this may sound. In a culture where women are allowed to victimize men by way of false accusation, emotional, or even physical, violence, I got news for you: we’ll run out of white knights. It’s the same deficit of justice and attention going in men’s direction that will and already has caused women to suffer.

I pray urgently for God, our provider and protector, to protect men in this culture.


Here are a few studies to show what I mean that our culture has very little concept of the necessity of men being protected from women just as women need protection from men. Examples of this attitude are abundant.

Masculinity and Femininity, and the Danger of Putting the Cart before the Horse.

Masculinity leads, and Femininity follows.

When masculinity leads, emotions are secondary. When masculinity leads, the declaration is this: “I will be happy when I find out the truth, whether I think I like the truth or not.” Masculinity puts aside feelings not as if feelings are irrelevant, but in the sense that the person is fulfilled only after discovering the truth, not putting the cart before the horse.
Femininity reinforces and stabilizes society during the journey, as it were, empowered to do so by masculine, decisive truth. Where masculinity puts truth on the forefront, femininity puts feeling on the forefront, using the empowerment of truth to focus directly on the comfort of people.
To put the cart before the horse–when femininity leads masculinity–the statement is, “I will seek my happiness first, because if I’m happy, I must have found the truth.” The benefit of truth is happiness, for sure, but when femininity leads it attempts to put truth in subordination to feelings.
In the modern world, this can be seen in society and is rampant in church culture as well as the secular world; the priority is not “finding the truth,” but “tolerance.” In the extreme case of the secular world, modern ideology supposes that wildly opposing beliefs on morality must submit to the happiness of society. Christian culture has adopted this attitude, that keeping peace between people is more important than the correctness of beliefs; we must “agree to disagree” if that’s what it takes to keep the primary purpose, being the comfort of people, achieved–supposing that that’s what it means to be “loving.”
To be loving means to desire the well-being of others. When we acknowledge that the truth exists, we know that others are loved when they are directed to the life-giving truth and it is indeed quite loving to be insistent on truth (masculinity), not excluding the personal touch of ministering to others in ways that are palatable (that is, they are able to receive it) to them (femininity).
Masculinity leads to the truth, cultivates the impersonal elements, to draw strength from that which is outside society and outside of the person and outside of comfort, in the form of seeking power. Masculinity then ministers that power to femininity–which MUST follow behind as secondary–and femininity puts back into society by ministering comfort to it (nurturing), having received the power to do so by masculinity.
Femininity in the lead says that all truth must submit to my feelings. Femininity in submission draws power from the truth outside of the person and then ministers to the person. Masculinity in the lead trusts that pursuit of the truth will lead to happiness and puts the agenda of happiness aside to that end. Masculinity in submission is crippled from being able to lead into the wilderness to find truth and then provide its benefits to femininity.
Once again, the masculine/feminine interaction is nowhere near as simple as a biological male and female. Men and women both are feminine–i.e. submissive–to the entirely masculine God (as the bride of Christ) who provides power to mankind when mankind is submissive; of course men are to be completely submissive/feminine to God in order to receive that power for the sake of life and comfort. When men minister those benefits to women similarly, women echo the benefits back to men with abilities to maximize human comfort and therefore keep society healthy. Both on the individual level (marriage, most notably) or in general, hence a few notes in Scripture that women are to be submissive in manner to men in general. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 of course refers to women learning in “full submission” to male teachers, ultimately, and can minister a masculine/feminine interaction among themselves. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, at heart, notes the supportive nature of women relative to men in general. Put under a magnifying glass and blown out of proportion, it might appear that women do nothing for men at all after men (including those not their husbands) yet the abundant remainder of Scripture’s discussion with regards to how believers serve each other spiritually does not constantly place male/female parameters on interactions.
To approach the matter of how male and female interact, there is that which–I believe–is simply expected to occur naturally when “men are men” and “women are women” when the principles therein are understood. For one thing, Scripture clearly indicates that men and women both are submissive to other men as is apparent with the arrangements of male teachers and elders. In more common interactions I believe this occurs to lesser degrees, Fathers to daughters, brothers and sisters, in common biological family, and of course we are called to treat one another as such in the spiritual family as “brothers and sisters” (1 Timothy 5:1-2). How this works out in practice may open long and complicated discussions, but this is how interactions work.

What I find clear is that masculinity and femininity struggle to put each other to good use in this culture, socially. Men can be caught in a sort of machismo, not knowing their need for the nurturing of femininity; pastors–spiritual leaders, a masculine interaction to the feminine submission–are to be strong at all times, not needing the support of those to whom they lead. When the leader stumbles, people often think little of supporting the leader, and instead criticize without becoming a part of the solution.

Without the feminine support, the masculine gets burnt out, as unfortunately happens so often to those in leadership positions.

At the same time, as I often talk about, there are probably twenty words of criticism toward men from women for every one word involving women looking to be part of the solution to men’s problems; men, whom women simply expect to be strong. The deception then goes two ways in this interaction: masculine forgets its use for feminine support and gets exhausted in its machismo, and femininity forgets how to do anything for the masculine other than take the benefits without giving anything in return.

I pray for restored interactions in what God designed beautifully in total submission to Him.