Why Feminists Hate Scripture So Much

With the ascension of men who think they are women in women's sports, the feminists' goals are being frustrated. Maybe there's a deeper reason for that.

Our first assignment in State College English Composition was to write a summary review of a speech titled "Ain't I a Woman," by some obscure character from the Women's Suffrage movement in the 1800s named Sojourner Truth.  It wasn't until later that I discovered that she was a pop culture icon in the feminist subculture and that my teacher exhibited overt feminazi tendencies.

The exciting conclusion of Ms. Truth's oratory was:

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

After reading the speech aloud, the teacher gushed about how powerful, eloquent, and persuasive Ms. Truth's delivery was.  I replied, "That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard in my life."

Taken aback, she asked, "How could you possibly say such a thing?"

"The Garden of Eden was Paradise on Earth," I replied.  "Her argument is that it lasted until a woman made a decision and ruined it all.  Now she's saying that if the men would only give them a chance, they'll do it again."

As she floundered to gurgitate a response, the bell rang, and we all got up and vacated the classroom.

Since the feminists don't seem to have a problem invoking scripture to buttress their position, let's go there.  As a result of the fall into sin, God proclaimed three curses: one apiece for the man, the woman, and the serpent.

The curse upon the woman was that she would experience sorrow in childbearing, and that her desire would be for her husband, but that he would rule over her (Gen. 3:16).

At first reading, I wondered, "Her desire would be for her husband?  Why is that a curse?  A man's desire should be for his wife.  Why is it a bad thing for her desire to be for him?"

The next chapter answers that.  Adam and Eve had two kids: Cain and Abel.  Cain became jealous of Abel and stewed on it.  God, being aware of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12), asked Cain, "Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Gen. 4:6-7)."

It's identical language.  Sin's desire shall be unto thee, but thou shalt rule over him.

When God told Eve that her "desire" would be for her husband, it didn't mean, "Oh, baby, you're so hot!  I desire you."  It meant that no matter what he was up to or what he was doing, that she would long to intervene and impose her will on him, as sin desired to control Cain.

At this point, husbands of nagging wives should be resounding with "amen!"

Nevertheless, the end of the woman's curse was "He shall rule over thee."

Woman is cursed to be frustrated in her attempts to manipulate man, if scripture is true.

Extending this paradox to the sexes, the feminist movement is doomed because of the curse.

Let's extend our view beyond the Judeo-Christian worldview and observe the way of nature in the rest of the world and see if this perspective rings true.  Do you suppose that Asian women really wish to be considered subordinate to their male counterparts?  Do you really think that Arabian women want to walk ten paces behind their male benefactors, wearing burkas, in the sweltering African sun?

Only in Western civilization are women afforded equal status.

And yet that doesn't satisfy the feminists because they are not in control.  If scripture is true, they never will be.  I'd like to say I'm sorry, but I'm not.  Even though the woman made the decision to sin, man got the blame (Rom. 5:12).  That's because he was in charge.

She messed up; he bears the penalty.  It's so unfair.

Except that it's not.

Scripture explains the dichotomy.  In Ephesians 5, the Apostle Paul writes regarding the marriage of Adam and Eve, "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" (Ephesians 5:31-32).

In this analogy, the husband represents Christ, while the wife represents the Church (all believers).  In life, the members of the Church mess up.  Christ bore the responsibility for those errors on the cross.  It is incumbent, therefore, on the Church to be subordinate to Christ.  And to play the analogy out, it is incumbent on the wife to subordinate herself to her husband.

Feminists are offended by that passage because of the phrase, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22).  Yet they overlook the subsequent passage that says, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). Who gets the shorter end of the stick in that deal: those who submit, or those who bear the blame and sacrifice to pay the consequences?

According to Christian orthodoxy, people mess up, and Christ accepted the punishment.  Wives make mistakes, and husbands bear the blame.  (Not that husbands don't mess up.  They get blamed for that too).

Lest I be accused of misogyny, allow me to elaborate: God created all beings from the dust of the earth with one exception: Eve.  Eve was made out of Adam (Gen. 2:22).  She was the new and improved version of mankind.  According to Genesis, she was the grand finale of creation.  God had saved the best for last.

So magnificent was this creation that angels have fallen from grace at her allure (Gen. 6:1-4).  Virtually every godly man who stumbled in scripture stumbled at the temptation of a female (Samson, David, Solomon, etc.).

But to be opposed to feminism is not to be opposed to women.  Feminism is an attempt to reduce the apex of God's creation to brute beasts: men.  God forbid.

As the adage goes, girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.  Boys are snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.  Who in their right mind would want to transmogrify the former to the latter?

Those who would are not in their right minds.

The feminist goals are frustrated because no matter how much their desire is for the men (to control them), the men will rule over them (revisit the allusion to non-Western cultures).  It's sealed in scripture.  To combat that is to combat the laws of nature.  The same applies in the animal kingdom.

Someday, hopefully, feminists will abandon the attempt to reduce themselves to beasts and resume their role as the apex of creation, the objects of reverence of men and angels.  Apparently they don't realize that they would wield much more power in that vein.

Mike VanOuse is a Factoryjack from Indiana.

With the ascension of men who think they are women in women's sports, the feminists' goals are being frustrated. Maybe there's a deeper reason for that.

Our first assignment in State College English Composition was to write a summary review of a speech titled "Ain't I a Woman," by some obscure character from the Women's Suffrage movement in the 1800s named Sojourner Truth.  It wasn't until later that I discovered that she was a pop culture icon in the feminist subculture and that my teacher exhibited overt feminazi tendencies.

The exciting conclusion of Ms. Truth's oratory was:

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

After reading the speech aloud, the teacher gushed about how powerful, eloquent, and persuasive Ms. Truth's delivery was.  I replied, "That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard in my life."

Taken aback, she asked, "How could you possibly say such a thing?"

"The Garden of Eden was Paradise on Earth," I replied.  "Her argument is that it lasted until a woman made a decision and ruined it all.  Now she's saying that if the men would only give them a chance, they'll do it again."

As she floundered to gurgitate a response, the bell rang, and we all got up and vacated the classroom.

Since the feminists don't seem to have a problem invoking scripture to buttress their position, let's go there.  As a result of the fall into sin, God proclaimed three curses: one apiece for the man, the woman, and the serpent.

The curse upon the woman was that she would experience sorrow in childbearing, and that her desire would be for her husband, but that he would rule over her (Gen. 3:16).

At first reading, I wondered, "Her desire would be for her husband?  Why is that a curse?  A man's desire should be for his wife.  Why is it a bad thing for her desire to be for him?"

The next chapter answers that.  Adam and Eve had two kids: Cain and Abel.  Cain became jealous of Abel and stewed on it.  God, being aware of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12), asked Cain, "Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Gen. 4:6-7)."

It's identical language.  Sin's desire shall be unto thee, but thou shalt rule over him.

When God told Eve that her "desire" would be for her husband, it didn't mean, "Oh, baby, you're so hot!  I desire you."  It meant that no matter what he was up to or what he was doing, that she would long to intervene and impose her will on him, as sin desired to control Cain.

At this point, husbands of nagging wives should be resounding with "amen!"

Nevertheless, the end of the woman's curse was "He shall rule over thee."

Woman is cursed to be frustrated in her attempts to manipulate man, if scripture is true.

Extending this paradox to the sexes, the feminist movement is doomed because of the curse.

Let's extend our view beyond the Judeo-Christian worldview and observe the way of nature in the rest of the world and see if this perspective rings true.  Do you suppose that Asian women really wish to be considered subordinate to their male counterparts?  Do you really think that Arabian women want to walk ten paces behind their male benefactors, wearing burkas, in the sweltering African sun?

Only in Western civilization are women afforded equal status.

And yet that doesn't satisfy the feminists because they are not in control.  If scripture is true, they never will be.  I'd like to say I'm sorry, but I'm not.  Even though the woman made the decision to sin, man got the blame (Rom. 5:12).  That's because he was in charge.

She messed up; he bears the penalty.  It's so unfair.

Except that it's not.

Scripture explains the dichotomy.  In Ephesians 5, the Apostle Paul writes regarding the marriage of Adam and Eve, "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" (Ephesians 5:31-32).

In this analogy, the husband represents Christ, while the wife represents the Church (all believers).  In life, the members of the Church mess up.  Christ bore the responsibility for those errors on the cross.  It is incumbent, therefore, on the Church to be subordinate to Christ.  And to play the analogy out, it is incumbent on the wife to subordinate herself to her husband.

Feminists are offended by that passage because of the phrase, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22).  Yet they overlook the subsequent passage that says, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). Who gets the shorter end of the stick in that deal: those who submit, or those who bear the blame and sacrifice to pay the consequences?

According to Christian orthodoxy, people mess up, and Christ accepted the punishment.  Wives make mistakes, and husbands bear the blame.  (Not that husbands don't mess up.  They get blamed for that too).

Lest I be accused of misogyny, allow me to elaborate: God created all beings from the dust of the earth with one exception: Eve.  Eve was made out of Adam (Gen. 2:22).  She was the new and improved version of mankind.  According to Genesis, she was the grand finale of creation.  God had saved the best for last.

So magnificent was this creation that angels have fallen from grace at her allure (Gen. 6:1-4).  Virtually every godly man who stumbled in scripture stumbled at the temptation of a female (Samson, David, Solomon, etc.).

But to be opposed to feminism is not to be opposed to women.  Feminism is an attempt to reduce the apex of God's creation to brute beasts: men.  God forbid.

As the adage goes, girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.  Boys are snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.  Who in their right mind would want to transmogrify the former to the latter?

Those who would are not in their right minds.

The feminist goals are frustrated because no matter how much their desire is for the men (to control them), the men will rule over them (revisit the allusion to non-Western cultures).  It's sealed in scripture.  To combat that is to combat the laws of nature.  The same applies in the animal kingdom.

Someday, hopefully, feminists will abandon the attempt to reduce themselves to beasts and resume their role as the apex of creation, the objects of reverence of men and angels.  Apparently they don't realize that they would wield much more power in that vein.

Mike VanOuse is a Factoryjack from Indiana.