Category Archives: Nonfeminism

Equality is a Quality of God’s Design for Marriage

If God-designed marriage’s nucleus is the unique one flesh relationship, then God designed marriage to be a relationship of equals. Here is my proof-text:

 …Each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband.

In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.  I Cor 7: 2-5:

Here we see total equality and parity. Both people are equally accountable to render to the other (nothing less than) his/her body, and it is to be done freely and consensually. Both benefit equally.

(I like these two definitions of parity: 1. the quality or state of being equal or equivalent. 2. the symmetry of behavior in an interaction of a physical entity (as a subatomic particle) with that of its mirror image…)

And please notice: here the roles are exactly the same.

What else do we see?  Clear suggestions of ownership. Like this:

Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm;

for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave.

It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame.

Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot sweep it away.

If one were to give all the wealth of one’s house for love,

it would be utterly scorned. 

Song of Solomon 8: 6-7

Yes please, that kind of ownership. My seal on your heart is a sign that your heart is mine, and only I may break that seal to open. My seal on your arm is a sign to the world that you belong to me. And your seal on my heart means my heart is yours, and only you may break that seal to open. Your seal on my arm is a sign to the world that I belong to you.

This ownership is irrevocable. This love is absolute. It is not a love which is measured in quantity, as in how much do you love? Do you love enough? It is a love that either is or is not. It is as absolute as death and the grave, as inevitable, as unyielding, as eternal.

We also see words like authority and duty. But the authority is mutual; don’t we owe one another something real in such a relationship?

What does our culture’s wisdom tell us?  That even here, especially here in traditional or Biblical marriage, is a negotiation of an intrinsically unequal relationship. Man: patriarch/oppressor, woman: victim/subservient. We must resign ourselves to an inevitable power struggle. And that God invented patriarchy and subservience!

Nonsense. The Corinthians passage was written to first-century A.D. believers in Jesus Christ, long after the fall of man. As such, it confirms God’s original intent for marriage and tells us that we may still possess that graceful, perfect union that He made for us.  In the midst of a fallen and broken world we can live in real equality and true harmony.

What do we make, then, of these passages?

…and you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.
 Genesis 3:16

The husband is the head of the wife. Ephesians 5:23

From Ephesians 5:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,  and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—  for we are members of his body.  “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

The passage containing “For the husband is the head of the wife” begins with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The first appears to be an expression of inequality and submission, but the topic sentence is an expectation of equal submission, mutual deference, mutual humility. There is no contradiction, only context.

Then in Genesis 3, we see God the Father explaining to Adam and Eve that their choice to sin will result in a chronic power struggle as each one contends for his own interest instead of living for the other. This was not a command; it was a prediction.

God’s predictions: men will raise crops successfully but they will have to sweat and strive for the increase. Women will bear babies in joy, but first will come pain and anguish. The spiritual death you have chosen must manifest in physical death, else humans’ destructiveness to one another will be endless.

I’ve invented for you a mutually loving, mysteriously interdependent, incomparably intimate relationship, but instead you will choose to strive, alone, against one another.

Women will selfishly try to control their husbands, and men will selfishly assert their power over their wives. Each will contend against the other for his and her own desires at the other’s expense, instead of living in the sublime harmony He planned for them.

We always, always do exactly what God predicted. It’s like he knows.

More testaments in the Word of God suggest that mutuality and equity are His ideal.  Many of these passages are directed to all in the community of believers. Wouldn’t they necessarily apply to those within that community who have committed to marriage?

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. I Peter 4:8

Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Romans 12:10

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I loved you.  Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.  John 15: 12-13

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. Romans 12:8

Here also we see mutuality and equality.

Do we buy into our culture’s misinterpretation? In the evangelical church, we often substitute media-marketed counsel for true personal guidance and we find no end of this sort of stuff: Look at the dopey man; he just doesn’t “get” it. He’s just like clueless Adam, am I right? Men-just don’t be like him. Husbands, taking out the trash counts as foreplay!

And women, the most important thing you can do for your husband is show him respect by forcing yourself to have sex with him when you don’t feel like it!

These “Christian” marriage seminars, courses and books repeat the shallow lie that marriage is a constant struggle for compromise between two people who can never understand each other. They offer only a band-aid, a self-help guide for navigation through the unequal status quo, an eternal negotiation between doomed competitors– rather than two creatures of the same flesh, one created out of the other, who find their fulfillment in belonging together.

Grace upon grace! Even though the world is fallen, even though we are fallen, we still have access to that ideal that God designed.



Extinguishing Everything

Rendering the Sexed Body Legally Invisible: How Transgender Law Hurts Women

Nothing surprises me more than today’s feminists allowing males to appropriate woman-hood via transgenderism.

Who suffers most when we erase male and female? Those who want us to stop acknowledging the distinction between the genders have not played out in their minds the world that they would create.

One obvious recipient of change is marriage.

So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them. Genesis 1

Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. ’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united 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, let no one separate.” Mark 10

“In His image” meant male and female, two beings different yet part of one another; in His image meant in a very particular kind of relationship wherein two complementary and very distinct beings are intimate and interdependent.

If we erase the concept of two distinct yet necessary sexes, we lose a premise which allows us to conceptualize the marriage relationship. When we erase marriage as it was designed and intended, we erase marriage. But that’s not all we erase.

The unique sexual union which is the big bang for a marriage relationship creates family, church, community, society, government, nation, world.

Remove that unique relationship, and you remove the nucleus around which everything spins. Remove the foundation, the structure collapses into a chaotic mess. And chaotic messes are no place for love, justice, equality, rights, peace, stability or the building of a society. When we lose that most fundamental thing, we disintegrate and descend into chaos.

For starters: reality-denial. Insanity. Total subjectivity. Disconnectedness, loss of community, relentless self-absorption. Instead of oneness, we get alone-ness.

I said it here: Manifesto: The Primal Creation

Can there be a substitute for male or for female? Can there be an equivalent to the complementary union in marriage? A parent which is nether a mother nor a father?  A substitute for the true family?

In today’s brave new world, marriage means a legal union of two people, gender orientation irrelevant, based on the subjective feelings of the pair. Adopted children can be given over to the stewardship of two persons, gender orientation irrelevant; the need and the right of a child to an ideal consisting of a mother and a father is negated. Transgender bathrooms mandated throughout the land from on high. Urgent social effort to make gender orientation a continuum rather than one which acknowledges reality. And again from on high, the creation ex nilio of gender orientation special rights.

Now we read  here of some of the repercussions when we make male and female a state of mind disconnected from bodies.

Lo and behold! The result for women is that we disappear. We are erased.

The progressive-secular paradigm is cannibalizing itself, and what a surprise: it’s the women who get eaten first.


Just a Tiny Bit About My Mom

When my Mom was 39, she had her sixth child, a girl. Me. When I was 39, I had my sixth  child, a girl. We gave her my name. Here is that daughter and my Mom, last year.


My Mom is so stubborn she defies medical science. With each doctor’s evaluation, she is declared healthier than she was before. Her cardiologist doesn’t want to see her til the fall. Almost a year ago, we brought her home from a few months rehab. Before that she hadn’t been in the hospital since I was two. She wasn’t on any medication until about five years ago.

Her physical health is improving.   Apparently, she is in better health at 95 than she was at 94.

Take that, Doctors. Think you’re gonna treat her like an old person.

Happy Mother’s Day, Mom. I don’t know who deserves the honor more.



We Kill the Weak

My recent blog post War on Children produced a conversation. Here is an excerpt from one of the commenters:

“There is no “human being” until full bilateral synchronization [of the brain]. Please understand that. Please get that straight in your head. A human being can die. Before week 28 nothing can “die.” Period. So, if you want to use language like “kill” and “murder” then you must tell me, and everyone reading this, how you can kill something that cannot die…”

The author of this position then asked repeatedly, “Tell me, how can you kill something that cannot die?” as his trump.

So the arguments are:

A fetus is not alive until 28 weeks gestational age. (It is not a human being either?)

Before “brain synchronization”, it is not living, therefore it is not something which can die.

That baby in your belly moved because it was nothing more than “electrical impulses firing, causing movement… like firing shocks through a [dead] frog’s leg.”

This blogger equated death (the cessation of life in a previously living being) with the early stages of human development. No distinction was recognized even though a fetus meets every criteria for life and humanity. Blogger also would not define the terms of the discussion, particularly regarding whether the critical question was the fetus’ life/non-life, humanity/non-humanity, or sentience/ non-sentience.

Incomplete brain development = not living yet OR not human yet = we can dispose of it and it’s a morally neutral act.

20-weeks-human-fetus3 20 week fetus

What is this position really? What are all positions which pinpoint some arbitrary criteria which allows functional human adults to excuse the termination of millions of unborn human beings?

It is discrimination imposed upon some human beings based on their incomplete development.  It is a defense of legal termination based on inability, temporary handicap, or the incomplete growth process.

It is disqualifying still-developing children for life, even though if they were left to grow (not killed), they would become fully able.

Making termination of human fetuses legal up to a certain point in their development is exactly this.

In other words, we are killing the defenseless because they are defenseless.

Abortion culture sometimes uses pre-viability as a boundary for guilt-free termination A moving goalpost if there ever was one; and since it moves as science advances, it cannot have ever been an ethically-based position.

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is “viable.” ~ Slate

But why was viability ever the benchmark anyway?

While the unborn are weakest, while they are the most defenseless and vulnerable, while they need the most nurture…that is when we allow them to be eliminated. This is the opposite of Christian ethics, or even human ethics.

We are meant to protect most exactly those who need protection most.

In God’s design, babies are helpless for at least one good reason. Their dependency is supposed to elicit an instinctual response in adults, particularly females and more particularly mothers…for protectiveness and for the desire to nurture. It’s built into us.

We were designed to be the protectors of those helpless lives. Carrying those tiny lives within our bodies is supposed elicit obvious and intuitive impulses to protect. This is not altruism; it is not extraordinary but natural.

What we see now is a whole culture of  females denying those impulses to nurture, calling those impulses oppressive and disturbed. In favor of lateral peer dependence, they will purposely make themselves cool calculators who are just fine with ending the lives of the weakest of human beings.

Our culture has chosen a position which favors self-serving and arbitrary criteria for inclusion, and death as the default for those who fail to qualify. We kill the weak.







The value system offered to women by Planned Parenthood and ideological Feminism is insufficient to meet the demands of the typical life of any female.

Perhaps the most illustrative example: it is normal for women for a significant span of their lifetimes to be vulnerable to becoming pregnant. Feminism requires that that normal–the possibility of becoming pregnant from engaging in sex– be erased in the pursuit of being equal to men. And that appears to mean the same as men.

If I do become pregnant, I have the legal freedom and the societal approval to walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and pay them to end the life of my child, no questions asked, at any time during my pregnancy.

Feminist ideology tells me that I must have that right or else I am not free, I am not a person possessing full rights, I am not equal to men. I am less than a man if I cannot kill my child. I am less than a man if I cannot erase my fertility. I am less than a man if I must prioritize childcare over an uninterrupted career.

In other words, Feminism does not respect my intrinsic value as a human being. As a woman, I am less than something else.

Feminism does not value the things that make me a woman. Feminism rejects my feminine nature and reality, in favor of acquiring a male nature and illusion. It marginalizes what makes a woman a woman. Feminism tells me that, as a woman, I am inadequate and insufficient.

Here’s a quote I happened upon today lifted from a Facebook comment. There are many like it:

“With access to birth control ( which is under assault), women now have the power and autonomy. We can decide for ourselves what is right for us. Without access to reproductive services , that autonomy and power will cease. Vote.”

She said that without birth control, by which they mean abortion-on-demand, I cannot exercise my potential, possess autonomy, or conceive of myself as a person with power.

If somebody might have to die in order for me to be a full human being…something is very wrong with the options my culture is offering me. If we must dangle death over the lives of our potential children in order to be truly equal to men…I would say that we are not prepared by Feminism for the realities of life, and that Feminism does not believe I am equal to a man.

The truth is I am equal to a man, I am as valuable as a man, whether or not I am fertile or infertile, whether or not I am pregnant or not pregnant, whether or not I have several children or no children; whether or not I must interrupt my career to have a baby, whether or not I choose to be a full-time stay-at-home parent for awhile. Or forever.

Can we find solutions to challenging circumstances which don’t include killing innocent people? What do you think?

My validity as a person does not depend on robbing another person of her validity. My personhood does not depend on erasing someone else’s personhood. I can be who I am, confident of my worth, without robbing someone else of her worth. To be of value, must I rob another person of her life?

Some Persons Have No Rights

Let’s speak clearly.

There are people who believe that some persons do not have rights. They advocate for public policy which denies Constitutional rights to some persons. Those persons‘  unrecognized rights extend even to their right to live.

How on earth did they gain any kind of high moral ground?

I keep a blog because I want to present thoughts which I don’t see everywhere. I’ve been hitting the institution of abortion-on-demand pretty regularly for the last few months over many posts. Here’s a list of many of my points so far:

The unborn are a disenfranchised, legally unprotected group of human beings and are vulnerable to legal termination. They need spokesmen and defenders.

The legal termination of millions of the unborn is morally equivalent to any other selective killing of a group of human beings who share some characteristic, therefore it is a kind of genocide.

Our descendants may look back on us with disgust and shame for our willingness to commit mass extermination of the unborn (who would have numbered among those same descendants). In history we may be reduced to one identifier: Abortionists.

We are not conducting a “war on women” but in exactly the same sense we are conducting a war on children, ie. unborn babies.

Contrary to the pro-choice line that conservatives and particularly religious pro-lifers want control over women’s choices, it is the pro-abortion culture which is exploiting women:

First, by creating a dishonest narrative in which all women are victims of non-choice and male-oriented oppression (fabricating a need for female rescue); second, by pitting the pregnant woman and her unborn child against one another as victimized and parasite (marking the scapegoat for elimination);  then by insisting that corporations like Planned Parenthood are necessary for the “health” and self-determination of women (reaping the monetary and political benefits of the conflict they created).

Gender-selective abortion of female fetuses is wildly popular in some parts of the globe. Where are the feminist objections?

The worst thing modern women have added to their collection of beliefs is that human life is relatively valuable; that some lives are priceless while others are expendable.

The second worst thing women believe is that each woman’s life ought to be about what makes her happy, and that all other considerations are secondary.

Both of those beliefs are destructive and self-defeating.

Defenders of legalized abortion are unwilling to call legalized abortion morally wrong, but they are also unable to explain what is objectively wrong with genocide. At the same time some of them equate non-veganism with genocide.

Liberal men expounding with assurance on the ease, health and rightness of abortion is outrageously presumptuous.

Likewise the sight of pro-abortion women trying to convince the world that abortion is an easy and “cool” experience is cruelly misleading.

According to law, any woman may abort her child for any subjective reason and that reason is totally personal and no one else’s business. What other life or death decisions in our society are totally protected from objective judgment?

Ironically, we have arrived here because we want to be thought of as compassionate people and we want to be on the right side of history

Why does a woman cling to an ideology that requires her to believe that she must conceive of herself as oppressed if her right to end another person’s life is infringed in any way?

It’s time to re-examine this peculiar ideological house of cards which balances all of our rights as women upon one tenet: the right to destroy our own offspring.

“Never in the history of mankind has the denial of full human status to a subset of the human race meant anything good. It has always meant exploitation and death.” This is what we have done to pre-born human beings.

Are we even able to recognize exploitation when we see it? Institutionalized abortion is exploitation. Planned Parenthood exploits babies, and Planned Parenthood exploits women. Planned Parenthood objectifies children. Planned Parenthood objectifies women.

In other words,Planned Parenthood does to wome what feminism asserts that men and patriarchy does to women: it victimizes them.

If somebody might have to die in order for me to exercise my full potential…something is very wrong with that paradigm.

Women and particularly mothers were designed with built-in tendencies to protect and nurture the helpless unborn, but our culture of feminism has successfully trained us against our nature.

The worst thought by far that women have embraced is this: Human value is relative, not intrinsic, not eternal, not immeasurable. That the value of a given human being is dependent on a variety of situations and circumstances. Fundamentally, we need women to be the protectors of helpless human life.

It’s too sad to contemplate the role we were meant to play as guardians of life, versus the one we have actually embraced.

This list of points is not exhaustive and you can read the posts from which they come in my “Life” category. Also I have many posts in the drafts pipeline about the pernicious results of the abortion culture.

War on Children

War on women? I do not know how any human being could be more privileged or more powerful than a first-world modern woman.
We have bestowed upon every woman of childbearing age an unquestionable right to end the lives of her own children in utero totally without consequence.

It is a war on our children.

I am not making this up. I arrived at my mom’s house (she needs company 24/7 now) to relieve my sister. She was watching Judgment at Nuremberg on TV. When it was over I happened to turn directly to C-Span and there was Cecile Richards testifying in front of congress about Planned Parenthood funding. If you don’t see the serendipity, let me explain.

Judgment at Nuremberg spends time bandying about some questions, like: Were these crimes standard operating procedure in times of war? Weren’t all sides guilty of similar things? Or were these war crimes or crimes against humanity, crimes against civilization? How could genocide happen in this civilized place? Who was really responsible?

Wouldn’t it be best to let it go and move on?

The film’s poignant verdict: when we decide to dehumanize a single person, we have made a decision to evaluate the relative worth of all human beings from then on. We are capable of excusing any crime against any human being. In our willingness to exploit one person, we are on the inevitable, one way road to oppression by the powerful upon the socially powerless. Very often the final result is genocide.

We have discarded any objective basis for true justice. We have lost who we are.

We have condemned ourselves; we have lost our humanity.

A nation of people who were once civilized and great had descended into a nation of accomplices to genocide, of relative justice, of inhumanity to man.

Explicit in that message is that everyday Germans had failed to take responsibility for what had been happening in their country. They had looked the other way. There was nothing they could do. They didn’t know.

What did I see on C-Span? The well-compensated President of Planned Parenthood unable to answer a single question. She didn’t know anything about anything. She’d have to ask her hundreds of staff. She was not responsible for anything.
Passing the responsibility, pleading the incompetence of being a small cog in the machine, pleading ignorance: all these were the most popular pleas of those tried at Nuremberg.

There are only two choices here: either this President of the organization came to the hearing unprepared, or she was unwilling to answer truthfully because she would implicate herself. If abortion is such a boon to womankind, why didn’t she stand up proudly for exactly what she does?

I also saw, and see, a culture which was willing to look the other way, and to comfort itself with euphemisms and rationalizations.

(Then she pulled the girl card: “You’ve made me testify for 5 1/2 hours now, and I can’t answer any more!” *sniff sniff* Hooray for feminism.)

By the way, let’s remember we were only deciding if they still get federal funding, not whether they were going to be forcibly shut down. Shame on us that shutdown isn’t even an option.

She is the head of an organization which has been implicated in:
mutilation of pre-born infants living and dead,

quantifying and cataloging human body parts for the purposes of selling them
and profiting from their sale by the billions,

altering surgical procedures on unsuspecting clients in order to minimize the damage to saleable body parts,

ginning up more business by creating a culture of death, self-orientation, and free and easy sex promoted to children,

while destroying the trust and supportive relationships which ought to exist between young people and their parents. (Check out some of their educational materials.)

There is plain evidence now, for anyone who wants to look, that they do all of this.

On Facebook, I saw my pro-choice friends’ objections: “That’s absurd! The videos are doctored. The charges are ridiculous!”

Then aren’t you saying that the charges are objectionable?

If true, would we abandon our support of PP? My guess is no.

If we’re unwilling to be moved by the slaughter, undeniably true, of innocent infants;
of a huge corporation profiting by the billions from their deaths;
by the danger this corporation exposes women to in order to maximize their profit;
to lies, to divisive propaganda,
to immorality, to injustice, to exploitation…
then what does matter?

I see in our culture the same willingness to look the other way as there was in Germany of the 30’s and 40’s, the same willingness to pass the responsibility…to shrug and to say, what can I do about it anyway?

To excuse it by rationalizing away the value of human lives. To tend to our own interests while human beings are being slaughtered right down the street.

The trains full of the doomed passed through their towns and villages, but at least they hid their death camps deep in the forests. Our killing mills are sitting right on our main streets, and we’re downright proud of them.