What Do Women Want?

What do women want? It’s a question that has stumped many. Hollywood is particularly enthralled with this idea of woman as an enigma that can never be truly understood. This of course stands as evidence that women have complex and intricate souls while men are primitive beasts. But… that’s a dream. Contrary to popular thought, women aren’t that difficult to understand.

What many women (and men) fail to realize is that women crave a loving man’s authority. In most situations, we thrive when we are given precise instructions on how to complete a given task. We need guidance and direction from a source outside of ourselves. When we don’t have this, we are miserable.

Consider the scene from, The Notebook, when Noah is passionately demanding a decision from Ally, repeatedly asking, “What do you want?!” Clearly, she has no idea.

Consider also the scene from P.S. I Love You where Daniel is asking Holly what women want. She replies in a whisper that, “We have absolutely no idea what we want.” 

Everyone – even Hollywood – knows women don’t know what they want. I would suggest that this is because our society no longer treats the Scriptures as a basis for knowledge. The Bible puts women under the headship and protection of men precisely because, without them, we don’t know what we want.

This is a reality we can’t escape from, as it goes all the way back to the garden. Eve was created specifically for Adam; his wants are her wants. On the other hand, without a man, a woman has a sense of purposelessness. A woman alone does not know what she wants. However, a woman with a man to follow, doesn’t have to worry about what she wants. She wants what he wants, of course.

So how are we to answer the question of “What does a woman want?” Simply like this: a woman most deeply wants to be told what to want. She doesn’t want to have to figure out what to want. She wants a man that she trusts and can follow without worrying about what she wants. Does he want it? Then, she wants it. He has his sights set on the future, she has her sights set on him. This is the beauty of God-created gender roles, and in this sense, men and women are truly complementary. She is his helper perfectly suited to him. 

Advertisements

Submission Doesn’t Mean Submit

This post was inspired by one of Dalrock’s articles in which he takes to task some complementarians who supposedly affirm male headship and female submission, but who in fact, do something close to the opposite. In his article, Dalrock quotes the popular complementarian, Mary Kassian (author of The Feminist Mistake) when she says,

“A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.”

Sadly, upon a close reading of her words, we see that her teachings rob submission of its meaning and instead embrace a washed-out form of biblical headship. Notice in particular the words in bold. Kassian claims that when and how to submit to one’s husband is totally up to the woman. So basically, if a woman doesn’t feel like submitting, she most certainly doesn’t have to.

There’s just one small problem: that’s not submission. Here is the basic definition: to submit is to “accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.” Obviously, Kassian fundamentally misunderstands (or denies) what submission actually means.

As seen from the quote above, Kassian opposes any “yielding of the will” or “accepting the force” of her husband’s authority. It seems that her (and others’: see first paragraph of this pdf) brand of complementarianism wants to remove the husband’s authority from the headship/submission paradigm. To her credit, this is all to the goal of making submission sound appealing to women. While that is an honorable goal, she and those who share her view are going about it in a backwards way. Instead of teaching the actual doctrine of submission, they insist on teaching its caveats, providing women with every reason and excuse not to submit.

If the woman herself is the only one forcing her to submit, she really doesn’t have to if she doesn’t want to. Her feelings are her own authority. This is NOT what the Bible teaches. Not one bit. It commands women to submit. It does not say that women must submit when they see fit, when they feel like it, or when they want to. The whole idea behind submission is bowing your will to someone else’s. It is precisely when we don’t want to submit that we are actually submitting. 

To be fair, as mentioned above, Kassian did write a book debunking secular feminism. However, I think she – and likely you and me – are largely blind to just how deeply feminism has wormed its way into the Christian worldview.

Female Exploitation of Males

Have men really been oppressing women throughout human history? Could there possibly be another explanation? Roy Baumeister argues in his book, “Is There Anything Good About Men?” that men build culture, while women are more concerned with sustaining it via intimate family relationships.

Building culture has the higher risk value, and historically, it has been men who have most often been willing to take on these risks. This is not the “fault” of men or of society; women could have done so if they desired, but their natures are not comfortable with risk. If they were, history would look much different. Instead of facing the challenges of culture-building, women were content to let men take them on. But now that the risk factor is far, far lower, women are moving into the world men created and demanding accommodation.

Consider this lengthy quote from Baumeister’s book:

“It is possible to interpret much of history as men oppressing women, especially if one does not look too closely and seeks only confirming evidence. But just as plausibly, one can spin a very different interpretation. Here’s another possible way to tell the story. Women kept themselves conveniently apart from the brutal, risky, and often painful strife and competition. Men fought bloody battles. Other men risked their savings in commerce, with some making fortunes and others going bankrupt. Men fought, risked, struggled, sought, suffered, and triumphed. Women mostly kept out of that. Certainly in the early years there was nothing to prevent groups of women from forming into military groups to fight battles for territory. Nor did anything prevent groups of women from engaging in manufacture and trade to create wealth. In fact a few women did, but only a very few. Only after a long wait, when the men had built up society into magnificent social structures with large corporations and other institutions, then only did the women come forward and demand to be given a place at the table they had not helped to build. Only after most of the risks and costs had been greatly tamed and everything was fairly safe did women venture forth. And even then they were not satisfied with getting an equal place: They demanded that the social structures the men built must be revised to make them more hospitable to women. Women insisted on affirmative action, special centers and support groups, and the changing of rules to suit their needs. These demands continue today and seem likely to go on forever, as women insist that there be special offices and accommodations and oversight bodies to take care of their special needs and demands and feelings. Women have played on men’s natural love for women and protectiveness toward women, exploiting men’s concern to convince men to switch things around for the betterment of women.”

Even if you don’t believe this hypothetical, at least let it teach you that there can be more than one way to spin history. And spinning history is precisely what the feminists are doing.

Reworking the System

If a woman can be held responsible for her actions when operating a vehicle while intoxicated, why should she not be responsible for her sexual behavior while drunk?

Drinking impairs reason. Granted. But women are not in a perpetual state of intoxication. Surely they are in control of what they drink and how much of it they consume? If not, should they not have learned by now not to go to the places where their rationality is automatically impaired inevitably resulting in rape?

Oh, but the feminists would argue that women should be allowed to go wherever they choose and drink however much they want without fear of assault. True. But unfortunately, we live on a place called earth, a planet populated by sinful human beings. I don’t take my children to the park at a questionable location in the middle of the night. It’s basic precaution. Likewise, if a woman knows the chances are higher of her being assaulted if she goes to certain places at certain times, should she not, at some point, arrive at the idea that maybe she shouldn’t go? 

The problem is, women aren’t thinking rationally. They don’t want to. Women would rather “have fun” and live the nightlife, drinking and sleeping around with as top tier of a man she can get. For a woman at the height of her SMV, this temptation to exercise her power is nearly irresistible. The allure of the admiration of multiple men and the affirmation it provides her self-esteem is too much to resist. But what women refuse to admit is the nightlife is a man’s domain. Nighttime enhances the vulnerability of women while simultaneously enhancing the daringness of men. Society does not impose these differences upon us. This is not society’s fault. 

It comes down to the nature and biology of the sexes (which is what feminists and their leftist friends truly hate, claiming that men and women are no different). Men are stronger than women, can overpower them, and can also handle more alcohol. All of these factors should be obvious warning signs, but women largely choose to ignore reality trusting in the law to protect them. Instead of adjusting their behavior according to potential danger, they rally and cry for legislation to aid them so that their “freedoms” will not be interfered with. Feminists demand the freedom to live how they please, while in the same breath demand that men cannot.

Instead of understanding that the sexes have been given certain traits and are wired to act in accordance with said traits, feminists deny the very existence of these traits. They refuse to accept biological, gender-influenced behavior and impose feminine characteristics onto society as the acceptable norm. 

So maybe these liberated women are thinking rationally after all. Not only have they learned how to work the system, they have rebuilt it to suit their sexual appetites.

Sluts Don’t Exist

The “slut” skipped the endangered species phase and went straight to extinct. Sluts are no more. 

A promiscuous woman was once considered a slut, but now, thanks to feminist liberation ideology, that is now common behavior among women. So instead of sticking with the original definition and applying a derogatory label to vast amounts of women, feminists have simply removed the derogation. They have shouted about their “right” to sleep with whomever they want without it being deemed slut-worthy behavior. 

There’s a name for this definition-twisting; it’s called equivocation. The feminists have hi-jacked the definition of the word “slut” without telling anyone they’ve done so. The word no longer means what it once meant and has now become next to definition-less. Really, who is a slut these days? The women who sleep around aren’t sluts, they’re just empowered. In their battle for “sexual liberation,” feminists have normalized promiscuity among women with the result that sluts are now commonplace. They’re so commonplace, that the word slut is now meaningless. 

However, some feminists do indeed claim the title in an ironic attempt at sarcasm. In typical feminist form, some women adopt the label in order to “stand in solidarity” with all of the other promiscuous women who have so outrageously been slut-shamed. We recently saw this demonstrated at the Women’s March where women donned the term “nasty” as if it weren’t true. Douglas Wilson tackled this faulty feminist reasoning perfectly: “[Ashley Judd] read a poem that began ‘IIII am a naaaasty woman.’ The rhetorical stance of her whole approach was to mock Donald Trump’s dismissal of Hillary as ‘such a nasty woman.’ But in order to mock something like that, it cannot be self-evidently true” (emphasis mine). 

What the few of us who haven’t been utterly brain-washed by feminism are compelled to swallow is that most women are, indeed, sluts. Feminists may try to change the definition, but it doesn’t change who they are or how they behave. They get to wear what they want, do what they want, and have sex with whomever they want, but all hell breaks loose if one dares apply a name to their behavior.

Feminism is constantly nagging at men to quit with the double standard (if men are promiscuous it’s ok, but if a woman sleeps around, she’s a slut), only to adopt their own double standard: we all get to sleep around and show ourselves off in public, but nobody gets to call anybody else a slut. Because if everyone is a slut, no one is a slut. This is the true nature of feminism; instead of lifting disreputable women out of their shame, feminism merely denies the shame, and, in order to prove it, brings all women to the lowest social level. In a sense, feminism has indeed succeeded in eradicating sluts, but they have done so only by making all women sluts.

Men Should Be More Patriarchal, Not Less

Men run the world. Women run the home. These roles are not interchangeable. Men are wired to attain, to make conquests, to take dominion. Women are wired to support, help, nurture. These tendencies obviously incline the genders toward their respective spheres (world and home). When these roles are uncontested, a society functions as it should.

If women, contrary to their original nature, left the home to run the world, who would run the home? The answer cannot be men; they will not give up their societal position (nor should they abdicate simply because women have); their own natures would prohibit it. So when some women leave the home, there are, consequently, less women to take care of the remaining children, who are thus raised by someone other than their parents, crippling society along the way.

How to stop this? Women must once again embrace their gender restrictions. And men need to stop letting women boss them around. The sexes have been endowed with these gender-specific traits and no amount of gender propaganda can change it completely. Unfortunately though, feminist propaganda has been largely successful. Feminism has managed to convince women that they would be happier by opposing their natures and competing in the world of men. Women now believe that because they have been restricted to their own sphere, they have been oppressed. This is not the case, however, since men are also restricted to their own spheres. 

For example, if a woman becomes a dominant player in the workforce; while, at the same time, her husband is staying home with their children, the husband is seen as belittled (or whipped, or cucked) in both men’s and women’s eyes. With feminism, women can do as they please and receive support from the majority. For men, it’s a lose-lose situation. If they stay home, they’re effeminate; if they are in the workforce, they are part of the oppression of women.

This is what happens when women are permitted to redefine society. When women take charge, men suffer. Further, what the feminists will never admit is that women also suffer when women are in charge. 

How?

In the evangelical Christian world in particular, and in the world in general, there is a female bemoaning of the loss of serious, committed men. They complain that there are no longer any men willing to take the ultimate plunge into matrimony. What they don’t own up to, though, is that this is a direct result of the feminization of the church and culture. 

Roy Baumeister argues in his book, Is There Anything Good About Men?, that it is men who create culture. Women are valuable to preserve and sustain relationships, families, and possibly even already-existing culture, but they do not create it. Cultural creation demands a nature willing to aggressively confront opposition and struggle even at great personal risk, which is a nature belonging in large part to men. 

Once men took the risk in creating culture and ensured a comfortable and safe society, the women demanded entrance. With the risk factor removed (or no longer an inevitability), the man’s world outside of the home became appealing to women. Simultaneously, the world of the home came to be viewed as stifling in comparison to a man’s life of supposed freedom. What the women failed to comprehend, however, was because men are the creators of society, society functions according to the social rules of males. As a result, when women entered this world, they were appalled by the treatment they received and began whining about oppression, patriarchy, male conspiracies, abuse, etc. In reality, though, the women were being treated no differently from how all of the men were treated. The women did not recognize that men and women are treated differently by men. Men do not behave toward men in the same way they behave toward women. 

Women inserted themselves into the man’s world. This very insertion, an aggressive and masculine act, was taken as an indication that women wanted to and could be treated like men. Thus, men treated them accordingly and were then left to scratch their heads as the women railed against them as misogynistic, sexist, and patriarchal. 

What we must see, is that it is the women who are to blame, not the men. It is the women who over-stepped their social bounds and placed themselves into a world in which they did not belong. Men are not to blame for being too patriarchal, they are to blame for not being patriarchal enough. Had they asserted their rights as men and kept women in their own domain (to which they are naturally suited), our society may have avoided many of the ills it now endures. 

About “FemaleAgainstFeminism”

I am a Christian woman whose eyes have been opened to the incredible dangers of feminism. I began to see this effect in the church when my husband and I lived in the heart of the evangelical world. Because of this, I write specifically toward Christian women, both those who have bought whole-heartedly into feminism, and to those into whom feminism has seeped, largely unawares.

I write because few do. Women willing to speak out against feminism are few. We, as a sex, are most comfortable when we all agree. Therefore, whichever is the prevailing ideology, we females will all get behind it and cling to its principles as our own. The few who dissent tend to do so quietly so as not to disrupt the sisterhood. I intend to disrupt the sisterhood. It is a false sisterhood and puts up a pretense of fighting for all women, when, in reality, it is the surety of their demise.

This blog is an attempt to oppose and dismantle the subtle, though lethal, influence of feminism.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑