Man, the master of destruction...

God's created order won't be violated forever. Traditions come and go, but, if patriarchy is woven through creation as Scripture indicates, the pendulum will one day turn. And when it does, it will destroy every feminist altar in its path, revealing father-rule to be every bit the law of creation that gravity is.

The question isn't whether the pendulum will turn, the real question is what the world will look like when it does. And that is a frightening thing to consider....

In a recent column, New York Times columnist David Brooks reflects the prevailing wisdom of Western society on manhood:

Forty years ago, men and women adhered to certain ideologies, what it meant to be a man or a woman. Young women today... are more like clean slates, having abandoned both feminist and prefeminist preconceptions. Men still adhere to the masculinity rules, which limits their vision and their movement.

Everywhere, the story is the same: men are losers in the modern interconnected world; men no longer wear the pants in the family economy; hookup culture is female empowerment; women don't need men like men need women; fatherhood is overrated, children really only need mothers....

Yet even as it's accepted that masculinity is a waning force in the West, our organs of influence and power are being forced to adapt to the resurgent patriarchy of fundamentalist Islam.

So, this weirdly admiring article in the New York Times celebrating Muslim women in France who defy French law by wearing the burqa in public...

And here, the Voice of America presenting Egypt's newly-veiled female newscasters as proof that the repressive Mubarak era is truly over. 

And finally, here, a New York Times article on a Muslim Brotherhood premarital counseling course in Cairo teaching loving male headship and female submission. The most startling thing about the course, in the view of the author, is the sight of young Egyptian women nodding in agreement:

At the group’s headquarters, in the densely populated Cairo neighborhood of Nasr City, Mr. Abou Salama...lectured on qualities to seek in a partner, getting acquainted under parental supervision, dealing with in-laws and consummating marriage. In his social paradigm, understanding that the woman was created to be an obedient wife and mother and that the man was created to fend for his family holds the secret to a happy marriage. 

“I want you to be the flower that attracts a bee to make honey, not the trash that attracts flies and dirt,” Mr. Abou Salama said as the women listened intently.

Western civic religion, which bows before every idol, honors in Islamic culture what it disdains in its own, masculine headship and feminine deference.

Which brings me to my point; the West is marching into the future with a scorched-earth policy toward the past. There can be no return to the days of Ozzy and Harriet or even of Billy and Ruth, the path is destroyed, the map has been burned. The gentle patriarchy that once defined American culture--a product of hundreds of years of Protestant teaching--is now just fuel for the furnaces of modern culture. We're shredding our Christian past with the vengeance of hatred.

When the West reembarks on the good ship Patriarchy, it will do so not under the benevolent authority of Jesus Christ, but under the repressive rule of Christless authority.

Because we will not have the patriarchal authority instituted and governed by God--and this is true in America today precisely because Christian men and Christian women have refused to serve as salt and light by embracing feminism and rejecting God's Word--patriarchy will return not as blessing but as scourge.

The pendulum will swing, and the power of its arc will be the anger and resentment of Western men reclaiming not the benign authority of submission to God's Word, but the evil capacity to destroy that is an inherently male consequence of the Fall.

The one great secular truth about the sexes that feminism dances around but never fully comes to grips with is this: women are nowhere near so good at destroying as men. Women nurture. Men, well, they play football... and rugby... and mixed martial arts, and they don't go onto the field or into the cage with women because, of course, it wouldn't be manly. It would be unfair to the girls.

In a word, men excel at destruction. Despite placing women in our fighter cockpits and behind the controls of our drones, and despite women marching in our infantry, when the order of the day is violence, men will be men. 

When Western men finally throw off the skirts of feminism, the day may well be ushered in by a spasm of cultural violence and destruction. Why? Because, though women can fly drones and pilot jets, when it comes to cold-hearted, in-your-face violence, women can't compete. It's a simple fact.

Don't believe that Westerners still possess the capacity for such violence? Consider for a moment that, unlike the West, most Arab countries outlaw abortion, and that despite North America's declining ratio of medical abortions (a result of the increase in chemical abortions) the incidence of surgical abortions in North America is nearly double the rate of Muslim western Asia. Western men excel at killing. The less patriarchal the culture, the more coldly proficient the killing.

I don't suggest that the violence that ends feminism will necessarily be man against woman. After all, feminism has always been as much a male conceit as female. But it is distinctly possible, perhaps even probable, that the event that will mark the pendulum's turn against feminism will be a baptism of violence which makes manifest once again the truth of God's created order.

And if this is the Divine decree against the rebellion of man at the heart of feminism, Christians will bear a major portion of the blame. Every caviling "complementarian" along with every egalitarian "Evangelical" will bear responsibility for the reign of terror to come.

If we will not heed God in peace and prosperity, God will send destruction. Read Ezekiel 21 if you doubt this.

Scripture warns that because the daughters of Zion are haughty the day is coming when, 

seven women
    will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
    and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
    Take away our disgrace!”

Feminism will never hold. God forbid that we should experience its demise as Divine judgment on our sin. Far better to repent.


Hi David,

You have written so much and provided so many links that there is no way that one person could comment intelligently on all this post, so I'll be the first to put my toe in the water.

First of all, I saw the David Brooks column in our local paper last week, and found parts of what Brooks wrote that you didn't include that were disconcerting, possibly because you thought they might take away from your main points, including:

  • The poor performance of boys in high school relative to girls
  • Women now earn 60% of the bachelor's and master's degrees in the U.S. (I've seen this in action. The liberal-arts college where my husband used to teach uses "affirmative action" for male students to keep their sex ratio of incoming classes at 55% women/45% men.)
  • Men's participation in the labor force is at an all-time low

All of these things do not bode well for the future of our country. 

Second, I didn't take the NY Times article, Who Wears Pants in This Economy? as an endorsement for radical feminism or as an attack on "whipped-puppy" men. (Maybe you didn't either and I just didn't catch it.)  I saw it as an honest explanation of the situation in many small cities like Alexander City, AL dependent on old-style manufacturing and what happened to the men whose jobs dried up when the factories went away. The women seemed more qualified (or were more willing to get trained for) the available jobs in the area than the men. It sounded like they certainly wished their husbands could have had their old jobs back and weren't putting them down because they were unemployed or underemployed. 

With respect to men in general retraining or returning to school in middle age or later, I sometimes wonder what stops some of them might be bad experiences in elementary, middle, or high school. As far as I know, boys have more learning disabilities than girls. If men attended school before teachers were trained to detect learning disabilities and there were teachers to alleviate them, this could give these men a bad impression about further education or training. 

Third, part of a certificate program I completed at our local community college included a management course. There was a lot of emphasis on communication, team building, collaboration, ways to get your team or employees get their jobs done without an autocratic management style, and so on. I'm certainly not implying that all or even most men are so brutish that they can't excel in this type of management style. But these attributes have historically been seen as more prevalent in women (fairly or unfairly). However, there are notable exceptions (Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or the Roman Catholic Sister who rapped one of my friend's hands with her ruler, for example).

Fourth, the article about the hookup culture was so sad and obviously shows the damage of this lifestyle to both young women and men. As I'm sure you agree, this can certainly be traced to a godless radical feminism culture that hurts both women and men.

My $2.00,


P.S. I used the term "radical feminist" to differentiate it from what I've heard called "equity feminists". As I understand it, equity feminists understand that men and women are inherently different from each other ways than just the fact that only women can have birth, although they also overlap in many of their character traits and abilities. An equity feminist believes that men and women have equal worth and value, that women should receive equal pay to a man doing the same work (accounting for time off for raising children), and women should have the same chance to try for any career field they feel qualified to pursue. I don't think that equity feminists would feel that women who took time off to be a stay-at-home mom, a work-at-home mom, or worked part-time would be "traitors to the cause". I don't they have a formal organization like NOW.

Sue, I don't have the references for this, but...

My sister recently completed her degree in Elementary Education. She said that in the Education program, over and over again, they learned about how the educational system is being tilted in favor of girls: In elementary school, recesses are being shortened or eliminated, making it more difficult for the energetic, aggressive boys to sit still during instructional times; in middle school and high school highly competitive projects--like spelling bees, science fairs, etc.--are being pushed to the side in favor of more collaborative group projects. The competitive, energetic and aggressive things are being supplanted by passive, relational and emotive things. Whether this is done deliberately in pursuit of a feminist agenda, or reactionarily to the perceived economic climate, it is well-known and widely acknowledged throughout the educational community that education in America today is tilted in the favor of girls succeeding, to the failure of many boys. So statistics about the success of girls and failure of boys in education aren't helpful, regarding the rightness or wrongness of the philosophical underpinnings of feminism.

Similarly, citations regarding so-called "learning disabilities" is equally unhelpful, if the "diagnoses" simply indicate that energetic little boys can't sit still during class. Maybe instead of ADHD diagnoses, maybe those energetic little boys need more recess time on the playground to help them sit still during instructional time. The explosion of "learning disability" diagnoses (and corresponding explosion in pharmaceutical treatment of them) doesn't indicate that boys today are less able to learn; more likely it indicates that feminists don't know how to teach them--and in their ignorance, drug them into passivity.

I agree with you that school classrooms are not set up to cater to boys, especially in the early grades. It must be a trend that's just getting worse over time. Heck, classrooms were set up that way and I went to elementary school in the 60's. But the things like shortening or eliminating recess are new and are as you say, more detrimental to boys than girls.  Personally, I think classrooms should have a healthy balance between individual and group activities. Working individually and on teams are both important skills to master.

When talking about learning disabilities, I was talking about something concrete and testable, like dyslexia. I used to be a volunteer tutor for adults with low reading levels. I once had a student who found out in his 40's that he was dyslexic and that was why he always had trouble reading.

I do think that ADD or ADHD is overdiagnosed, but just because it's overdiagnosed doesn't mean that it's real in some cases. One of my sisters has two sons, both of which were given the ADHD diagnosis. Her oldest son had a milder case that wasn't correctly diagnosed until was about to start high school (go figure). Subsequent to his diagnosis, they moved to a small city (population ~8,000) and the pediatrician prescribed Ritalin at the lowest possible dose. He suggested using it only at school and talked to a guidance counselor about the possibility of eventually weaning him off it. The school psychologist worked with Corey about study skills, note taking, writing down assignments before leaving class, etc., and his classroom teachers reinforced these behaviors. By his junior year, he was off Ritalin. He went on to graduate from community college, has a good job with a cable TV company and is married.

Her other son had a much more severe case of ADHD (confirmed by a pediatrician and a child psychologist), which was diagnosed in early elementary school. Coupled with the fact that Kevin is on the bubble between low normal IQ and mild mental retardation, life has been tough for Kevin. He was in a special ed classroom for most of his classes. Other than the fact that my sister has never tried to get him re-evaluated as an adult and possibly put on another medication, I have no doubt that his ADHD is real. 

Add new comment