Notes on Family, Men, Women, Marriage, Sex, Feminism, Mothering and Fathering, Inheritance, Etc.

The purpose of marriage according to Ephesians 5 is ultimately gospel symbolism. The husband and wife are icons of Christ the church. But they can only portray the gospel in their marriage if there is role differentiation between them. They each have a script, a part to play, and while there is all kinds of room for faithful improvisation within every marriage, the core roles are what they are. If he never initiates, leads, sacrifices, commands, provides, protects, loves, cherishes, and rules, then their marriage cannot portray the gospel. Likewise, if she does not respect, obey, honor, submit. Marriages that attempt to have an androgynous structure, in which husband and wife are more or less interchangeable pieces, preach a false gospel. Heretical marriages are inevitably unhappy power struggles. A marriage that preaches the orthodox gospel is a glorious thing, full of joy, and it serves as a powerful witness to the world. Marriage is the gospel. And the gospel is marital.

—

Most of what gets called “gentle parenting” these days is really just negotiating with terrorists. It doesn’t work with radical Muslims, and it won’t work with 2 year olds either.

—

Feminism is the unhappiest women in the world trying to convince the happiest women in the world that they’re really not happy.

—

The old saying, “If mama ain’t happy, no one is happy,” is an insult to women. It views women as emotional terrorists who manipulate others with threats of emotional outbursts to get their way. Mama’s emotions become the de facto authority in the home.

—

Many young women are voting for progressivism today because they treat the state as a substitute for patriarchy. They trust Caesar to protect and provide for them, to give safety and security, more than the men in their lives. But a lot of young men vote for statism as well, because they don’t want to have to take on the patriarchal responsibilities of protecting and providing, but would rather pass those responsibilities off to the state.

—

If young women use the state as a substitute patriarchy, expecting Uncle Sam to be a surrogate husband and father, young men are looking to influencers like Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes as a substitute patriarchy. None of this ends well. There is no substitute for the real patriarchy that God set up in the beginning.

—

Young men are being oppressed and yet being told they are the oppressors. They are being discriminated against while being told they have privilege.

—

Moms have real authority over their children. The 5th commandment, Proverbs 1, and numerous other texts make that clear.

But mom’s authority is subordinate to dad’s authority because he is the head of the household. She is to submit to him “in everything” (Eph. 5:24), obviously including how she exercises her motherly authority. The idea that mom and dad are “co-heads” over the children is asinine and absurd. Anything with two heads is a monster.

This story below is a perfect (and sad) example of what happens when God’s design for the structure of the family is disregarded. If mom thinks dad is making a mistake, she can bring it up with him later in private. In this case, she should have sided with her husband. Not only is teaching her daughter that whining will get her way; she is teaching her daughter to be a rebellious wife.

Moms have real authority over their children. The 5th commandment, Proverbs 1, and numerous other texts make that clear.

But mom’s authority is subordinate to dad’s authority because he is the head of the household. She is to submit to him “in everything” (Eph. 5:24), obviously… https://t.co/B5TcjvzYDC

— Pastor Rich Lusk (@Vicar1973) October 13, 2024

—

The point of Christian parenting is NOT to get your children to make A decision for Christ. Rather, it’s to get to them to make EVERY decision for Christ.

—

The biblical command for a wife to submit to her husband is not so much a test of her trust in her husband, but her trust in the divine design for marriage. When wives submit to their husbands (sin excepted), they are actually submitting to God.

—

A lot of people are looking into the effect that Nick Fuentes’ rhetoric has on young men right now. That should definitely be examined. But we should also be looking into the impact Fuentes’ messaging has on young women — even if they don’t listen to him, they will still be impacted by what he says and are likely to hear some of his most crass talking points somewhere along the way. The result of Fuentes’ messaging will be alienating young women from young men even more than has already happened. Young women will conflate Fuentes’ version of “patriarchy” with the biblical teaching on headship, be understandably repulsed by it, and it will further discredit *all* forms of masculine leadership in their minds. If the future of civilization depends on young people marrying and starting families, Fuentes is part of the problem, not the solution. Whereas Charlie Kirk wanted to bring the sexes together in marriage, Fuentes’ work will have the opposite effect.  

—

Men are warriors, women are nurturers.

—

The job of the man is to die for the woman. The job of the women is to give something worth dying for.

—

“Men are not supposed to be pushovers: just about every man that you meet in leadership in Scripture has killed someone.”

– Alastair Roberts

—

You will never hear a woman who has optimized her hypergamy in marriage complain about submission. The women who complain about submission are women who speak out of deep seated needs in their own marriages and then project those needs universally onto other marriages. If a woman’s husband fails to protect and provide in ways that soothe her anxiety, she figures all other husbands must be similar failures. The woman who trusts her husband’s headship, the woman whose husband maintains frame and acts out of his masculine core with competency and confidence, has no such misgivings, but takes her natural place as his submissive helper. She is happy to follow because he knows where he is going.

—

There are 4 major problems with the dating/marriage market today:

First, we have still not repented of the sexual revolution. We are still rejecting God’s sexual design as a society. Our culture still buys the lie that sex before marriage has no consequences, that decoupling sex from marriage is good for everyone, that premarital sexual experience is harmless fun. This lie is at the root of much of our cultural rot. We could solve many of our social problems if we got back shaming any kind of extramarital sex. The correlation between numerous premarital sex partners and the likelihood of divorce show that flaunting God’s law brings disaster. The sexual revolution is suicide at the civilizational level, and results in all kinds of guilt, shame, brokenness, loneliness, and misery at the personal level.

Second, many women want a traditional man who takes on all of the responsibilities husbands have traditionally carried, but they don’t want to have to be traditional women in any sense. Men see marriage as a bad deal – it’s all responsibility, no authority. Family courts tend to underwrite women’s preferences, punishing men if the woman decides to end the marriage. Why should a man risk his house, income, and access to his children if his wife decides to move on? Meanwhile, women see any kind of traditionally feminine role in marriage as oppressive. Women today do not want to submit to a husband (though submitting to a boss at work is no problem). Many women openly reject motherhood. All of this creates a total mismatch – traditional men and progressive woman simply can’t form a happy, stable marriage. The cultural and political gender gap has to be narrowed – and that means women have to adopt a more traditional (and biblical) frame.

Third, a related point: one of the ingredients to a happy marriage is sexual polarity. It’s not the only ingredient, but it’s a necessary one. The masculine is drawn to the feminine and the feminine is drawn to the masculine. But when you depolarize the sexes (as feminism has done), you weaken the male/female bond. We have masculinized our women. We have lots of effeminate, emasculated men. This sexual reversal kills attraction and sets us up for disaster. When I see young people online complaining about today’s dating and marriage prospects, it often seems as if men and women don’t even like each other anymore. We have gone against the grain of nature, and so we’re getting splinters.

Fourth, people are figuring out way too late in life what they actually want. A lot of people today are into their mid 30s before realizing they need and want marriage. Why haven’t they been taught better? For most people, marriage and children are essential to a fulfilling, purposeful life. This is not a cosmic secret – it’s obvious – but our culture is brainwashing young people to think they should put off marriage as long as possible. The culture tells young people life ends when you get married; the truth is the opposite. Marriage matures people. Marriage gives people the opportunity to build a legacy, to have a stake in the future. Young people need to develop a plan and vision for life, and act on it, much earlier. Obviously there are economic factors driving later marriage that need to be dealt with at the macro level. But it’s still unhealthy and unnatural for the average age of marriage to be hitting thirty years old.

—

There are many people who rightly oppose transgenderism, but still don’t know what a woman is (or what a woman is for), and because they don’t know what a woman is, they don’t know what a man is, or what a family is. Therein lies the crisis of our age.

—

A note on Genesis 3 and feminism:

The serpent on the garden got the woman to question God’s goodness, to view God’s commands as oppressive.

Interestingly, feminism does the exact same thing to modern women, telling them God’s design for womanhood is oppressive. The voice of feminism, like the voice of the serpent, contradicts God’s word and breeds discontentment in women.

One might be tempted to conclude that feminism is Satanic.

Meanwhile, Adam bought into the “happy wife, happy life” myth. Instead of standing up to his wife and commanding her to not eat of the fruit, he gave in to her. He decided it was more important to please his wife than please God. He feared her more than God. He did what she wanted rather than what God wanted. He abdicated his position of headship and submitted himself to his wife – just like the feminists would want a man to do. And unsurprisingly, it resulted in disaster, spiritually and maritally.

—

People who refuse to pass along an inheritance to their children either did a poor job parenting (raising children who aren’t trustworthy or mature enough to handle it) or they are basically communists (Marxism’s attack on the family included destroying all inherited property).

—

To be a good husband a man must be a good man who is good at being a man. To be a good wife, a woman must be a good woman who is good at being a woman To put it another way: a good marriage combines spiritual virtue with sexual polarity. Or to put it still another way, a good marriage combines gendered piety with gendered complementarity. Or to put it one more way: a good marriage combines sanctified masculinity with sanctified femininity.

—

A red pill proverb: the only thing a wife likes less than a husband she can’t control is a husband she can control. Every wife knows that if her man cannot stand up to her he cannot stand up for her. And that leaves her deeply insecure.

—

Adam failed to protect his wife in the garden and women have had their doubts about men ever since.

—

“The husband is still the head of the family and is clothed with authority, not by virtue of the approval of his wife and his children, but on his own account, by virtue of the right bestowed by God. From the husband proceeds the choice of marriage partner, the power of procreation, the establishment and maintenance of the family. He is still priest, insofar as he leads in prayer and in reading God’s Word, and attends to the religious interests of his household. He is still instructor and teacher, insofar as he provides leadership to his wife and children by means of greater wisdom, wider experience, and clearer judgment. He is still the head of his wife, insofar as he dwells with her not as a king over his subjects or a master over his slaves, but with understanding, honoring her as the weaker vessel, and as the stronger and bigger person he serves one who is weaker and smaller, loving and protecting her, even as Christ does for his church. He is still the father of his children, not only by virtue of begetting them, but also insofar as he goes before them and leads them, encourages and strengthens them, warns and disciplines them. He is still the representative of the family outside the home, insofar as he gives the family his name, his position, his honor, functioning by acting in its name and serving its interests. People can differ about whether he may be considered worthy of exercising the privilege of participation through political vote merely and simply as family leader; but when he does so, he exercises that privilege not as an individual, but as the head of the family. In a word, the authority of the husband and father has in our society been significantly modified; it has received a far more rational, moral, and personal character, but it nonetheless continues in this modified form; in its essence it is indestructible. The wife has a different place and task in the family. If the husband is the head, then the wife is the heart of the family. The husband brings in the fruits of his labor, the wife distributes them according to each one’s need; the husband gives, the wife receives; the husband establishes the family, the wife preserves the family; the husband conceives the child, but the life of the child is intimately developed along with that of the mother far more than with that of the father; the husband lives in society, the wife lives in her family; the husband exercises “power directed outward and influence directed inward,” the wife exercises “power directed inward and influence directed outward.” Just as the husband is independent in his work and must nevertheless labor with a view to the interests of his family, so too the wife is independent within the family, but in such a way that she thereby remains bound to her husband through moral relationships. When according to his duty the husband brings in the reward of his toil for maintaining the family, then the wife takes that reward in receipt and apportions it according to the need of each. She organizes the household, arranges and decorates the home, and supplies the tone and texture of home life; with unequaled talent she magically transforms a cold room into a cozy place, transforms modest income into sizable capital, and despite all kinds of statistical predictions, she uses limited means to generate great things. Within the family she preserves order and peace, because she knows the character of each person and knows how to supply the needs of each. She protects the weak, tends the sick, comforts the sorrowing, sobers the proud, and restrains the strong. Far more than the husband, she lives along with all her children, and for the children she is the source of comfort amid suffering, the source of counsel amid need, the refuge and fortress by day and by night. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and her children call her blessed.” — from Herman Bavinck’s The Christian Family

—

If Paul’s teaching on a wife’s submission to her husband is just a reflection of a cultural convention, then his command that husbands love and cherish their wives must be a cultural convention too. This is sheer madness, obviously. The Bible is the Word of God. Its authority and applicability transcend time and culture. It says what it says, and it means what it says.

—

The man’s competent and loving headship and the wife’s obedient and humble respect are not only practical necessities to a happy marriage, they are romantic necessities.

—

The gospel makes a Christian man a better husband. The gospel makes a Christian woman a better wife.

—

Nothing makes a wife more unhappy than being married to a man who thinks “happy wife, happy life” is good advice

—

I think Christians in past eras would find the modern notion that you need to read a book (or many books) to teach you how to be married very odd What could possibly be more natural than marriage? How can a book teach you to be a husband or wife? Unfortunately cultural trends and pressures have made it difficult for a man and woman to be happily married

—

Feminists say they want to smash the patriarchy. They attack the Bible’s teaching that a man is the head of his wife. But if women were made to respond to male leadership, why is this? Why do feminists act contrary to their own best interests? 1/3

Anytime a woman moves in an egalitarian/feminist direction, I know it is because  she has been let down by a man who should have taken responsibility for her (typically a father or husband). If a married woman attacks the idea of male headship, I know that it is at some level because she does not respect/admire her husband. And to be honest, when I look at the men these women are married to, it is often understandable why they rebel against the idea of male headship, though this is not justificaton for their rejection of God’s design. 2/3

Feminism in general, as a societal wide movement, and particular women moving in a feminist direction, is inseparable from the emasculation of men. But feminism is a destructive response to the failure of men. If men are insufficiently masculine, as C. S Lewis pointed out, it is no cure at all to call in those who are not masculine at all. If men are bad husbands, attempting role reversal will not solve the problem since women will make even worse husbands.  3/3

—

Psalm 128 describes the familial blessings that come upon the man who fears God. It does not describe the blessings that come upon the man who fears his wife because there are none. Fear of God is blessed; fear of wife is not. Adam feared his wife. He “heeded the voice of his wife” (Genesis 3:16) and brought the curse upon himself and the world. He could not stand up to her so he could not stand up for her in the garden.

From one angle, the original sin on Adam’s part was effeminacy; it was a failure of masculine headship. Adam was the original simp.

Abraham also failed to tell his wife “no” when he should have. Instead, repeating the pattern of Adam’s sin in Genesis 3, he “listened to the voice of Sarai” (Genesis 16:2) and slept with Hagar. He feared his wife and submitted to her wicked plan instead of leading her in righteousness, waiting on God to fulfill the promise in his way.

By contrast, Job stood up to his wife and rebuked her after she despaired and told him to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9). He did not fear his wife; he feared God. He was blessed accordingly.

Far too many men today are more wife-fearing than God-fearing. They might excuse this by calling it “servant leadership” but in reality, these men are castrating themselves. They are denying their own masculinity. They heed their wives rather than lead their wives.

It’s true, there is such a thing as toxic masculinity – but toxic masculinity is not only seen in men who become overbearing tyrants, but also in men who become passive abdicators. Instead, we should strive for sanctified masculinity – and sanctified masculinity arises from the fear of God. God-fearing men understand the wisdom of God’s design for family life and lovingly lead their families accordingly, and thus experience the blessings described in Psalm 128.

—

Fathers need to coach their sons in two main areas as they get older: work and wife. A father needs to prepare his son for a productive vocation. In the “old days,” when most sons apprenticed under their dads and then took over the family business or farm, this was rather simple. Today it’s more complicated, but therefore all the more necessary. A father must set up his son so his son can provide for his own family. He must teach his son a work ethic, he must help his son acquire skills that have value in the marketplace, and he must teach his son how to handle the fruits of his labor (eg, how to save and invest money). Fathers also need to coach their sons in how to choose and pursue a woman to be his wife. Think of Solomon in Proverbs instructing his son in what kind of woman to avoid and what kind of woman to seek. Too many dads do not give their sons adequate guidance in this area. A father should be able to explain female nature to his son, help his son understand what it takes to be a godly husband, help his son develop sexual self control (which starts with learning more basic forms of self-discipline even before puberty), and do everything necessary to set up his son for a successful marriage. Work and wife – these are two basic areas the creation mandate deals with, they are the two basic themes of Proverbs, and they are the two areas where fathers need to train their sons for success.

—

There are many married couples who reject God’s design for marriage (husband as head, wife as helper) and then wonder why their marriages are so unhappy. Another illustration of the principle: when you go against the grain of reality, you are bound to get splinters.

Violating God’s Word and then asking why you are so miserable is like hitting your hand with a hammer and then wondering why it hurts.

—

There are a lot of men who are not worthy of leading a family
They do not have the character, wisdom, or stability to guide their households
They lack discipline and gravitas

This does not mean they aren’t the head
It just means their wives and children suffer under their headship and often have to compensate for the man’s severe failings

A man is inescapably the head of his family – and that means he bears the burden of making sure he is capable of leading his family well
He may be a good head or a bad head, but his headship is an ontological fact

A lot of times, a wife will react negatively to the Bible’s teaching on submission/respect because she knows that her husband is simply not capable of leading well
If a woman is married to a Nabal, she has to learn to be an Abigail

—

We should be committed to giving covenant children a Christian education – but not primarily for pragmatic reasons (eg, because it “works” to get a desired result)

We should be committed to Christian education as a matter of obedience to Scripture, particularly commands given to parents in Deuteronomy 6:7 and fathers in Ephesians 6:4

—

Young men are having a crisis of confidence – and it’s impacting a lot more than dating
Some of this loss of confidence is due to fatherlessness, some of it is due to other cultural forces arrayed against them
But whatever the cause, young men need to recover resilience, grit, and the indomitable spirit that has traditionally characterized young men, of whom Solomon said, “their glory is their strength”
I go into this topic in a recent conference talk here:

https://trinity-pres.net/audio/24-08-02Branchville2.mp3

—

The Bible commands wives to respect their husbands. But many Christian husbands do not feel respected by their wives.

To a large degree this is because women do not understand respect in the same way as men. For a woman to respect her husband, she has to understand what men perceive as respect, not what she might be prone to think of as respect in a feminine frame.

Women tend to think of respect as being considerate and thoughtful. Respect means being respectful. Respect means speaking kindly. It easily degenerates into being “nice.”

But that’s not what respect means for men. For men, respect means honor. It means recognition, especially for competence and achievement.

A woman who treats her husband more as a child than a man is not respecting him. Mothering a man is the antithesis of respecting him. A woman who nags her husband and constantly tries to tell him what to do and how to do is not respecting him. A wife needs to trust her husband in order to respect him. A woman who respects her husband will express gratitude for the ways he fulfills his masculine duties/responsibilities.

—

If a wife will not submit to her husband, the problem is not that she thinks she knows better than her husband. The problem is that she thinks she knows better than God.

—

Quite a few wives are “people pleasers” when it comes to everyone except for their husband. They care way too much about what everyone else thinks and way too little about what he thinks.

—

One of the key ways we learn wisdom is by coming to appreciate the perspective of the opposite sex on reality. Thus, when a man lives with his wife in an understanding way (cf. 1 Peter 3), he grows in wisdom.

—

In Genesis 3, Adam emasculates himself in multiple ways.
First, he fails to protect his wife when the serpent invades the garden.
Second, he follows her into sin when they eat the forbidden fruit, rather than leading her in righteousness.
Third, when God confronts him about what he has done, he blames her as if he were the victim, rather than taking responsibility.

—

The Bible commands wives to respect their husbands. But many Christian husbands do not feel respected by their wives.

To a large degree this is because women do not understand respect in the same way as men. For a woman to respect her husband, she has to understand what men perceive as respect, not what she might be prone to think of as respect in a feminine frame.

Women tend to think of respect as being considerate and thoughtful. Respect means being respectful. Respect means speaking kindly. It easily degenerates into being “nice.”

But that’s not what respect means for men. For men, respect means honor. It means recognition, especially for competence and achievement.

A woman who treats her husband more as a child than a man is not respecting him. Mothering a man is the antithesis of respecting him. A woman who nags her husband and constantly tries to tell him what to do and how to do is not respecting him. A wife needs to trust her husband in order to respect him. A woman who respects her husband will express gratitude for the ways he fulfills his masculine duties/responsibilities.

—

Nancy Pearcey:

“Men do not find their true self by escaping relationships and riding off into the sunset like a lone ranger. They find their authentic manhood in their core relationships: to God, their wife, their children, their extended family. The phrase ‘be fruitful’ also means to build up the social institutions that historically grow out of the family [including] schools businesses, governments, charities, and community associations…The best strategy for men to validate their identity, then, is to roll up their sleeves and invest more deeply in their families and in creative work that builds up and benefits the human community. The cultural mandate summon up men’s drive to achieve, to accomplish, to have an impact.”

—

Blaming feminism for various things is not the same as blaming women. Opposing feminism does not make you some kind misogynist. In fact, I think those who appreciate femininity must oppose feminism because feminism destroys femininity. What I have noticed for quite some time now is that anyone who seeks to hold a woman accountable for her actions (and in more extreme cases, a husband who does not give his wife whatever she wants) will be accused of misogyny. Like inflated charges of racism against whites that no longer have much punch, our culture has so inflated charges of misogyny against men, they carry little weight (which ironically makes it possible for real misogynists to get away with their vile words and abusive behavior).

The reality is that the church for generations now has been much harder on men’s sins than on women’s sins, and this has had an impact. It’s a red pill proverb: Go to any evangelical church that does Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in the service (a bad idea, I know, but bear with me for illustrative purposes). Praise will be heaped on mothers on Mother’s Day. The thought that some mothers are actually not very good mothers, that there is such a thing as toxic femininity or “vampire mothers,” never enters the picture. On the other hand, on Father’s Day, men will be berated for all their failings. Men will be told to “man up” and “do better.” The same kind of double standard applies to things like family court. A single mom who cannot take care of her children is given given government housing. A man who refuses to pay his child support, for most any reason, is thrown into prison (a rather different sort of government housing!).

The apostle Paul had no problem confronting women’s sins, just as he confronted men’s sins. He even called out sinful women by name. He also did not hesitate to speak of characteristic, stereotypical sins in each sex. Pastors today are much more reluctant to do that kind of thing. We tend to default to feminine standards of piety and expectations, rather than understanding that masculine piety will look quite different from feminine piety. And women are hardly ever confronted directly — perhaps because of a misguided notion of chivalry, or for some other reason. This failure to confront women has opened the door to the feminization of the church.

Further, the whole notion of the clergy as “the third sex,” a sort of androgynous being, is, sadly, often not far from the truth. Pastors, like many evangelcial publishing houses, tend to cater to women. Ann Douglas’s book on the feminization of American culture has some interesting things to say about this; Douglas is a feminist who thinks the feminization of American culture has been in good every area of life (she’s wrong about this, of course), excepting the church (she’s obviously right about this).

To come at this another way, feminism and fatherlessness are the two sides of the same crisis. We could talk about cause and effect and who’s to blame, to no end, but it does not change the fact that virtually all of our social ills are just symptoms of this deeper nexus of problems, feminism/fatherlessness. Any reformation of civil society, any rebuilding of social capital, has to take this into account. Any church that wants to play a role in discipling our nation has to take this into account. Go talk to pastors in the inner city — the good ones I have talked to say the biggest issues they face are (1) no one gets married, they just keep having kids out of wedlock, and (2) fathers are just not around. Everything else comes unglued because of those problems. Without dads, everything falls into chaos.

In general, feminism is the ideological, academic “white collar” version of this, and fatherlessness is the inner city, impoverished version. But they are the same thing, just under different guises.

—

I use the term “patriarchy.” What do I mean by it?

James Jordan rejected patriarchy in the sense that Rushdoony advocated it. That was a particular expression of patriarchy — and I think a very unhealthy one because it essentially set the family up as a rival against the church. It was a kind of family-based tribalism. In that sense, I have been critical of patriarchy and continue to be. I know churches that tried that kind of patriarchy for a while, but it failed and they have backed off of it now. I do not know any current advocates of that kind of patriarchy, though I am sure some are out there. It seems to have largely died off.

What I mean by patriarchy is just the traditional Christian view that fathers rule (e.g., read Steve Ozment’s book for a picture of what this looked like at the time of the Reformation). Or more broadly, the truth that men are called to serve as rulers. This is true across the board, in church, family, and society. Each sphere is a patriarchy in its own way. That’s not to say there isn’t the occasional Lydia who will serve as the head of her household and run a business, but those are exceptional circumstances, not the norm. Creation is designed with an in-built patriarchal structure. Men are made to rule. Indeed, male rule is inescapable. Virtually every society that we know of from all of history has had a patriarchal structure of some sort, where men take primary responsibility for the civic life of the community and women are primarily domestic. This sexual division of labor is built into the fabric of reality. You can get at it different ways (e.g., Alastair Roberts has spoken of men forming and women filling), but it is inescapable. We should not be overly rigid or legalistic in how we seek to establish and enforce these patterns, but in any healthy society these patterns will be fostered. When they are not, society unravels.

That is to say, the patriarchy is not a social construct. It is biologically driven. It is a divine design feature. We can rebel against it, but to our own hurt. The patriarchy cannot be smashed, but the (attempted) matriarchy must be.

There are certainly toxic forms of patriarchy. And certainly patriarchy has been used to justify all kinds of terrible things, just as feminism has. But the answer is not to do away with the patriarchy, it’s to build better patriarchs — men who rule themselves and are therefore fit and capable of ruling their families in wisdom and love as they extend the dominion of their household into the world.

All that said, if someone wanted to substitute another term for patriarchy, I would be fine with it. I often use the term “headship.” But the “patriarchy” has made a comeback in recent years, and a lot of the folks using the label are doing good things with it.

—

A red pill proverb: A man will run through a wall for a wife who brings him peace and shows him respect.

It’s rather odd that more women don’t know this basic truth about masculine nature and even more odd that many women who do still refuse to put it into practice.

Women who bring strife and drama into their husband’s lives, or women who beat their husbands down with disrespectful jabs and insults, drive their husbands away and emasculate them. Women vastly underestimate how much men value peace in the marriage relationship. As a rule, men do not enjoy arguing with women, which is why so many men become simps; the normal man does not want conflict with his wife because men were made to fight for women, not with women.

Further, women underestimate how much their respect can fuel a man’s ambition and drive to do great things for her and the family. By nature, men want to be providers and protectors; a man never feels more manly than when he is able to see his family enjoying the fruits of his labor. But a man whose wife has undercut his confidence will never be as productive as he could have been. There’s an old saying, “Behind every successful man is a woman who enabled it” – and it really is true. A wife can make or break her husband, but not nearly enough women know they have this power and or know how to use it for good.

—

Feminism has been a civilizational-wide test that men have failed.

Feminism proved Western men are simps, more concerned with pleasing women than God.

Feminism proved Western men are soft, more concerned with giving women what they want than doing what is right or what is needed for their nations to survive and thrive.

—

Some husbands think they are being gracious by not correcting their wives when they are disrespectful, but actually it is not gracious at all. It’s actually paving the way for disaster. Such a man is allowing the foundation of his household to be subverted. He is refusing to maintain peace and order at his home. He is refusing to fulfill and defend his God-given office as husband. And when a wife is disrespectful to her husband, it’s very likely that her disrespect will grow over time if he does nothing about it. She doesn’t respect him – and when he does not correct her disrespect, she disrespects him even more because she sees he cannot stand up to her. This is why “nice guys” end up in miserable marriages, or on the wrong side of a divorce settlement. 

Tolerating this kind of disrespect in the home is also bad for the children. They see their father being soft and passive, and their mother dominating him with her disrespectful comments. They will grow up to disrespect authority as well, probably starting with their own parents. They will not be given a model of what a good, strong, healthy, and happy marriage looks like. Sons will grow to resent women, daughters will grow to despise men. 

Of course, husbands must not be harsh in correcting their wives, any more than parents can be harsh in disciplining children. He should correct her disrespect in a way that is worthy of her respect – he should be firm and gentle at the same time. But he must correct it. To accommodate a wife’s disrespect in the hope of keeping peace is sure to destroy the peace of the home. Men, if your wife is disrespecting you, put an end to it. It is not arrogant to insist that your wife treat you with respect. Much more is at stake than just getting the respect you are entitled to by the Word of God – the well-being of your own marriage and the future marriages of your children could be at stake as well.

—

According to 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, Adam became a cuckold in the Garden of Eden. He stood by and watched as his wife committed spiritual adultery with the serpent.

—

“Parents should supervise less in the real world and more in the virtual.”

— Jonathan Haidt on parenting

—

“Parents should supervise less in the real world and more in the virtual.”

— Jonathan Haidt on parenting

—

Parenting and discipline:

In order for a parent to effectively discipline a child, he must first discipline himself. A parent who lacks emotional and verbal self-discipline will never successful discipline a child. As in so many other areas of life, you have to start with yourself. You have to lead yourself before you can lead others and you have to discipline yourself before you can discipline others.

—

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s suffragist and feminist views were rooted in Darwinian evolution and a higher critical view of the Bible that treated the OT as “Jewish mythology.” Her goal was to “liberate” women from God’s Word by exonerating Satan. She denied a historical fall, and therefore denied the Bible’s teaching on sin and redemption. Feminism was never an off-shoot of Christian faith or even a “Christian heresy;” it was a rival to Christian faith from the beginning. It was a revival of pagan androgyny. Here are Stanton’s own words:

“If we accept the Darwinian theory, that the race has been a gradual growth from the lower to a higher form of life, and that the story of the fall is a myth, we can exonerate the snake, emancipate the woman, and reconstruct a more rational religion for the nineteenth century, and thus escape all the perplexities of the Jewish mythology as of no more importance than those of the Greek, Persian and Egyptian.”

—

“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your children after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your children after you.” (Genesis 17:7)

God never rescinded this promise. It is still in force.

Christian parenting is not law, it is gospel. It is rooted in this promise.

Christian parenting is not a matter of technique or keeping certain commands (though keeping commands is important). It is fundamentally a matter of faith.
The good works Christian parents do in teaching, training, nurturing, and disciplining are not just works, they are works of faith — works driven and empowered by faith in the covenant promise.

Christian parenting is not a matter of evangelizing their children, hoping he will embrace a covenantal identity; it is a matter of discipling the child in an identity God has already given him.

The prayers of Christian parents for their child should start with and flow out of this promise, recognizing God is already the God of the child.
Christian parenting recognizes that grace restores nature, including the family. The child is fallen, a sinner under wrath by nature; but by virtue of the covenant promise, he is a disciple and a member of God’s covenant household, the church. if Adam and his wife had not fasllen into sin, their children would have been God’s children from the beginning; the covenant restores this reality, albeit under fallen conditions.

Christian parents are branches on the olive tree of the covenant. This means their children are natural branches on the tree. They are holy and beloved. A first generation Christian is a wild olive branch grafted into the tree; but when he has children, those children are born on the tree. They should be counted and treated as such.

Christian parents should bring their children to Jesus in every way, just like parents brought their children to Jesus. They should bring their children to Jesus by teaching them the Word of God from infancy, just as Timothy’s mother and grandmother did. They should bring their children to the waters of baptism, where they can be united to Christ, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. They should bring their children to the table as soon as they are able to eat and drink, so they can commue with their Savior. They should pray with their children; absolve their children of sin when they confess and repent; they should impose Christian standards of behavior on their children in age-appropriate ways.

Again, Christian parenting is rooted in the promise. Christian parents should claim the promise, rest in the promise, and raise their children in light of the promise.

—

Dalrock on women desiring military combat roles and Deuteronomy 22:5:

“A woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress. Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing. Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted. It also raises an interesting parallel for those modern Christians who are far more animated in their concern at the potential for women being drafted into combat than they are about a mass desire of women to have the right to to usurp men’s roles.”

—

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are can abomination to the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

The word for what “pertains to a man” specifically refers to military gear. Women are forbidden from being soldiers, from serving in regular combat as members of the armed forces. Women who suit up for battle are practicing a form of cross-dressing because they are taking on a role that does not belong to them — it’s the moral equivalent of a man who puts on a dress and heels. That’s God’s law.

The point: Women do not defend the nation. They are what the men defend. Women do not do the fighting; they are the ones the men are fighting for. Men and woman have different glories; in this instance, it’s the man’s glory to defend, and the woman’s glory to be defended.

—

I do not see how parents who hand their children over to unbelievers to be trained and formed can claim to obey Deuteronomy 6:7-9. That’s what it comes down to. Christian children should be taught and trained as Christians.

—

A post on parenting from April 24, 2025:

The most important earthly work we do in this life is raise our children. Everything else we do, except for the worship of God, is subordinate to this end, and even the worship of God includes it.  Christian parents must recognize this. It does not matter how successful you are, how much you accomplish in work or ministry, how much wealth you accumulate, how many public accolades you get, how much fame you attain —  if your children turn against you and/or turn away from the Lord, it’s all for naught. What good would it do to have millions of dollars in middle age or in your later years, if your children hate you or hate the Lord? What good would a mountain house or lake house be if your kids are estranged from you or from Jesus? What good is a family vacation if your family ends up spiritually fractured? 

Obviously, in God’s providence, there are hard situations. I’m not trying to make Christian parents with apostate children feel worse than they already do. Some cases of children who grew up in Christian homes and later apostatized are tough because it can look like the parents did everything right. But I’m not concerned here with those difficult cases. I’m much more concerned with helping young Christian parents and parents-to-be focus on the task at hand so they can do it well and experience the full blessings of God’s multi-generational covenant.  

Here’s what’s frustrating: Many Christian parents do not take their parental responsibilities all that seriously. And many churches do not help them take those responsibilities seriously. The results speak for themselves: all too many children raised in Christian homes are lost to the world. Given the reality that having apostate children is perhaps the greatest trial any Christian can deal with, it’s shocking that so many churches give so little time and energy to training parents how to raise their children biblically. Perhaps no other issue (other than marriage, which is equally important in this way) factors into our earthly happiness than our relationship with our children. “Once you are a parent, you can never be happier than your least happy child,” as the old saying goes. But how much teaching do most Christian parents get in their churches about the promises God makes to parents? How much teaching do they get on covenant succession? How much instruction is there about the multi-generational nature of God’s covenant? How much teaching do parents get concerning what it means to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Or what the Bible says about education and discipline? Or inheritance? The stakes are so high, yet much of the church seems to invest so little.  

Certainly a great deal of earthly joy is lost because so many Christians parents simply don’t know what they are doing. So much kingdom growth is lost, since when we lose our children to the world, the aim of creating Christian culture and civilization is made impossible. And of course, souls are lost through parental neglect.  

In general, Christian parents need to be more diligent and more sacrificial. They need to be more conscientious when it comes to making decisions about discipline and education. And pastors and church leadership need to make teaching and preaching on wise and faithful parenting a priority. Parenting cannot be outsourced – God holds parents (especially fathers) responsible for how they nurture and train their children, and no one can take this task off their plate. But churches (especially pastors) have a responsibility to help parents as they undertake this massive work.

—

Proverbs was written to train young men into good men, godly men, glorious men. Proverbs trains young men in their mission – centered in the fulfillment of the Creation Mandate to be fruitful and multiply, to rule and take dominion (this why so much of Proverbs is about a man’s wife and his work). Proverbs is kingly wisdom imparted to young princes. 

—

“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment” (Romans 12:3) is not only good counsel for church life, it’s also good dating advice. Many people have passed up good matches because of an inflated sense of their own value. 

A related piece of dating advice for young people: While young men have great opportunities to increase their attraction value over time if they work hard, women will inevitably lose their attraction value. This one more reason why the lies feminism has told young women (which lies are magnified by social media) are incredibly destructive.

Related: it’s interesting that many women complain about the low quality men they attract, and then blame the men, rather than asking hard questions about themselves.

—

Husbands are not “spiritual” leaders, they are “everything” leaders. The command is not, “wives, submit to your husbands in spiritual matters” (who polices the boundaries of what is spiritual anyway?).  The command is, “wives, submit to your husbands in everything.” 

—

Many men get frustrated because their wives seem to carry a lot of fears and anxieties, most of which seem irrational to men. But I tell husbands to look at this way: her fears and anxieties are your opportunity to be her hero as you rescue her from them, and make her feel safe and cherished. A man who knows and understands his wife’s inner struggles can increase his wife’s respect for him by guiding her through those struggles. But to do this, he cannot get frustrated or angry with her; he cannot get caught up in those fears and anxieties; he cannot become impatient or harsh with her. Instead, he has to be a calm, steady, dependable presence in her life. 

Bottom line: Men, your wife is the weaker vessel, and this is often manifested in things that cause her fear and anxiety. Instead of losing patience with her in those situations, see them as opportunities to display your masculine strength and increase her respect for you.

—

If a feminist has ever made a man happy, it was on accident.

—

The phrase “servant leadership” is redundant.

Leadership is service.

Many men are afraid of their authority because they don’t want responsibility.

But if you don’t exercise your authority to lead you are still responsible.

You cannot escape God’s design.

—

Headship and submission are crucial to a peaceful marriage. There is no such thing as a democracy of 2, and no such thing as 50/50 leadership.

—

Just like engines need oil to lubrucate them and keep them from overheating, family life needs the grace of constant confession, repentance, and forgiveness. 

—

“The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it…. For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.”

— John Calvin

This is why, in Genesis 17, the male child who was NOT circumcised is considered a covenant breaker. In some sense, he was already in covenant with God BEFORE receiving circumcision as a sign of the covenant promise.

—

“The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it…. For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.”

— John Calvin

This is why, in Genesis 17, the male child who was NOT circumcised is considered a covenant breaker. In some sense, he was already in covenant with God BEFORE receiving circumcision as a sign of the covenant promise.

—

Grace does not destroy testosterone, it restores it.

—

Our culture has demonized masculinity. Masculine strength is considered dangerous and toxic. Masculine ambition is replaced by “everyone gets a trophy.” The masculine desire for competition on the ball field is considered a violation of egalitarianism. The masculine desire for competition in the marketplace (capitalism, or the free market) is attacked an unfair, and there is a desire to replace it with a socialized economy, a universal basic income, etc. Masculine hobbies – football, guns, cars – are all under attack.

Many men have become ashamed of their masculine nature. They embrace a kind of effeminacy, thinking it will make them more attractive (it doesn’t). Many men simp for women, embracing feminism and other leftwing causes like abortion and egalitarianism. Men deny their own created nature and accepted a worldly perversion of what it means to be a man.

The need of the hour is, and has been for quite some time, for men to reassert a virtuous masculinity. We need good men who are good at being men. True, there are many forms of masculinity today that really are toxic (e.g., the Andrew Tates of the world). These men are masculine in certain ways, but they are not good men and they will make things worse instead of better. Our culture is in desperate need of genuine, biblically-shaped, creationally-grounded masculinity. The church needs to be producing such men.

One reason I have really enjoyed preaching through 1 Samuel is because it gives us two excellent archetypes of faithful masculinity (along with a lot of distorted versions of masculinity for the sake of comparison). David and Jonathan, as presented in 1 Samuel, are two of the best representations of faithful masculinity we have. David, the humble boy who grows in a wise and valiant warrior, a leader of men, a man who knew how to take risks and endure hardships. Jonathan, the noble son of a ignoble father, a man who understood loyalty and friendship, a man of true humility and virile courage. These are the kinds of men we need. Where are our Davids? Where are our Jonathans? Such men are in short supply. God, grant us such men.

—

Friedman taught us that humor and playfulness cut through anxiety and create calmness.
This is one reason dad jokes are so important.

Men could solve the bulk of their marriage problems if they could find a way to make their wives laugh at least once each day.

Adam failed to protect his wife in the garden and women have had their doubts about men ever since.

Men, do not self-deprecate in front of your wife. She has enough doubts about you already. Don’t add to them.

Behind most every overbearing, meddlesome mother-in-law is a father-in-law who is failing to put his foot down and stop it.

Men, as a rule of thumb, tell your wife “no” at least once a week. She needs to know you can stand up to her so she will know you can stand up to her.

—

I know a lot of men will think that the first thing to do with a wife who is not following their leadership is to go to the elders about it. I do think a man in that kind of frustrating marital situation should look to other men in the church for counsel and help, including checking out his own life for any failings and then confessing any sin on his part. Other men can hold up a mirror to him.

But I do not think his first resort should be to take his wife to meet with the session (unless she is in some kind of open, flagrant sin). He would be better off finding some older Titus 2-type women in the church who could speak with his wife and perhaps help her along. It’s likely that if a man’s wife is not cooperating with his leadership, another woman would be better starting point for helping her understand what proper submission in marriage is and how to practice it.

I hate to put it this way, but many men get the marriage they deserve. Many men think they are red-pilled because they have a strong concept of headship, but they really have no clue about how to lead a woman with grace and prudence. They think they know what their wives should do in the marriage, but they do not actually understand women. Headshipin a marriage is rarely as simple as, “I command, you obey.” It actually takes wisdom to lead a wife and govern a household well. If a Christian man married to a Christian woman leads with competence, confidence, and character, most of the time the woman will naturally find herself admiring, respecting, and following him. Sin will still get in the way (and it is possible for a woman to rebel against a good husband), but women were created to respond to the loving initiative of men, so such a man is going with the grain of his wife’s created nature as he leads her.

—

From 2/14/24:

One of the most firmly established truths in psychology and sociology is the reality that sexual polarity drives sexual attraction. When it comes to the sexes, opposites really do attract. The masculine wants the feminine and the feminine wants the masculine. Nothing is more obvious than this fact – and virtually all cultures across all of history, including great art, music, and literature testify to it.

And yet in the modern world, this incontrovertible fact continues to be marginalized. It can only be discussed in the dark and edgy corners of the internet. Pastors who should know better won’t teach on it, and often teach the opposite. Mothers and fathers fail to pass this folk wisdom on to their sons and daughters. Because the triumph of feminism has made this truth politically incorrect, it cannot be talked about in the cultural mainstream. Maybe that’s finally changing – there are hints of it. But in the meantime, several generations of men and women have been lied to – and the cost of those lies, in terms of human misery, has been immense. Replacing the  distinctives of masculinity and femininity with androgyny (in the name of “equality,” of course) has led to an epidemic of singleness, sexless marriages, and other catastrophes. We should be focusing on sexual reality rather than sexual equality. The only way back to normalcy and happiness is a repentant recovery of God’s design. 

Oh, and happy Valentine’s Day!

—

From 8/9/24:

A society can have egalitarianism or romance but not both.

The feminist version of equality killed sexual polarity which in turn killed romance, attraction, and ultimately marriage (as low marriage rates attest)

The problem is many young women in society today will not figure out that marriage/family would have made them far happier than “equality” and career until it’s too late.

And too many young men have lost all incentive to make anything of themselves because most social and economic forces are arrayed against them – so why bother? A lot of men think even if they somehow win the rat race and make enough money to support a family, their wife can walk out with the kids and cash at any moment with no legal consequence, so why take that risk?

Why are people today so miserable? The social patriarchy has been smashed, but deep down women still naturally want traditional, masculine men who will protect and provide. But at the same time, many women do not want to have to play the traditional, feminine, submissive homemaker role themselves. In the modern world, women have choices while men have obligations (e.g., women can choose can go into the military if they wish, and the entire apparatus of the military will be reworked to accommodate them — but men have an obligation to the military if and when need arises). This is the situation today: Men have responsibilities but no corresponding authority. Man are expected to be providers even as women get better career opportunities. Men are expected to protect women, even if they might be arrested for doing so (shout out to Daniel Penny). And so on. Until these forces are balanced, it will be hard to get the sexes back together and get the marriage rate up.

Destroying the natural and traditional sexual division of labor has had massive consequences. We can change legal structures to fit our peculiar ideology but human nature does not change. The world does not work the way we might think it should work; it works the way God designed it to work. If we continue to reject that reality, there will be even more misery in the decades to come 

Yes, the church should rise above all of this and be a counter-cultural force for good, but all too often the church has been complicit in failing to tell the truth about these things. 

Yes, men should “man up” and find a woman to marry despite the risk. 

Yes, women should be taught to prioritize being a wife and mother over pursuing career.

But we also need social, cultural, economic, and legal changes. 

We need to recognize that right now the societal trends and forces and ideologies that are making marriage unattractive to far too many people of both sexes are very powerful. We have to counteract them. We need to build a pro-marriage, pro-family culture that recovers more natural/creational sexual roles and characteristics.

—

In my experience and observation, what Lewis says here is quite true. Women can tap into a kind of dominatrix eroticism as an alternative, but this is no more good for the soul of women than it is for the soul of men. As @moveincircles argues, the sexual revolution has not been…

— Annie Crawford (@annielcrawford) March 26, 2025

This is exactly right. Lewis correctly observed that feminism destroyed the romantic dance between the sexes. 

The reality is that sexual polarity drives attraction. When that polarity is minimized because men are feminized and women masculinized, the bond of attraction between the sexes weakens. 

One of the most strikingly unnatural developments in our day is that (outside of conservative Christian circles where the old ways are upheld) men and women simply don’t like each other very much. Women cannot find a man they’re attracted to. And men find modernized “independent” women intolerable. This is completely different from past generations where the magnetic pull between the sexes was obvious from puberty onwards and all too enjoyable for all involved. It is a disastrous situation, not just for the individuals involved but for civilization as a whole. Untold misery awaits. 

Again, Lewis nailed it: a man’s headship over his wife and a wife’s respectful submission to her husband are not just practical necessities in marriage, they are erotic necessities as well. God knew what he was doing when he assigned these roles. They are not arbitrary; they are rooted in our natures. The man was built to lovingly lead a woman as her protector and provider. And the woman was built to respond to a man, helping and glorifying him. But if she won’t call him lord, she doesn’t get to be a lady. If she won’t crown him as her king, she doesn’t get to be a queen. 

Feminism has brought modern women to a fork in the road: Do you want equality or romance? Equality or a family? Equality or grandchildren? Sadly, all too many women want to be boss babes in their 20s and 30s, and so they won’t get to be grandmothers in 50s and 60s. It will prove to be a bad trade off in the long run.

—

From 6/6/25:

There are two ingredients every marriage needs if it is to age like fine wine rather than spoiled milk:

1. Godliness

2. Polarity

By godliness, I mean maturing Christian faithfulness, as seen in the  fruit of the Spirit. By polarity, I mean an appreciation of the  differences between men and women, and thus well-defined roles for the  husband and wife. Godliness means living in accord with saving grace.  Polarity means living in accord with our creational design. Without  godliness, there is no peace. Without polarity, there is no romance.

—

The Creation Mandate of Genesis 1 comes can be summarized in a twofold way: Dominion and multiplication.

Dominion has to do with work, with building culture, with transforming the raw material of creation into civilization.

Multiplication has to do with marriage, children, and family. If dominion is about building civilization, multiplication is about forming households to fill it. It should be obvious how the two sides of the Creation Mandate integrate into one another.

The whole Creation Mandate belongs to the whole human race, in principle. Men and women are involved in both sides of it. But it’s also obvious that men are especially given to the dominion side of it, while women are especially given to the multiplication side of it. This affirmed in many ways in nature and in Scripture, but is especially seen in Genesis 3, where the man is cursed on the dominion side (his work) and the woman is cursed on the multiplication side (childbearing). Each sex is cursed in its primary domain because that’s where each sex will experience the brunt of the curse.

From a man’s perspective, the Creation Mandate defines his work and his wife. The book of Proverbs is about how to fulfill the Creation Mandate in a fallen world.

There are the two areas Solomon trained his son in and they are the two main areas fathers need to coach their sons in today as they get older: work and wife. Solomon is picking up on the Creation Mandate and training his son how to rule creation and how to rule a household. Fathers need to do the same with their sons today.

A father needs to prepare his son for dominion, which means setting him up in a productive vocation. In the “old days,” when most sons apprenticed under their dads and then took over the family business or farm, this was rather simple. Today it’s more complicated, but therefore all the more necessary. A father must prepare his son so his son can provide for his own family. He must teach his son a work ethic, he must help his son acquire skills that have value in the marketplace, and he must teach his son how to handle the fruits of his labor (eg, how to save and invest money). Fathers train sons in dominion, in subduing, in ruling. Of course, a man cannot take dominion of the creation properly unless he first takes dominion over himself and his own sin. Creation rule starts with self-rule. This is why there is so much about discipline in the book of Proverbs. Discipline leads to dominion.

Fathers also need to coach their sons in how to choose and pursue a woman to be his wife so they can form a household together. Think of Solomon in Proverbs instructing his son in what kind of woman to avoid and what kind of woman to seek – the Harlot Folly and Lady Wisdom are two key figures in Proverbs, and the son is to shun the former and pursue the latter. Too many dads do not give their sons adequate guidance in this area. A father should be able to explain female nature to his son, help his son understand what it takes to be a godly husband, help his son develop sexual self control (which starts with learning more basic forms of self-discipline even before puberty), and do everything necessary to set up his son for a successful marriage. A father needs to teach his son how to vet a potential wife, to gauge her character and maturity level. A father needs to teach his son that he cannot treat or speak to women the way he does his male friends. He needs to learn how to honor the weaker vessel.  He needs to learn how to manage and rule his own household.

Work and wife – these are two basic areas the creation mandate deals with, they are the two basic themes of Proverbs, and they are the two areas where fathers need to train their sons for success.

—

C. S. Lewis, explaining why egalitarianism is bad for your sex life (especially the wife):

“This last point needs a little plain speaking. Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal. But Mrs. Naomi Mitchison has laid her finger on the real point. Have as much equality as you please – the more the better – in our marriage laws, but at some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity. Mrs. Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked. This is the tragi-comedy of the modem woman — taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success. Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, to go no further, some degree of obedience and humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the woman’s part.

The error here has been to assimilate all forms of affection to that special form we call friendship. It indeed does imply equality. But it is quite different from the various loves within the same household. Friends are not primarily absorbed in each other. It is when we are doing things together that friendship springs up – painting, sailing ships, praying, philosophizing, fighting shoulder to shoulder. Friends look in the same direction. Lovers look at each other — that is, in opposite directions. To transfer bodily all that belongs to one relationship into the other is blundering.”

—

o we think any less of a woman as a woman if she gets scared watching a horror movie? No, of course not. Do we think less of a man if he gets scared watching the same movie. Of course we do. Figure out what drives these different expectations of the sexes and you will have solved much of the mystery of sexual differentiation.

—

Man is the picture frame, she is the beautiful art inside its protective borders.
Man is the river bank, she is a rushing river.
Man is the mountain, she is the windy storm blowing against, but not moving, because of his strength.

She has to know he is stable — she derives security from it.
He cannot join her in the emotional whirlwind but has to stand outside it as her anchor and reference point. This does not mean he is not in touch with his emotions, like an unfeeling block of wood, but it does mean he chooses when and to what degree to express his emotions. 

—

Too many marriages today have two weaker vessels. The man is weak, and might even think his weakness is a virtue. But 1 Peter 3 indicates he is supposed to be strong (relative to her). This strength is obviously physical, but also emotional and structural (in terms of marital roles).

Why does Peter call the women the weaker vessel? There are several reasons, including:
1. Women are weaker in terms of physical stature, muscularity, bone structure, men have thicker skin, etc.
2. The woman gets pregnant and has to nurture children for them to survive
3. The woman is commanded to submit to her husband in everything

—

Should men be vulnerable with their wives?

I certainly think men should be honest (and therefore vulnerable) with their wives. There’s a kind of vulnerability (or openness or transparency) that is essential to building trust which the the cornerstone of any relationship. A man should always be quick to confess his sins and failings to his wife, which is a vulnerability all Christians have to embrace. This can be painful and humbling, but it’s necessary. Further, as C. S. Lewis says, to love at all is to be vulnerable. So, men will be vulnerable in all the ways that loves makes us vulnerable when we really care about another person. A man should never pretend to be something he’s not. 

But there are other ways of “being vulnerable” that are not necessary or helpful within marriage. These ways of being vulnerable that owe more to our fem-centric culture than to the biblical description of what a man should be, and they actually undermine his role in the marriage covenant because they undermine her confidence in him.  

For example, I think some men have been socially conditioned by feminism to be overly emotional in their marriages (e.g., the “sensitive man” who is “in touch with his feminine side” that came into vogue in 90s and has only intensified since then). This kind of “vulnerability” is due to cultural pressure and I don’t think it’s helpful. Many men have been told that this kind of vulnerability (characteristic of so-called “beta males”) is the key to a woman’s heart, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. This kind of vulnerability keeps a man from being decisive and exercising his authority as head; it makes him passive and compliant and (frankly) pathetic. Sadly, evangelical churches churn out these kinds of men by the hundreds. A husband who is chronically vulnerable, in the sense of being weak or emoting excessively, subverts his own leadership. He turns himself into an object his wife’s pity — she’s certainly not going to respect him or want to follow him. And a woman certainly cannot be aroused by a man she pities so it also kills their sex life. Here, as in every other area, it is polarity that drives attraction. Women respond to masculine strength in the same way men respond to feminine beauty. If a man wants a wife to follow him and respond to him, he has to strive for strength.

The real issue whether or not men are bearing burdens for their wives or imposing burdens on them. A woman’s deep anxiety in marriage goes all the way back to Genesis 3 — every woman wonders at some level if her husband will betray her and fail to protect her, as Adam did with his bride in the garden. “Will he take care of me? Will he provide for me? Will he protect me? Can I trust him to be the kind of man that I need him to be? Can I trust him to be strong in the places where I am weak?” — those are the questions on the heart of every wife. Of course, women can respond to these anxieties in ways that harm the marriage, e.g., trying to control or manipulate their husbands like the nagging wife in Proverbs. But given the propensity of a wife to be anxious and insecure, what wives need most from their husbands is their strength. If women are the weaker vessel, men complement that by being (under God) the stronger vessel. She has enough vulnerabilities of her own; she does not need all of his piled on top. She is weaker and more vulnerable physically, psychologically, and structurally, in terms of her role (which includes childbearing and nurturing which makes her uniquely vulnerable for an extended period, and her calling to submit and obey which makes her vulnerable to a husband’s tyranny). A man should do what he can to relieve his wife’s anxieties, as opposed to compounding them. This is why women tend to be drawn to men who are competent, confident, ambitious, semi-stoic, physically strong, etc. — classic masculine virtues, if you will — because they are “anxiety reducers” for her. A man who comes off as an incompetent mess or who can never grow beyond his brokenness is not attractive to a woman and only adds to her base fears. A woman wants a man who is going to be strong enough (under God) to protect her, provide for her, and take care of her (and the kids).  These are the qualities in a man that inspire her confidence and respect, as opposed to more doubt and fear. These are the qualities that not only attract but ultimately arouse. 

This is what drives hypergamy — women are programmed to want to “marry up.” They typically want a man who is taller/bigger/stronger, more educated/higher earning potential, etc. The reverse is not true — men don’t look for women who are their physical superiors or economic/educational superiors — as their main criteria are looks and personality. A wife making more money than her husband over the long haul is a red flag for divorce — such marriages rarely last. One reason the dating/marriage market is so screwed up today is women are getting more and more education while men are getting less and less. It’s getting harder for a woman to find a man who meets her inbuilt criteria. Of course, when a man understands what women are looking for in a man, and what a women will find worthy of respect, he is driven to become the best man he can be. Hypergamy is not a flaw, it’s a design feature, aimed at bringing out the best in men. Respect is, in the nature of the case, conditional (unlike love). You can love an infant but you cannot really respect an infant. This means men always carry the burden of performance, the burden of responsibility, the burden of leadership, the burden of protection/provision. A woman is commanded to respect her husband, but that means the husband needs to do all he can to make himself worthy of her respect.

This is also why women have a propensity to test men, as is well documented. A woman actually needs to know that a man will stand up to her, she needs to know what he’s made of, she needs to know that he won’t be another Adam, giving into her when he shouldn’t. Women might speak as if they want a man who will be compliant with their every wish but they actually don’t (the paradox of the curse in Gen. 3:16 ties into this). When a man passes her test, it builds her security because she knows he has strength she can trust. “The only thing a woman likes less than a man she can’t control is one she can.”

What happens when a man is regularly vulnerable (= weak) in his marriage? Such a man turns his wife into another mother, and he becomes her child, constantly in need of nurture, support, etc., like the other children in the family. Many women are willing to play this role, but it usually leaves both spouses unhappy and it certainly doesn’t make for a satisfying sex life. Not all men have “alpha” personalities or need to (quite obviously) — but every man has to “alpha up” in his marriage/home. Headship requires it. Competent leadership in the home requires it. The respect of his wife requires it. 

To put it another way, a weak man turns his wife into a lesbian. He is effeminate. He is creating a marriage with two weaker vessels. If sexual polarity drives sexual attraction, a weak (effeminate, passive, abdicating, overly emotional, indecisive, etc.) man kills his wife’s attraction rather than inspiring and intensifying it. Marriage is supposed to be a bond between a stronger vessel and a weaker vessel. Two weaker vessels disrupts God’s design.

The best husbands will be vulnerable towards God but (relatively speaking) strong towards their wives. A marriage does not work well if there are two “weaker vessels.” Yes, men are going to be vulnerable; we are fallen creatures. Every man will have his weaknesses, times when he breaks down, times when he screws up, etc. His wife will see all of that and he should not try to hide it. But in terms of the marriage relationship, it is not his role to be vulnerable. She is the weaker vessel, which means he needs to be the stronger vessel, and in that way they complement one another.

—

Why was it “women and children first” on the Titanic? Because women are the weakervessel.

Why do 95% of work related deaths happen to males? Because women are the weakervessel.

Why does every tomb at Arlington mark the death of a man? because women are the weakervessel.

Why do we open doors for ladies? Because women are the weakervessels.

It seems to me that, so far from opening the door to oppression, a social order that recognizes women as the weakervessel actually works to the woman’s advantage.

The problem men today face is simple: Do we go on treating women as the weakervessel even when most of them don’t want to be seen as weaker? Should we gentlemen even to ladies who are not really lady-like?

Or to turn it around, this is the question women today must answer: Do you want equal treatment or special treatment? Do men owe you protection or not?

—

A couple podcasts on masculinity I did with Eric Conn:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hard-men-podcast/id1512510969?i=1000529055720

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hard-men-podcast/id1512510969?i=1000629358756

—

Every family has a head. Either the husband functions as the head, or Satan functions as the head. In Genesis 3, Adam allowed Satan to become the head of his family, and many men ever since have followed suit. There is no third option. It’s either patriarchy or Satanarchy in the home.

—

What a lot of people don’t understand about the South is that Southern culture, at least since 1865, has been very matriarchal. People think that because the South values tradition that it must be very patriarchal or at least complementarian. But actually Southern men tend to practice a kind of chivalry that defaults to a “she’s the boss” and “if mama ain’t happy, no one is happy” kind of matriarchy. You cannot understand the post-Civil War South unless you understand this fact. As a generalization, Southern men have never recovered genuine masculine headship since the War. Many Southern men have masculine hobbies (hunting, fishing, etc.) but are not actually very masculine in their core. Most Southern men are scared of their wives. They do not know how to handle their wives’ strong emotional responses. They think the way to lead is by being subservient. Even many (not all, but many) conservative Southern churches that have male-only officers tend to be highly feminized environments, led covertly by women; in other words, an all-male session may technically be the decision-maker but the elders only “lead” in ways their wives approve of and with their implicit permission. All that to say: Southern culture is far less friendly to masculinity than most people, including Southerners themselves, tend to think.

—

Far too much marriage counseling is trapped in the longhouse. It’s as if only one spouse (the wife) has legitimate needs. The man’s needs (especially sexual needs) are treated as immature and selfish.

—

If a premarital/marriage counselor dilutes headship to mean just “tie breaking authority” (like Keller), it’s worth asking the counselor if that is the only authority Jesus has over the church 

Surely Jesus has greater than authority than merely breaking ties 

Even women who might argue for a diluted form of headship will end up responding to strong/competent leadership from a man they respect

For both husband and wife, what you do is far more important than what you say

For the man, acting as head is more important than talking about headship

And for the woman, don’t go by what she says she thinks headship means, go by what she actually responds to 

Women are notorious for misdirection – saying they want one thing (eg, a diluted form of headship) but responding very favorably to something else (eg, strong and confident masculine leadership)

Basically, as a husband, you take the view, “I’m going to lead you whether you say you want that right now or not.”

Of course there are some women who have the opposite problem – they say they want headship (because they know the Bible teaches it) but then act like they don’t (eg, they try to control the marriage)

In that case, you have to see it as a “weaker vessel test” and the best way to pass it is to maintain frame and ploughing ahead as leader 

—

Instead of “happy wife, life,” we should say “happy God, happy life.” The husband should aim to please his wife (1 1 Cor. 7), but he should aim to please God more. He should fear God more than his wife; he should fear God’s displeasure more than he fears his wife’s displeasure.

“Happy wife, happy life” is the original sin. Adam did not tell his wife “no” when he should have. He stood by and watched as she ate the forbidden fruit instead of leading her in righteousness. He should have said, “No, woman, you are not eating that fruit.” Abram recapitulated this sin of listening to his wife’s voice instead of commanding her, and telling her “no” when Sara proposed that he sleep with Hagar.

“Happy wife, happy life” is idolatry. It puts women in the place of God.

—

Decisions should always be made out of conviction, never out of anxiety – including an anxiety to please other people. Leaders lead by conviction or not at all. There is no way to lead without possessing convictions and the courage to implement them.

Example #1: Pastors must have convictions about what a worship service (a liturgy) should be like or they will end up catering to the culture or the loudest complainers. A pastor with no convictions in this area cannot lead his people as a royal priesthood. Those convictions should be rooted in and grow out of the soil of biblical theology and exegesis. Sadly many pastors cannot lead well in this area today because their study and training has not equipped them for liturgical leadership. And even sadder, many pastors would rather not do the study in this area, because they are afraid of what they might learn, and they know it would take more courage than they have to implement it. There is no way to be a faithful pastor with developing deeply biblical and historically informed liturgical convictions. A pastor needs to have convictions about the practice or confessing sin and declaring absolution; he needs convictions about appropriate hymnody and psalmist; he needs convictions about the frequency, elements, and proper participants in communion; etc.

Example #2: Many young husbands fail to lead their wives and families because they have not developed convictions in many areas of family life. They do not have a strong principled commitment to good financial stewardship or good eating habits as a family, and so things slip into undisciplined chaos. They do not have strong convictions or defined positions on modesty for their wives and daughters, so the family’s females default to cultural norms. They do not have convictions about education so they thoughtlessly plug their kids into the secular, godless public school system with its diluted curriculum and wretched culture. They do not have strong convictions about which church their family should join so they end up at a church that does more to entertain than equip, and a result thefamily does not get discipled well. These men often think they are doing a good job because they are constantly deferring to their wives or their most vocal kids, and they are avoiding conflict. But constant deference and conflict avoidance are not actually forms of leadership. This is not how leaders serve those under their care and authority. A husband and father – a patriarch, if you will – has a responsibility to develop a comprehensive vision for his family, including his family’s habits, culture, finances, and theology. He needs to have convictions so he can actually lead his family into righteousness as God requires (cf Genesis 18:19). He must develop wide-ranging convictions (obviously in conversation with his wife and godly men he trusts), and then he must act to ensure that his family embodies those convictions. Anything less is failure to serve. Anything less is a failure of nerve. This is how patriarchs help their families attain the highest good.

—

A husband cannot lead out of need or weakness. He must lead out of strength.

—

A generalization:

Men argue. Women police tone.

—

The man’s headship over his wife is not a result of the fall. It was built into creation from the beginning. Satan’s temptation in the garden *tested* the man’s headship – and he failed that test by following his wife (who was following the serpent) into sin, rather than leading her in righteousness. 

The man was created first. The human race derives its name from him in Genesis 1-2. He names his wife before the fall and again after the fall. She is made for him, to be his helper. He was given the rule regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before she was created, so he had to instruct her. In all these ways (and more), we see the man’s pre-fall headship. 

—

“Mama’s gonna put all of her fears into you,
Mama’s gonna keep you right here under her wing.”

— Pink Floyd

Why do we have so many anxious and insecure kids today? In many cases, their parents made them that way. Overly anxious parents produce anxious children. Overprotective parents produce timid children.

Parents who want confident, secure kids need to model those attributes themselves.

ADDENDUM: Of course, dad is the key to helping mom let go. When a man is still a “mama’s boy,” dad is usually much more to blame than mom. Mom can be a problem – the “devouring mother” archetype is real – but dads have to make sure that sons launch out on their own and form healthy boundaries, especially when they marry and it’s time to “leave and cleave.”

It’s been said: “Men must understand: every woman in your life is trying to castrate you. It’s your job to make sure it doesn’t happen.” This is generally true. Boys have to enter to the world of men, which sometimes take a shove and always requires cutting the apron strings.