Feminism Isn’t Christian, It’s Sin

Feminism Isn't Christian, It's Sin

“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Feminism is often compared to a disease, but it’s more insidious than that. It’s the embracing of a curse placed upon women by almighty God that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve’s original sin in the Garden of Eden.

Both man and woman were cursed with having to experience physical death as a result of their sin. From there, they each received distinct consequences for their rebellion. These consequences would forever impact the lives of men and women in very unique ways according to gender-specific boundaries.

Before sin entered the world, Adam and Eve’s paradisaical food was relegated to vegetation that grew plentiful and, presumably, without the need to plant and harvest. From the very beginning man was ordained by God to have authority over woman. She was created from him to be his helpmeet, his complement.

Being without sin, there would be no struggle for dominance and, thus, Adam and Eve could exist in harmony without Eve resenting her God-ordained position under Adam. She submitted perfectly to her role under his authority.

This was no longer the case in the post-sin creation.

After their disobedience, the man was assigned to work a cursed ground that would fail to produce food without significant toil, while the woman was afflicted with painful childbirth and being resentful of her supporting role behind the man’s leadership.

Thus the battle of the sexes began. From that point forward women have, in futility, engaged in a power struggle to overtake men as the appointed leaders in the family and society.

The Survival of the Family Requires Masculine Leadership in the Home

Incidentally, the injection of sin into creation, and the subsequent struggle for power that would ensue between man and woman, necessitated that one be elevated to a position of authority. Otherwise, the family unit, the bedrock of civilized society, would have been decimated, spinning into absolute chaos.

Illimitable Man expounds upon this relational dynamic within his article titled Dominance and Submission:

Indeed this absurd idea that each party is equal to the other, that nobody leads nor follows, but rather that each makes proposals to the other and that such a thing somehow works is a dysfunctional, pervasive memetic. The absence of hierarchy is chaos, and thus to aim for and idealise equality is to promote and usher in chaos. It is inconceivable to think how one could reach consensus within a democracy of two, for one must eventually concede to the authority of the other, and without concession there is no basis for relationship, but merely a series of conflicts that lead to inevitable forfeiture and abandonment by whomever the most frustrated party happens to be. Antithetically, when one does concede to the authority of the other, equality is lost. As such, true equality is a notion, not a pragmatic relational methodology.

Without a hierarchy of authority between husbands and wives the family would self destruct. This is precisely what has been happening in recent decades as women have revolted. They’ve boldly demanded egalitarian marriages and openly despised the idea of submitting to the authority of their husbands.

Their marriages have also been imploding.

The mission of feminism from its inception has been one of rebellion against the gender hierarchy God instituted out of necessity within a fallen creation. But, today’s brand of feminist has become much more bold in her rebellion.

Feminism has put its desire for supremacism in plain sight, proclaiming that masculinity is toxic, the future is female, and openly advocating for the genocide of men. Feminism today is a forged coalition for collectively fighting against being relegated to a position under the authority of men.

We must remember, however, that their rebellion in seeking equality with (or authority over) man is ultimately not one being leveled against men. It is being leveled against the Almighty. There’s a word that describes insubordination against God. That word is “sin”.

Yes, I said it. Feminism is sinful.

It finds its roots in pride, women believing they know better about what’s best for them than their own Creator.

This rebellion is nothing new. The Apostles Paul and Peter addressed this matter on several occasions within their various letters written to the early church.

Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Colossians 3:18: Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1-2: Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

The Apostles implored women in the church to embrace their God-ordained position under men in complete submission to their authority. By doing so they would also be submitting themselves to the Lord’s will for their lives.

Yes, feminists, God the Father is the founder of “The Patriarchy” you so despise. He is the Godfather of all patriarchs. And it is He who has designed female biology and psychology such that refusing to submit to men becomes a scourge in the lives of women.

It is therefore unsurprising that there is none more dangerously miserable than a man-hating, contentious modern woman whose inflated ego has precluded her from being able to discern her self-evident limitations.

She is fighting against a force that cannot be overcome. At least not without assuring her own destruction or the destruction of the society in which she lives in the process.

But this doesn’t mean that men are without blame in the current milieu of women rebelling against God’s explicit multiple warnings that it is best for them to submit to the authority of men.

Feminism is Being Fueled by the Emasculation of Males

Emasculated Men Are Fueling Feminism

While it’s tempting to place the sin of feminism squarely at the feet of women, men are also complicit.

And I’m not just talking about the beta males that encourage this behavior from feminists by marching with them in solidarity, pussy hat and all, over the illusionary oppression of so-called women’s rights.

Nevertheless, the fact that feminists have convinced scores of men to join their ranks is indicative of the underlying conditions that have served as the catalyst for feminism as it exists today.

As men have become increasingly emasculated they’ve failed to successfully fill the role of masculine leader. As a result, women have been left discontented and unable to find men deemed worthy of their submission.

A woman’s natural desire is to be led by a masculine man.

Without a masculine man available to meet this desire, it goes unfulfilled. This places immense pressure on her to fill this void by any means possible.

She will either attempt to fabricate this masculine leadership within herself or find it in relationships with other women, which isn’t possible. When all else fails she will try (in vain) to convince herself that she can live a life of fulfillment without a male companion at all.

Most will deny it seven ways to Sunday, but every woman innately desires a man to cherish her, provide for her, give her emotional security, and assume a position of leadership over her. Women desire submission, even as they are being taught that they should resent this innate desire. It’s evident in their actions, if not from their words. What women do is always infinitely more telling than what they say.

For instance, women say they want a submissive ‘yes man’. Yet, when they get one, they quickly lose any feelings of passion for him. What starts in a woman’s mind as a match made for Disney soon ends in her developing resentment toward her beta prince.

His submissive state does nothing to ignite her natural desire for masculine dominance, a desire that is intricately tied to her sexual purse strings. Thus, after acquiring the type of man she professed to desire she cheats on him with an assertive alpha, deprives her man of intimacy, or both.

She speaks in alignment with her feminine primacy programming, but her instinctual desires cannot be suppressed indefinitely. They will eventually bubble up to the surface.

We live in a Western culture where girls are taught from childhood that embracing femininity and submitting to men makes them victims of a patriarchal society intent on oppressing them. It is often only through experiencing the relational dynamic with a masculine man that women are able to have their eyes opened to the feminist lies being forced upon them.

But how are women to have their eyes opened when competent, driven, masculine men are such a rare specimen in the West?

This is the conundrum we’re faced with confronting.

Women that embrace the ideology of feminism are committing sin. Emasculated men are complicit by omission in this sin by failing to exhibit the masculine qualities that would prove them worthy of submission by a feminine woman.

The dearth of masculine men notwithstanding, once she has made the commitment to marry a man, the onus is on her to submit to him as the leader of the home, regardless of whether or not his actions prove worthy of it.

The directive to submit to her husband is not dependent upon his actions or adherence to her faith. She is to submit even if he is failing in his responsibility to lead well.

1 Peter 3:1-2: Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

The modern brand of man-hating feminism is the glorification of women struggling against the authority imparted to men by almighty God, and is, therefore, the glorification of rebellion against God himself.

To call feminism anything but sin is blasphemy.

– Craig (@MasculineDesign)

Check out more of Craig’s content on his website: Masculine by Design

  • Dan says:

    Paul is clear that the hierarchy was present before the fall in that it is based not on sin, but on the creation order in 1 Corinthians 11:

    “A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.”

    Thus the curse did not effect a ‘demotion’ for women as she was already in her submissive role (Genesis even refers to Adam needing a helper before her creation), it simply made it a lot harder for her to fulfill her role, as she would fight against it.

    This truth is very important because otherwise you have already conceded a lot to feminist in agreeing with them concerning equality being the ideal state. Although all Christians are equal in Christ, the equality feminist are seeking is wholly unnatural and has never existed.

    • Craig James says:

      You make a good point, Dan. I disagree that missing it concedes anything to feminists. We are not inhabitants of the ideal pre-fall creation but of the post-fall creation. We are bound by the conditions wrought in the wake of Adam and Eve’s original sin. Nevertheless, I agree that scripture is clear that the hierarchy of man being over woman was indeed instituted from the beginning and not as a result of sin.

      I have updated the opening of the posting to more accurately reflect this truth.

  • Victor says:

    ok, I’m out. Silly, archaic religious beliefs do not a good argument make.

  • Eric says:

    This is not a complete picture of the subject matter.

    Below is the continuation of the alluded Ephesians passage:

    25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. 26 He did this to dedicate the church to God by his word, after making it clean by washing it in water, 27 in order to present the church to himself in all its beauty—pure and faultless, without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection. 28 Men ought to love their wives just as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself.

    Yes, while the bible calls for wives to submit themselves to their man, it also calls for men to love their wives as they love themselves. It is a mutual love and submission to each other, modelled after God’s love for the world and the submission of Christ.

    In short, the point is mutual love, not single-party dominance. If we are not loving women as we love ourselves, why should they submit to us?

    • Craig James says:

      “If we are not loving women as we love ourselves, why should they submit to us?”

      They should submit in reverence of the fact that they have been commanded to by their Creator. Nowhere in scripture does it say, “Submit to your husband…But only if he loves you as Christ loved the church”. Nowhere in scripture does it tell husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, but only if their wives submit to them. These are not conditional commands.

      • Eric says:

        Fair, while the spirit of the passage is one of mutual agreement, I also do not see a conditional command in the passage.

        That being said, in accordance with my personal view of what it means to be alpha, in conjunction with the abundance I feel in my heart, and in relation to the natural power dynamics felt between a man and a woman…I feel it only right that I am the one that tries to show vulnerability first and initiate love, rather than seek it out preemptively. To me, this is a sign of strength.

    • What would I give? says:

      Husbands have a consequence if they are not treating their wives well. What’s that scripture that says “least their prayers be hindered?”
      People define submission in their own way. If the case is a sinning husband who is abusing a wife and children, the wife shouldn’t follow him into his sin or allow herself to remain in that abuse. And it is mutual submission. Not dominance. The Bible never focused solely on women but made it clear men have the biggest role by loving as Christ did, and also told him to give wives honor and to be understanding because we ate both heirs with Christ. So that seems pretty equal to me. But I don’t think God ever intended his scripture to allow women to be mistreated for fear of breaking the law or appearing to be not submissive to their husband.

  • John W says:

    My family reads the scriptures together. My wife was not very happy about some of the things Paul says, for example, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.”

    But then we realized that Paul is MGTOW.

    1 Corinthians 7:26-28 “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

    • Craig James says:

      I love this John. I love it because you’re leading your wife and kids in the faith. You’re not letting your wife’s feelings get in the way of clearly communicated truths from scripture. Too many men today are abdicating the role of spiritual leader of the home to their wives. As you well know, this is a recipe for ruinous consequences.

      I’d never heard Paul referred to as MGTOW before, though I can’t say it’s too far off. Paul wasn’t a man going his own way, but God’s way, so I suppose he’d be a MGGOW.

      Great connecting with you, brother.

  • >

    ​Get Your Free Ebook!

    The Rise of Authentic Families
    • check
    • check
    • check
    %d bloggers like this: