The secular state would have you believe that women are equal with men; they just haven't caught up in their evolution. It's nothing that has ever been proven. It's a theory that can be and has been proven wrong, however. It isn't happening. If someone invades the United States, our country wouldn't and couldn't win with an egalitarian military, unless the invaders agreed to do the same. For sure, Russia wouldn't do that.
I can argue the position of this post from scripture. That's easy. I'm saying it's true even without scripture. I know women want protection. That's easy to see. They don't want to be told what to do, and we can see that all over, including in churches.
The contradiction about which I'm writing here is obvious to anyone, so why do men abdicate headship? That's more complicated. The Bible has the answer to that too, right at the beginning, but the answer is also very natural. From a certain perspective, it doesn't make any sense that men would give up their authority to women, when they are stronger and more dominant than women. I'm sure some men ask themselves on a regular basis why they do that.
Not in any order, first, men don't want the conflict required to take charge. Women use means to make life difficult for a man who takes charge and protects. Some of you men reading this post know of your experience of kneeling in the mud attempting to fix something in the yard, laying in the tight place under the sink to fix plumbing, and multiple other hard tasks. You do those all the time. When you're done, you don't want to go into the house and fight with your wife, because she wants her way. You just give in because it's hard. You shouldn't, but you do.
Second, many men prefer being liked by women to being their head and protector. This is the situation that we in society today with the conflict between truth and kindness. It's not kind to tell the truth. A transgender wants the right pronoun, and you can't tell the truth. It's against the law in some parts of the world now. Men won't get the treatment they want if they act like a man, so they succumb to the wives. Today they then justify their soft behavior by explaining that they are not authoritarian and they are choosing to respect their wives.
Men have fooled themselves into thinking that they receive their authority with the consent of women. No, they've been given their authority from God. They look to their wives permission to be a man. Women put on the pressure -- silent treatment, emotional fits, the cold shoulder -- and men abdicate.
When women get their way as I've described above, they think they are getting something, but what they lose, even by any way of reasoning, is much more. Men are disrespected and they don't treat their women with respect. The sons don't see a future as a man. They have no role, so they are without position and aim. Women have sons. What do they say to their sons? What role are these boys to take?
Women lose the strength of manhood they need. They know it. Men step back and stand back, waiting for women to lead. Men don't take the initiative to lead. They want sex, which isn't manhood, but it's what they are left with. Men manipulate women like women do men. Women want men by nature, but can't have them without sex. Men lack the conviction of headship and protection. They expect sex without commitment. What's the use of being a man? What's the reward of it? Why would being a man be worth it with today's women?
I could draw a direct line to the high school mass murder in the Florida high school among all the other mass murders by young men. These young men are without purpose or direction. They don't have leadership, because there is little to nothing to tell them. They don't know what to do. They pursue a type of fake manhood. The option is to control them either by imprisoning them or drugging them.
Part of the attraction for men for men and women for women is a lesser degree of men wanting women and women wanting men. It even explains the drop in sperm volume today in the American male. There is less masculinity today. Men are choosing to be women and even reward effeminate men for being women. I know I would be a more attractive pastor if I was more sensitive and softer. I know that.
The rise of homosexuality also traces, I believe, to the role reversal or elimination, depending on the perspective. Women take women in place of men and men take men in place of women. The interchangeability allows for interchangeability. Women take women and men take men. They have their reasons. None of it is right, but it's an obvious fallout.
I'm not blaming the above on women. Men could change it. My own position is that they won't without the gospel, but they do need to change it. There can't be any compromise. You can't take this position and believe that's it's permissible to have women in the military. Women can't share the engineering positions with men. They can't be the CEO in charge of America's company, working themselves up the power triangle.
Men need to take charge again. They shouldn't be celebrating the diversity, the glass window being broken, yearning for the first female president. None of this is good. It's not good for men or women.
If women are going to be in charge, then they should jump into the hole in the ground to repair underground sewage. When the large electrical line goes down because of a tree falling, call out the women. I don't want them to, but I'm also going to be in charge if I'm expected to do all these grunge jobs. I want to jump in that hole, but I'm not going to jump in for women who don't want my authority.
You could say that women can't have it both ways. It's true in one sense, because they might want it both ways, but they'll never have it both ways. They want authority and protection, but they won't have the latter without recanting the former.