Men are hogging all the equality!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

Sisters, do you know what we need?  We need some of that “equality” stuff.  See, equality is this magic fairy dust that you can get some of and it will make math easy and meaningless casual sex empowering.

But!  There is only so much equality fairy dust in the world.  Sisters, if you find math hard, if it troubles you to engage in meaningless hook ups, if you are 30 years old and your Women’s Studies degree has not yet landed you a fabulous job as a CEO of a superfun tech company where your work is like play, it is because all your equality has been stolen from you!

Do you know who stole your equality?  It’s easy to see whodunit.  Who are the engineers?  Who are all the tech people?  Who are all the CEOs?  That’s right, men, especially the white ones!  Somehow they got more equality fairy dust than we did, and that’s not fair.  They stole our equality!

They are literally hogging all the equality for themselves and won’t share any equality with anyone else!

What do we want?

Equality fairy dust!

When do we want it?

Now!

 

(h/t to VD for the image)

Thank goodness we have feminism, sisters!

Men, get busy building us ladies some equality boxes to stand on!

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Why Christians need to be able to spot manipulation in the opposite sex.

Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.

  • Donald Trump, in The Art of the Comeback

Ha!  I think we may have found our answer to my previously asked question: Why did the boys like dizzy girls and not smart girls?

Actually, I don’t agree that all smart women decide to act feminine and needy to get what they want from men, but he is correct that this behavior is part of the possible feminine repertoire, even if some women choose never to use it.

But why do some women choose to use it?  Is it because they are “killers”?  I don’t know, but I suspect they are probably using it because they have found that this behavior works.  It gets them what they want because some (many? most?) men like it and respond to it.

This is the same reason why I have very little sympathy for the feminists who are flipping out about the pick-up artist lecturer Roosh V coming to Canada; “game” is a male behavior some men use for getting what they want.  If feminists don’t want men to act like pick up artists, then instead of mouthing some “sex positive” bull pucky about how empowering casual hook-ups are, they ought to encourage women not to respond to this kind of behavior by giving men who use it what they want.  Similarly, if men don’t like women putting on a feminine and needy act to get what they want, they shouldn’t be so quick to respond to such women by giving them what they want.  If you don’t like some particular behavior, don’t respond to it and teach your children to spot and avoid it as well.

Why do Christians need to learn how to spot and avoid these behaviors?  Shouldn’t they just “know better”?  The reason I think we need to teach this is because men were designed to desire sweet, submissive women who will be good helpers (“I will make a helper suitable for him”); putting on a needy act simulates being a sweet, submissive helper.  Similarly, women were designed to desire a strong, dominant man who can take care of his family; using “game” simulates that.  If we don’t teach our young people to recognize when someone is really making a genuine effort to be a sweet, submissive woman who would make a good helper or a strong man who desires and is able to lead a family, they will be more likely to be tricked by women who are acting needy to acquire resources from a man or men who are using game to acquire casual sex from a woman.

Where the slippery slope of treating the “products of conception” as a commodity is taking us.

As I was pondering the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood doctors carving up aborted babies in order to sell their organs, and executives haggling over the price like old ladies in an open-air market haggling over the price of dill weed, I recalled that a few years ago, philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics proposing that infanticide be called post-birth abortion instead and purporting to prove that there is no moral problem with the practice because infants, like fetuses, are non-persons:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

This was quickly accepted by much of liberal society, which isn’t surprising given that child euthanasia is already legal in some European countries, most notably without any age limit in Belgium.  By treating the killing of human life as sometimes acceptable and the “products of conception” (embryos, fetuses/babies) as a for-profit commodity, we have accelerated our descent down a slippery slope to utter depravity.

Given that…

  • IVF technology is widely available
  • surrogacy is increasingly socially accepted and continues to grow as a for-profit business in poor countries such as India

and if…

  • the organs and other body parts of aborted babies are acceptable to sell,
  • post-birth abortion (infanticide) is ethical,
  • and human cloning becomes possible (which it probably will within our lifetimes),

then…

  • it will be considered ethical to pay poor women to be a sort of “body parts” farm for the wealthy.

The market for this will eventually be huge. A wealthy person will simply pay a poor woman in India to carry and deliver an infant, perhaps conceived via IVF or perhaps a clone if the technology has advanced that far (as it soon will); the baby will then be murdered and have whatever organ or tissue the wealthy person needs or wants “harvested” for use.

At first it will be couched in terms of medical need – This man will die without a new kidney!  How can you be against saving his life? – and eventually it will be considered acceptable for any purpose – Why isn’t it ethical to grow new sex organs for use by a person who is “transitioning” to the opposite sex?  Why shouldn’t that celebrity grow herself a new face full of baby-smooth skin?

Given what modern liberals have already stipulated as being morally acceptable, the only impediment to the above scenario is technological.

The internet is full of ghost stories.

Our puppies had a vet appointment today; they are the picture of good health and growing like weeds.  I was particularly relieved when the vet said their poo samples were normal.  At our first vet appointment two months ago, she told us their fecal samples indicated they had coccidia infections.  “It’s a very common protozoan infection in puppies,” she said, giving us a prescription for medication to treat it.

I went home to see what the internet had to say about coccidia and by the time my husband arrived home, I’d spent several hours online working myself into a frothy near-anxiety attack.  I had read multiple horror stories of infections that lasted for a year with the dog eventually dying from chronic diarrhea.  And the cleaning suggestions were crazy:

All fecal material should be removed… Most disinfectants do not work well against coccidia; incineration of the feces, and steam cleaning, immersion in boiling water, or a 10% ammonia solution are the best methods to kill coccidia.

Uh, I have to burn their poop? Not to be graphic, but that doesn’t sound like it’s going to smell too pleasant.  How do you even burn poo, anyway?

Another site made the situation sound even more dire:

 

…keeping flies/insects and rodents away (they can also spread this disease on their feet/in their bodies) and cleaning all areas thoroughly are vital.

Oh no! I silently wailed.  We live out in the country!  How do I keep all the insects away?  They’re everywhere!  Should I call a pest control company?!

Coccidia organisms are very hardy, can survive for long periods in the soil, and are difficult to kill – most household cleaners aren’t going to be effective.

Cleaning at high temperatures (ie steam cleaning and sterilization with boiling water) is the best option for utensils and toys (ie bowls, chew toys etc.). Wash bedding on the ‘HOT’ cycle in your washing machine with bleach.

Whichever solution you choose, wash all areas thoroughly and leave to soak in for at least 20 mins before rinsing. Grassy areas or soil/dirt can be very difficult in terms of removing all traces of coccidia protozoa. The best thing to do is to soak the area with either of the above cleaning solutions. However, these surfaces can remain contaminated for up to 2 months or more, so bear that in mind.

When my husband caught me making plans to dump buckets of bleach water all over the yard in a panic, he intervened.  “Stop being insane,” he ordered. “No one did these crazy things when we were young and you don’t have to do it now.   And quit reading all this crap online.”

So I cleaned up their poop right away, but I did not incinerate it; I disposed of it in a plastic bag in the trash.   And I didn’t bleach the yard, though I did disinfect their food and water bowls, wash their bedding, and give them their medication.  And lo and behold, the next time they went to the vet, she said they were all better.  No yard-bleaching needed.

This isn’t the first time I’ve worked myself into a lather over some health thing on the internet; like most mothers, I’ve done this with my children’s illnesses, too.  And that’s the problem: going online can be a great way to get information but it can also make everything thing seem absolutely dire and dangerous and horrible and impossible to deal with and on the brink of disaster.  It can make you want to hide in your room and never leave the house for fear of what could possibly happen.  It can make you paranoid.

Like mothers with their children or puppy-owners, I see men in the manosphere do this pretty excessively, too.  They’ll catch wind of a hashtag like #GiveYourMoneyToWomen and flip out and make all kinds of crazy assumptions about women in general, completely missing the fact that 75%+ of the women tweeting that hashtag are prostitutes – as in, literal, actual, professional whores – with the other 25% being seriously hardcore feminist activists.  It’s not all that surprising that whores see a business opportunity in commodifying all aspects of male-female interactions, but most women are not prostitutes nor are they feminist activists who want to be paid for cooking dinner and making pleasant conversation.  However, if you spend a lot of time reading XOJane and looking around online for the most shocking thing you can find that a couple of whack-job feminist women have written, you’re going to get a really skewed view of what is out there, and end up getting carried away like I nearly did with the bleach (thankfully, my husband was the voice of sanity that kept me from killing all our grass in a panic).

People who are really into preparedness are another group that I sometimes see get really worked up over things that yes, are problems and indicate that our society is looking at a decline, but no, are probably not signs of an imminent catastrophic disintegration of society into a zombie apocalypse type state.

Coccidia is real.  You can’t just ignore it and hope it will go away; you have to know and look out for the warning signs and use the prescribed medication.   By the same token, there are some really awful women out there and being ignorant of some of the warning signs won’t make them go away.  And our country is definitely faring poorly under a liberal government and is in for some seriously tough financial and social times ahead, so prepare yourself.  It’s good to be informed about what to watch out for with coccidia, feminists, and our foolish liberal government.  But the world is not one giant coccidia heap, nor are all women feminists and whores, and we’re not likely to all be shooting one another over an egg anytime soon.  In fact, I suspect my zucchini vines could feed my entire town for a year if everyone would just take a few of them off my hands. 🙂

Use the internet as a source of information, but do try to keep things in perspective; it’s probably not quite as scary as the online ghost stories make it seem.

Dig, Roo, and Zuke

 

 

The antidote for craving sexual attention from random men on the street.

I rarely trouble myself with what feminists think or are saying anymore.  I am busy with my garden, managing the woods and pond, canning, and learning everything I can about permaculture, older methods of food preservation, and Christian agrarianism.  These tasks are satisfying and are like a soothing balm for a worried mind and troubled spirit.  Instead of going on the attack against the evils of feminism, these days I’d rather focus my energy on sharing the positive things I’ve learned about finding satisfaction and contentment as a woman through family relationships and laboring in the natural world.

However, I’ve decided to address, in as kind and gentle a way as I can, this article (found on AGP) by noted feminist author and speaker, Jessica Valenti.  Mrs. Valenti has written what I think is a very honest article about her ambivalence surrounding the lack of catcalls from men she receives now that she is 36.  I applaud her for acknowledging honestly that it bothers her that men on the street don’t pay sexual attention to older women the way they do with younger women.  She could have just said, “Good!  I’m glad they stopped now that I’m nearing middle age!” even though it wasn’t truly how she felt.  She writes:

…as much as I wish it didn’t, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me. To my great shame, I assume I must look particularly good on the rarer days that I do get catcalled […]  do care in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics – enough that it worries me to wonder how I’ll feel when I’m 45, or 65.

Although catcalling is a low-class behavior, women always crave male attention, and losing it never feels good, no matter what your politics are.  Women want to be desired by men, and this desire when properly constrained is good and serves a purpose when we are young in that it makes us receptive to the sometimes clumsy romantic advances of the young men who we may marry.  After that age, women don’t lose the desire to be praised by men but they must control that desire such that their husbands’ attentions are sufficient, lest they fall into temptation and sin.

The problem is that thanks to feminism, women are much more valued for their sexuality than anything else now.   This is ironic because I think the original goal was not to reduce women’s value in this way, but nevertheless that has sadly been the result.  This is one reason why pick up artistry can flourish when in the past it could not, especially among older women.

Previously, men praised older women for their contributions to their families and their homes.  Feminism made it passe and suspect for a woman to focus on her husband, children, and extended family and to find satisfaction and contentment in her service to them.  But men don’t care that much about women’s outside-the-home careers, even if they sometimes appreciate the money.

Mrs. Valenti has the unhappy habit of complaining bitterly about how much work women do.  She complains about how much work we do as mothers:

“Whether you call it Attachment Parenting, natural parenting, or simple maternal instincts, this false “return” to traditional parenting is just a more explicit and deliberate version of the often unnamed parenting gender divide. Whether you’re wearing you baby or not, whether you’re using cloth diapers or teaching your four-week-old to use the toilet; it’s still women who are doing the bulk of child care, no matter what the parenting philosophy. Putting a fancy name to the fact that we’re still doing all the goddamn work doesn’t make it any less sexist or unfair”

She complains about how much work we do at the holidays:

We all know that women do the majority of domestic work like child care, housework and cooking. But the holidays bring on a whole new set of gendered expectations that make the season less about simply enjoying fun and family and more about enduring consumerism, chores and resentment so that everyone else can enjoy rockin’ around the Christmas tree…Being the holiday point-person can be drudgery.

She complains non-stop about anything women do to serve their families.  This complaining about family service is the feminist way.  But what men value in women most, I believe, are these three things:

1. Our sexuality

2. Our ability to care for and nurture families

3. and our ability to be good companions.

So when second-wave feminists made it passe for women to find their primary satisfaction in caring for and nurturing families, that reduced women’s value to men to only two things: sexuality and companionship.  But now, with the non-stop complain-a-thon about how overworked they are in relation to their male partners, younger feminists (probably inadvertently) turn women into poor companions.  What man wants to seek companionship with someone who never stops complaining?  So that leaves women with one value to men: sexuality.

And what’s more, I think modern feminists sense this, which is why there has been such a push to frame it as powerful when modern young women allow themselves to be sexually used and discarded by multiple young men.  These young women are lost and confused (as are the young men, but that is another topic) and sense that their sexuality is now all they are really bringing to the table, so they heap it up, but it leaves them feeling broken and empty and even like they’ve been raped.

And then on top of all that, the attention starts to dry up around 35.  And then what?  When you know your sexuality – your biggest asset – is waning and you are a poor companion and you believe it is old-fashioned for a woman to find self-worth in her family, what are you left with?  You are left with nothing.  You are left like Mrs. Valenti, wishing that the guy on the street would look up and whistle at you, and you are rightly ashamed for wanting him to.

Mrs. Valenti knows something is wrong.  I wish she could drop the feminist narrative for a moment and really try to figure out exactly what is wrong, but she just never does.  I hope someday she will.  But for now, she writes:

But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism

As if that would solve anything!  It wouldn’t.  Women will still want to be desired by men and men will still want women primarily for sex, families, and companionship, no matter how many nuanced conversations feminists have about the matter.  And so everyone is left much sadder and emptier than they would be if feminists would just admit that it is our (God-given) human nature.

The antidote for being an older woman craving sexual attention from random men on the street is to be an older woman who finds her satisfaction and contentment in being the cherished companion of the husband of her youth and in her unselfish care and service to her immediate and extended family.

 

Why so many people are confused about marital roles.

During my lunch break today I read the following Dear Abby letter:

http://entertainment.suntimes.com/lifestyles/dear-abby-seeking-ways-tell-daughter-truth-father/

DEAR ABBY: My husband and I were going along in life, doing it our way, until we decided we wanted to return to the church, so we stopped drinking and smoking pot. We hit a rough patch in that journey and divorced, but we didn’t stop going to church. It’s crazy, I know. After we divorced, I knew I messed up and deep down I knew I loved him.

So, now that we have remarried, it seems like he’s taking the role of Christian husband back to biblical times. This means he is the head of the house (which I get), but to the point where I am almost like a fixture. I would say I’m here for my looks, but I am overweight. I would say it’s for the sex, but it isn’t happening morning, noon and night, if you know what I mean. I would say it is the money, but now, after his last raise, he makes more than I do.

He cooks most of the time because he gets home before me. The house is always clean, and we share the household bills and expenses. So, I’m kinda lost and confused. Do I have a purpose here? Or am I only here to help pay the bills? — STARTING TO WONDER

Here was “Abby’s” advice:

DEAR STARTING TO WONDER: Only your husband can answer that question. However, part of a husband’s duties to his wife is to make her feel “honored and cherished,” and if that isn’t happening, your remarriage is in trouble.

Marriage counseling (possibly within the church) might help you to reconnect with each other, and I strongly recommend it. Unless you find out why you’re unhappy and fix it, this marriage will not last.

One’s initial reaction might be to mock the wife, but when you actually stop and think about it for a moment, her feelings of being lost and confused are also rather poignant and touching. She instinctively senses that something is wrong here – that a husband being “head of household” shouldn’t really be synonymous with “doing everything himself”.

This couple is confused because they are trying to “do” marriage under several sets of different, competing rules all while getting no helpful teaching but plenty of bad advice.  Previously they obviously had an egalitarian marriage in which they split the earning and household management evenly. Since becoming Christians, her husband is trying to figure out what the biblical role of “husband” is supposed to entail, and he’s obviously figured out that he is supposed to be the head of the marriage. But he has no practical understanding of what that looks like, so he is simply taking it to mean, “I am the head, therefore it must be my responsibility to do everything myself and require nothing of those of whom I am the head.”

The wife sees that things have changed, but she has no concept that her husband being the head requires her to be “under” his headship. She also doesn’t seem to understand that she has duties that, as a Christian wife, she is supposed to be fulfilling. But don’t mock her; how would she know what those roles are? She may have read a few verses in the Bible about women submitting to their husbands (or not), but it’s unlikely that she has had any helpful teaching about this from other Christians.

Now, common sense also seems to be lacking here. Obviously a wife with a clue would say to herself, “Gee, my husband is working hard. What could I do to please him?” She seems to have a sneaking suspicion about some of the things she could do: take care of her health and appearance by losing some weight, making sure that physical intimacy is happening somewhat regularly, and perhaps taking on some additional responsibilities around the home since her husband now out-earns her. But my suspicion is that she doesn’t really want to do these things very much as they may be difficult, and she’d rather coast along and is looking for moral cover to do so.  This is probably why she went to someone like “Dear Abby” with her question instead of taking it to God or another mature Christian.

Still, we can forgive this couple for their confusion. It would be really helpful if pastors could step up and deliver some practical sermons on biblical marriage roles.

But the one we can truly be disgusted with here is “Dear Abby”. Now, clearly Abby is not a Christian, so we can assume she gives lip service to egalitarian marriage. But here is where the rubber meets the road; here we have a man who is doing nearly everything and a woman who is not pulling her fair share, but instead of telling the wife to step up her game, Abby blames the husband! Not only is he supposed to do everything, he’s also supposed to make his wife feel honored and cherished while he does it! Not only is that not biblical, it’s not even egalitarian.

Since they are Christians, we can pray for this couple to find wisdom from God about what the biblical marriage roles of headship and submission look like in a practical context.  However, it is no wonder men and women are lost and confused. Pastors are often too cowardly to teach accurately on biblical marriage for fear of offending their congregants, and the secular advice-givers actively promote a fake egalitarian model.

 

Domination is not destruction.

The earth was given to Man to dominate:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”Genesis 1:26-28)

A quote from this interview with Kelly Ware, a permaculture practitioner and Christian, caught my attention:

“We were put on earth as stewards, to take care of the garden, and our domination thing, that we’re able to, you know, dominate is that we make the choices for things.  We say this plant goes, this plant stays, this earth works needs to happen.  So I really think that in terms of empowering ourselves to do earth works, because you’re changing a lot of things, but we’ve been given that right, to dominate and through that job that we were designed to do, which is steward creation.

According to Merriam Webster, domination means:

  1. supremacy or preeminence over another
  2. exercise of mastery or ruling power
  3. exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence

Notice one thing that the word dominate does not mean: destroy.

Many conservatives seem to believe that domination and destruction are synonymous.  Ann Coulter writes:

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man’s dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use.  God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping.

Is this truly what God says in the Bible?  Let us check:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15)

It is Man’s job to dominate and subdue the earth not by raping and destroying it but rather by working and keeping it.  The reason for working and keeping the earth isn’t because the earth is an object worthy of spiritual adoration, as environmentalists and some permaculture practitioners believe, but rather because God gave it to us for sustenance and human flourishing:

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. (Genesis 1:29)

Environmentalists, who are nearly all liberals, frequently fantasize about the elimination of humans from the earth due to the mistaken belief that the earth would be “better off” without us.  They see Man’s domination of the earth as inherently sinful (I use the word sinful to describe their religious-like beliefs because liberalism is their religion and is as authoritarian in its moral prescriptions as any other religion or political orientation).

Some secular permaculturists share the opinion that Man’s domination of the earth is Bad, bad, bad! but others do not, as this quote demonstrates:

Societies and their inhabitant are the reason that ecosystems (such as the Amazon Rainforest) are abundant in bio-diversity and life. In Permaculture it is constantly reinforced that human disturbance leads to environmental degradation; however, new evidence strongly concludes that without human disturbance, eco-systems would not be as thriving if humans were out of the picture.

In addition to the earth, Woman was also given to be under Man’s dominion:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

Women, kindly read that verse again.  For whom were we created?  For him.  And to whom were we given?

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:22)

Woman was given to Man to be under his dominion, not so that he can destroy her but so that he can cultivate a helper for his work of having dominion over the earth. This is where feminists, like environmentalists, get it wrong. They correctly perceive that some men are using their God-given dominion to destroy rather than cultivate their women, and they decide that Man’s domination itself is the problem, when in fact sin (destruction) is the problem.

We moderns see the word domination used in the man/woman context almost solely in the sense of sexually perverse role plays, but this is not what Christians should understand it to mean, not even when the context is the marital act.  Rather, the godly husband takes dominion over his wife and cultivates her to better fulfill her role as his helper in his domination (cultivation) of the earth.

Pastor Doug Wilson explained this well in something he wrote a few years ago:

A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.  This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

People lost their minds when he wrote this, with Christian feminist Rachel Held Evans writing:

It’s not about sex. It’s not about church leadership. It’s not about roles. It’s not about the Bible.

It’s about power.

It’s about whether or not patriarchy—man’s rule over woman—really represents God’s ideal for the world. 

And I believe, with every bone in my body, that patriarchy is a result of sin. I believe that followers of Jesus are to be champions of equality, and that it is our calling…

But a man conquering a woman does not implicitly mean he destroys her.  A man who conquers his wife in the sense that Pastor Wilson means is cultivating a family.  His dominion leads to flourishing rather than destruction.

Although it is pagan in spiritual orientation, I love the blog Bealtine Cottage, a site written by a woman in Ireland who bought a derelict cottage on some old agricultural land that was badly damaged by conventional farming practices and transformed it using permaculture gardening techniques into a gorgeous food forest.  Her stories and photos are fascinating.  However, the authoress Ms.O’Neill has misunderstood what domination of the earth and Woman by Man means.  She writes:

“As this era of masculine dominance comes to an end and a feminine understanding of life’s wholeness is included, we are beginning to experience a different world in which physical, mental, and spiritual well-being are interdependent.”

A limited and patriarchal interpretation of the Creator, has given us a male figure, with the female as subservient.

Dominance of Nature and continuous war has ensued…

It is clear from the Bible that God gave the earth and Woman to Man not to destroy but rather to cultivate, as we saw in Genesis 2:15.  It isn’t that male domination destroys the earth or women; it is that after the fall, men sometimes use their God-given right to dominate the earth for destructive purposes, rather than using their domination of the earth and their women to cultivate a flourishing garden and thriving families.  The solution isn’t to reject the order of creation that God intended, that of loving domination by Man, but rather for men to teach one another (something women absolutely cannot do) to use their God-given right of dominion to cultivate rather than destroy and then insist that it be so.

Part of the chaff of modernity is the belief that humans having dominion (domination) over the earth and Man having dominion (domination) over Woman is inherently destructive.  This is not true.  Only sinful behavior is destructive.  Godly dominion does not destroy; rather, it cultivates so that all which is under dominion flourishes.