Feminism Destroys Israel
Regardless of how the word “Israel” is understood, feminism attacks all expressions of it. Some Christians, for instance, assert that the international Christian congregation is the spiritual Israel, and yet feminist discourse is preached in churches. The Black Hebrew Israelites view Israel as the bloodlines of dark-skinned peoples, mostly African Americans, and it is clear that feminism has weakened the black population. Keeping in mind, that the Kingdom of Israel is a distinct political entity from the Jewish State of Israel, within the latter feminism is thriving and it is destroying the Jewish State of Israel along with every other country in which it has taken root. However, in contrast to countries where feminism is flourishing to a much greater degree, the Jewish State of Israel does not have a negative birthrate (averaging 3 children per woman). This is because the Torah-observant Jewish society in the Jewish State of Israel supports Genesis 1:28’s injunction to “be fruitful and multiply” and enforces traditional gender norms that assist in maintaining intact marriages.
The birth rate in the anti-monarchy, pro-feminist, Paul of Tarsus-loving, anti-Torah cesspool known as the United States of America is around 1.8. Below two, the population is practically dying, because it is “below replacement levels.”
All proponents of population control concur that granting women “better education and equal rights” will surely reduce the birthrate.
A Little Kingdom Called “Family”
“Therefore Sarah (princess) laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord (Abraham) being old also?” – Genesis 18:12
All nations without an absolute anti-feminist ruler will die over time. Only when there is a monarch on the throne (Messiah), can every man be a king. Where no monarch is revered on a throne, there will be less reason for a woman to regard her husband as the king of the little kingdom known as “family” in the minds of women and in the propaganda of anti-Torah criminals. As the natural, God-ordained order of the family is shattered, so will the country be shattered to the point of total collapse.
In light of the fact that feminism is anti-Torah and greatly multiplies human suffering, believe me when I say that in the Messianic Age, when the entire world will be called Israel, female feminists will either be converted to the submissive, modest, and delicate femininity of Sarah (princess) or they will be utterly destroyed. Male feminists who welcomed and backed the feminists’ anti-Torah worldview shall be executed. Every husband will have his princess (his Sarah), and every husband will be a lord in his wife’s eyes; and with such harmonic happiness, the memory of those who opposed God’s established order of things will be erased forever. If a man desires, he will have a large number of wives whom he will treat like princesses and queens. Isaiah 4:1 foretells that males would one day have as many as seven wives.
If a person ever comes to realize that all these things are true, that individual will also realize that I say these things, and I scold people severely because I do not want them to be among the dead. Nevertheless, I would cheerfully welcome the legal execution (decreed by the King of Israel) of any man who refuses to leave his feminism, since its evil gender-equality doctrine leads to the disintegration of families, the ruin of nations, and the deaths and misery of little children. For the fruits of their wickedness, I hate feminists with a perfect hate.
What is Feminism?
Some individuals have said they are not feminists yet have demonstrated ignorance of the term feminism. For the record, feminism is “the promotion of women’s rights on the basis of sex equality” or “the ideology of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” According to these criteria, many men are shamefully feminist in their thinking because they push for gender equality in marriage, which is opposed to God’s intention for the “little kingdom called family.” Some of these cowardly men even ridicule more masculine men for believing that they should “rule over” their spouses or be the undisputed leaders of their “family kingdom”. These beta males drastically misunderstand Genesis 3:16 as meaning that God punished Eve by establishing a new circumstance in which her husband would “rule over” (dominate) her.
The feminist-influenced beta males assert that gender equality was the “Garden of Eden Ideal” for marriage. However, the Torah in no way echoes the feminist reading of Genesis 3:16.
I Gave Her a Name, She Belongs To Me
This may be uncomfortable for for the feminist mind to think about, but the Torah view on women is that a man owns his wife as precious property to be loved, carried for, and led. She is like owning a luxury sports car that is “more valuable than rubies.” (Proverbs 31:10)
When a guy acquires a vehicle and signs his name on the title, the vehicle is legally his. Any rational individual would never intend for something bad to occur to his automobile. Vehicles are frequently referred to as if they were living, breathing, female entities. A guy will refer to a prized vehicle as “her,” take care of her, and attempt to steer her in the right direction. It is understood that possession of this “female” object can be transferred by changing the name on the vehicle’s document.
Adam was the first male to name a woman when he called his wife Eve (Strong’s Concordance entry H2332, “Chavvah” Hebrew, meaning: life, life giver). Adam was granted authority over all the creatures, which he named, and he was obviously intended to be the dominant partner in his relationship with Eve, whom he also named.
“And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:20
“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” – Genesis 3:20
Many cultures now let a woman (mother) to give a female her name at birth. There is no such thing as a female surname, though (except among certain heathen cultures).
Women have only given names. A woman’s last name indicates who she belongs to (literally: who owns her) and hence who is responsible for her care and guidance. In Judaism, Messianic Judaism and Christian, wedding ceremonies constitute an exchange of ownership (transferring valuable property from father to the new son-in-law); the male gives the lady a new name, and she becomes his property.
The Garden of Eden Gender Role Ideal
Women should not be forbidden from studying the Torah—and they should everywhere speak of how its tenets benefit their family, community, and the whole of humanity. Women studying the Torah (first five books of the Bible) is not the problem here. My issue is with those submissive feminist-influenced men that will superimpose their perspective onto the Torah and attempt to make it bend to their corrupted view of reality.
One of these men stated that a husband should not reign over his wife, as the king of the relationship, since Genesis 3:16 contains the phrase “rule over you.” These men contend that these words indicate that Adam and Eve’s position in the Garden of Eden was one of idealistic feminist equality. The argument is that this is the ideal for each husband and wife to pursue, and that “equal partnership” is the highest spiritual ideal. In a feminist perspective of the Garden of Eden, some have reasoned that the text implies Adam will have a desire to control his wife Eve that he never had before. They note that God did not specifically tell Eve to surrender to Adam’s alleged new desire to rule her, rather, they claim that God was saying that Adam “ruling over” her would be a new terrible condition outside of the garden.
Adam allegedly realized that his desire to dominate his wife was a defect, an undesirable trait. And therefore, knowing that his desire to control his wife Eve is an ailment, Adam should do everything in his power to repress this urge and refrain from hurting and afflicting the one he loves. After constructing this foolishness, they assert that God gave Adam the ability to restrain his urge to be the leader of his wife. These intellectually and spiritually immature beta males assert that men should not seek to control their women out of love and should pray to God for the fortitude not to inflict their wives with an allegedly bad urge. They assert that a man’s instinct to be the leader, and therefore the dominant partner in a relationship, was likely added to man’s essence as a result of the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and that this supposedly foreign instinct was implanted in man to afflict and punish Eve’s female ancestors.
These submissive males think that men should always battle any urge to be the relationship’s leader and instead choose for a more anarchistic or democratic system in which no one is the relationship’s true decision-maker. These sad instances of servile masculinity assert that Adam’s desire to be the head of his marriage was a punishment for Eve. Adam was the only person who existed at the moment God gave His creation the instruction not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. God wanted Adam to exercise manly leadership in his marriage, speak with his wife, and guide her in the proper way.
Feminists interpret Genesis 3:16 incorrectly because they connect the word “dominate” with tyranny and are determined to constantly equate the masculine desire to lead with the subjection of women. Genesis 3:16 – 19 reveals that the same things for which males and females were created will bring them suffering; this is the only topic of these verses (apart from their spiritual/mystical depths). However, the feminist digs deep into the text to discover a ludicrous justification for removing men from their thrones so that they are never acknowledged as kings of their little kingdoms called “family.”
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” – Genesis 3:16
A subservient, feminist-influenced person will interpret the phrase “and he shall reign over thee” in Genesis 3:16 to mean that God is saying that something terrible is about begin happening outside of the “Garden Ideal”. The fact that they do not view the phrase “and thy desire shall be for thy spouse” as something to be avoided since it contradicts their gender-neutral interpretation of the Garden of Eden, demonstrates a feminist bias. Why don’t feminists link the Garden of Eden with Third Wave Feminists like Andrea Dworkin and interpret Genesis 3:16 to suggest that females shouldn’t “desire” males at all? This conclusion is excessive, even for the male feminist, who still has a male sex organ and a “desire” for the female. Instead, the emphasis is on the phrase “rule over,” as it is customary for feminists to disparage the notion that males should be the leaders in the household.
In reality, the Torah does not support the notion that a man who “rules over” his wife is not ideal. Should the male or the woman be in charge (“māšal” Hebrew, Strong’s Concordance entry H4910, meaning: dominant position, ruling over, etc.) or are they equal, the feminists assert? Adam was to be a lord over his wife, as is glaringly evident to the prudent observer. Adam is especially reprimanded for listening to his wife instead of God and for following his wife’s words. Chavvah (Eve) was required to obey the voice of her husband, just as her husband followed the voice of God. How is this known? Chavvah was not present to hear God’s admonition not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge since she did not yet exist!
• Genesis 2:17 – COMMANDMENT GIVEN TO ADAM (told to Adam by God)
• Genesis 2:22 Woman is created. The number 2 relates to water, chaos, disorder, fluidity, gracefulness, and femininity.
• Genesis 3:6 – Woman decides to listen to the serpent instead of the commandment given by God (told to her by her husband).
• Genesis 3:12 – Adam speaks to God like a typical beta male who doesn’t know how to lead a woman. He complains to God that he listened to what the woman said (told to Chavvah by the serpent) and essentially tries to blame God because, after all, it was He that created the woman.
• Genesis 3:17 – PUNISHMENT GIVEN TO ADAM FOR BREAKING COMMANDMENT – God announces Adam’s punishment, and begins his statement by saying, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” Note that the commandment is given in Genesis 2:17 and it is broken by Adam in Genesis 3:17.
The man should have obeyed God’s mandate, while the woman should have followed her husband’s instructions. Adam failed to follow God and to lead his wife; instead, he let himself to be led by Chavvah, who was led by the snake. Adam and Eve were punished differently based on their gender. Adam was designed to tend to the garden (gardener), and his physique was fashioned accordingly. Humans are the only creatures in the world who require extensive activity to grow strength, and human muscle is pitifully weak in comparison to that of many other species. Thus, Adam’s punishment is to find himself suddenly ill-equipped to be a gardener (a tiller of the soil, manual laborer), and his attempts to derive sustenance and pleasure from his work shall be hampered by his pitiful mortal body and the thorns, thistles, weeds, etc., that plague the vegetation of this world.
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (i.e., your labor shall be made difficult), till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” – Genesis 3:19
Eve was created to serve as Adam’s assistant/helper. She was designed to provide companionship, sexual pleasure (Proverbs 5:18–19), a method of procreation, a child-rearing partner, and assistance. Eve’s penalty is that she may experience pain rather than joy in all aspects of her natural femininity.
“He said to the woman…”
1) ” I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception”
The process of becoming (conception, intercourse) and being pregnant, which is a crucial component of femininity, may and frequently does cause a woman to experience sorrow.
Many women may not derive as much pleasure from sex as they might or should. Even getting impregnated by a man that is unsuited to be a husband or father is a significant source of female pain.
2) “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”
Often, the process of giving birth and becoming a mother is a cause of pain, even when there is otherwise a lot of happiness derived from motherhood. Miscarriages, excruciating labor, children borrn with malformations, and the fact that the majority of children slain by a parent are killed by their mothers are all female-centered maternal curses as a product of Original Disobedience.
According to BreakingTheSilence.org, 70% of children are murdered by their mothers, and 60% of those slain by women are males. The Department of Health and Human Services in the United Kingdom reports that between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% of children who were abused by a parent were abused by their mother. Clearly, the God-given female gender function of motherhood can sometimes be a substantial cause of grief, sadness, and rage in our fallen world; nonetheless, nowhere in the Torah is it intimated that having children is incompatible with the “Garden Ideal.” Instead, sadness will surround this normal female function.
3) “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Women will desire to marry and be with men, and men will—rightfully and by design—rule over women; yet, her sexual and emotional yearning for this divinely ordained arrangement will bring her distress. Scientists have consistently demonstrated that when women experience normal monthly ovulation it can drastically alter their behavior, thinking, speaking, decision-making, movement, and attire. Feminists are unable to accept this reality. When a human female is in heat, she is unconsciously seeking the sperm of the most dominant available alpha male (which may no longer be her husband or perhaps never was her husband). She will want the stability that a man can provide her when she is not in heat, and she may locate a “beta male provider” to fulfill this desire. However, when she is in heat (ovulating), she will want to procreate with an “alpha male stud.” Therefore, while a lady is ovulating, she may struggle with infidelity severely. The perceptive man will maintain his alpha position in the eyes of his wife.
In addition, woman was created to be a helper/assistant, yet this natural order would cause her pain. The man declares, “I cannot wait for this day to end.” The man continues, “I’ve been busting my rear, perspiring like a grammar-Nazi reading graffiti in a public restroom, and half of my crops have been ruined by insects and vermin.” Meanwhile the woman is pondering, “I’m unsure if marrying him was the right decision. I’m beginning to agree with these anti-Torah and anti-Christ ladies on television who declare that doing the dishes and other chores for my hubby constitutes slavery. Having two hands, he can make his own sandwich without my assistance. In addition, I have heard male feminists assert that my husband’s dominance and control over me is not the Garden of Eden Ideal.”
As stated earlier, I am opposed to feminists for the sake of all the broken marriages and deceased children caused by their First Wave Feminist ideology. Men who do not oppose all forms of feminism, and those men who are still uncertain whether or not the God of Israel is a feminist, have no place in the Kingdom of Israel.
To conclude Genesis 3:16:
• Conceiving is not, nor is it indicated anywhere, a punishment.
• Having children is not, nor is it inferred, a punishment.
• A woman’s desire for her spouse neither constitutes nor implies a punishment.
• A husband’s “ruling over” his wife is neither a punishment nor suggested to be one.
•…yet pain emanates from all of these things, owing to the inner-conflict generated by a cursed femininity, as well as the outside flaws of this world (miscarriages, ugliness, sickness, disobedient offspring, brutish husbands instead of loving rulers, etc.).
The 613 & 316 Pattern of Obedience
What is the origin of the curse? It is disobedience. Note that there are 613 laws found in the first five books of the Bible called the “Torah.” The reversal of 613 is 316. As is taught in the Thirteen Principles of the Messianic Karaites, the word that is translated as “believes” in John 3:16 is better translated as “obeys.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the words that are translated as “hard to understand” are better translated as “nonsense,” and once that is understood, 2 Peter 3:16 becomes another verse that supports the ascertain that obedience to God’s commandments are required to attain immortality/salvation (Revelation 22:14).
Note too that 2 Peter 3:16 directly opposes the assertion of 2 Timothy 3:16, which has Paul saying that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Whereas Saul/Paul is trying to convince people that his words are divine, if 2 Peter 3:16 is properly translated, it is warning that Saul the Charlatan’s writings are sprinkled with nonsense.
Meanwhile 1 Peter 3:1 – 16 is a passage directed toward women to be obedient to their husband’s and to God, and Peter reminds the ladies that Sarah called Abraham “lord.” In Abraham and Sarah’s intimacy, one can never know what Sarah liked to call her “lord.” I particularly don’t like my wife to call me “Daddy” in public, but sometimes she forgets. This, of course, is cause for much embarrassment. In the next aisle in the Religion & Spirituality section of the bookstore, the sudden sound of a grown woman replying to her husband “Yes, Daddy” in a girlishly cheerful voice, can turn the place into a comedy club of stifled laughter.
Taking note of the repeated 316 pattern, 1 Peter 3:16 reminds people that if a woman has been honest in her obedience to God, and in her obedience and loyalty to her husband (i.e., her personal king, as opposed to the public king of the Kingdom of Israel, Jesus Christ), topped with speaking about the King of Kings in a reverently fearful, respectful and feminine manner, will embarrass anyone who attempts to falsely accuse the woman of cheating on her husband, or other wickedness.
A Woman’s Husband is Her Lord
One of the often used Biblical Hebrew words for “husband” (Strong’s Concordance entry H1167 “ba’al” Hebrew) is also used for lord, owner, and ruler. So how is it possible that feminists could arrive at the conclusion that God’s Torah is advocating gender-equality in marriage when the very word for “husband” automatically denotes one who is superior to the other? The Torah is nowhere against a husband “ruling over” his wife (i.e., leading as the “king of the household”). If someone believes that Jesus is the Torah-keeping Messiah, and the embodiment of God, then it is silly to imagine that he could be a feminist in the slightest sense. From the New Testament scriptures:
“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives (i.e., even without the Torah, their wonderful submissiveness, and the joyful natural order of their relationship will attract more women to righteousness); While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit (i.e., beautifully submissive), which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the HOLY WOMEN also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, BEING IN SUBJECTION UNTO THEIR HUSBANDS: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” – 1 Peter 3:1 – 6
Notice that the chapter and verse numbers for 1 Peter 3:1 – 6 have a pattern of 316, as it is chapter three, verse one, through six and the passage is pertaining to female obedience.
Now we will read from the Torah, which is the foundation of the religion of the Israelites:
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” – Genesis 3:16
Note the 316 numerical pattern, and both selections (1 Peter 3:1 – 6 and Genesis 3:16) specifically mentioning a woman being submissive to, or being “ruled over” by her husband, and with John 3:16 translated correctly, the admonition is clear: God desires that a woman should be obedient to her husband; and God certainly wants His symbolic “women” to be obedient to Him (Kingdom of Israel, Tribe of Judah, et al).
A Submissive Proverbs 31 Wife
Feminists will highlight and reinterpret biblical passages to support their worldview. If the feminist is not claiming that God is a psychopathic woman-hating misogynist, then he or she will claim that God is a feminist. It is either one extreme or the other with these people, so they will attempt to demonstrate that a woman is equal to her husband with regard to all matters of decision-making, and therefore, they conclude that God is a feminist. This ridiculous argument is replete with feminist terminology and a beta male perspective on how a partnership should function.
One male feminist asserted that Proverbs 31—a passage said to describe the perfect woman—is supposedly echoing feminist principles that he believes existed in the Garden of Eden. He recalled the verse in which the woman considers acquiring a field and then acts on her own volition to do so. Since the text does not reference a conversation with her husband, this feminized male contended that God is promoting the idea of an egalitarian relationship between husband and wife, in which a man is only a “co-leader” in the household. This feminized male stated that he envisioned the man in the relationship performing all the physical labor on the family farm, while his “strong and independent” wife was free to handle her vineyard business as she saw fit. In this feminist-influenced, beta-male resource-provider reading of the Bible, the male’s purpose is to bring the products of his “hard work” to his wife, while his wife is free to do as she pleases as “co-leader” in a purportedly equal partnership.
How is such an insane system expected to promote equality when it only transforms the man into a tool doomed to perform more strenuous labor than his female counterpart?
The feminist believes that in an ideal relationship, the man should have to make decisions with his wife as an equal “co-leader,” and of course, the division of labor is in favor of the female.
Consider the complete lack of logic in this position: the man’s wife is free to make enormous financial and business decisions that could affect the entire family and drastically reduce her availability to her husband and their children, yet the feminist insists that the male in the relationship should not have the authority to steer the course of his family’s ship, but should consult with his wife as a “co-leader.” She is apparently free to do as she pleases, whereas he must consult with his supposedly equal partner.
The feminist concludes that the woman’s husband, in Proverbs 31, had no involvement on her decision to enter the wine business (Proverbs 31:16) because his input is not stated in the scripture. From the perspective of feminists, it would be against the “Garden of Eden Ideal” for a woman’s husband to insist, for instance, that she not go into the wine business, perhaps because he has decided (as the head of his family) to relocate the family to a completely different region of the country, far from the plot of land she was planning to buy. It is unnecessary to state that “she consulted with her husband before investing in the vineyard” since any Israelite reading the story would correctly assume that she had previously had such a discussion with her personal king.
God names Israel and Judah His wives, and He requires obedience from them. However, feminists would have you think that God does not want Eve to be obedient to the man He created. The utter stupidity of this feminist gibberish should be readily apparent.
The primary issue with the feminist reading of Proverbs 31:10–31 is that these passages are prophetic advice given to a real king by his mother, who is describing the qualities of a suitable queen for him (King Lemuel) based on a prophetic vision from God. Though Proverbs 31 has been laudably utilized as a model of excellence for all women, what pertains to nobles is not necessarily appropriate for common women. Certainly, a lady who is not a member of the Assembly of Israel (i.e., upper-nobility) might have an extraordinarily noble character and a refined look and demeanor.
However, the African American ethnic group, which comprises the Tribe of Judah and other tribes, is afflicted by women who aspire to be “divas” and “queens,” and feminists urge women of all races to admire capitalists and “career women.” The common people do not need more vain divas, entitled queens, masculine female engineers, or strong and independent attorneys and businesswomen who spend their whole day working outside the home or plugged into a computer. The nations need mothers and wives; they require housewives in order to thrive!
Proverbs 31 does not describe an ordinary lady, but rather a queenly spouse! This type of woman may be active in a variety of businesses, but it would be a big error to conclude that it recommends the average woman have a job while her husband is, as some feminists would say, “doing the heavy labor” elsewhere. If these verses are to be utilized to educate the average woman on her behavior in marriage, then the ideal wife is one who is capable of making prudent financial decisions with the welfare of her family in mind, rather than frivolously wasting her money. These passages are in no way meant to imply that ordinary women should all pursue careers as farmers, clothing manufacturers, or businesswomen who do not have to cope with the “meddling oversight” of their “dominant” husbands.
Furthermore, the notion that the husband of the Proverb’s 31 woman is not the dominant figure in their family is not alluded to whatsoever. Only a feminist mind, or a beta male mind under the toxic influence of feminism, could reach such a conclusion.
I could elaborate on how marital success declines as a woman’s income increases, but suffice it to say that the more a woman earns, and the greater her level of education, the greater her probability of infidelity and divorce. Why? Because, when the female of the species goes into heat (ovulates), she seeks a superior male. The husband she had viewed as alpha (greater than her and many other men she had previously met) will now be viewed as a beta male. She will be sexually attracted [during ovulation] by males who she perceives to be superior to her, as well as superior to her husband because now he is inferior to her.
Typically, a true king does not have to worry about this, as he is the wealthiest man in the nation. Thus, a king’s wife may greatly enhance her own wealth via her own work, yet her husband, the king, who is still far wealthier than her, would be no less an alpha male in her eyes throughout her menstrual cycle (i.e., ovulating, desiring to be impregnated by alpha male semen). The common man does not have access to the king’s treasury, thus it is extremely imprudent to encourage common women to engage in activities that would allow them to earn more than their husbands, so reducing them in their minds to lesser beta males. “I just don’t know why I’m no longer attracted to my husband,” laments the career woman whose earnings now dwarf that of her previously dominant male spouse.
It is also true that women are less sexually attracted to their spouses the more their spouse engages in “women’s work” as is commonly defined by the culture in which they live. In 2013, the American Sociological Review released a research paper titled “Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which demonstrated that women are less attracted to males who spend time at home tackling traditionally female responsibilities. The more a man cooks, cleans, folds clothes, scrubs surfaces, mops, sweeps, and vacuums, the less appealing he will seem to his wife. Husbands who solely performed manly duties, such as mowing the yard, taking out the garbage, or working on the car, had 1.5 times more sex than beta males who performed feminine chores. In addition, the more conventional the allocation of family duties, the greater sexual satisfaction women reported having from their husbands.
This data contradicts feminist nonsense, and the views of liberal marital counselors, who believe that husbands should assist their wives with conventional female home responsibilities. If a guy wants to maintain his wife’s sexual satisfaction and avoid having less sex, he should never touch a mop, vacuum, or a dirty dish in the kitchen sink. Also, avoid the washing and drying machines unless you need to repair them.
As for the feminist, beta-male, anti-Torah, “equal partnership” feminist fantasy, it has been debunked. The usage of the term “co-leader” is a feminist oxymoron. God is an absolute monarchist and Lord of War (Exodus 15:3), as is His Messiah, and all military personnel are familiar with the idea of Unity of Command. In summary, no one is permitted to undercut the hierarchy by receiving commands from a variety of different commanders (this includes following your own orders, and thus making yourself equal to your commander). In addition, the angelic organization is hierarchical. Nonetheless, feminists attempt to convince people that God is so stupid that He would jettison timeless military principles right out the window—that are essential to maintaining a successful team—in favor of feminist equality. Nonsense!
In the Book of Esther, the Persian warrior-king, King Ahasuerus (Xerses), echos the principle that husbands are to be rulers (kings, lords) in the sight of their wives.
“On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Karkas— to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. But when the attendants delivered the king’s command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger. Since it was customary for the king to consult experts in matters of law and justice, he spoke with the wise men who understood the times and were closest to the king—Karshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memukan, the seven nobles of Persia and Media who had special access to the king and were highest in the kingdom. “According to law, what must be done to Queen Vashti?” he asked. “She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes that the eunuchs have taken to her.” Then Memukan replied in the presence of the king and the nobles, “Queen Vashti has done wrong, not only against the king but also against all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces of King Xerxes. For the queen’s conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, ‘King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.’ This very day the Persian and Median women of the nobility who have heard about the queen’s conduct will respond to all the king’s nobles in the same way. There will be no end of disrespect and discord. “Therefore, if it pleases the king, let him issue a royal decree and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media, which cannot be repealed, that Vashti is never again to enter the presence of King Xerxes. Also, let the king give her royal position to someone else who is better than she (“better” equals: follows the command of her husband). Then when the king’s edict is proclaimed throughout all his vast realm, all the women will respect their husbands (“respect” equals: follow their husband’s command), from the least to the greatest.” The king and his nobles were pleased with this advice, so the king did as Memukan proposed. He sent dispatches to all parts of the kingdom, to each province in its own script and to each people in their own language, proclaiming that every man should be ruler over his own household, using his native tongue.” – Esther 1:10 – 22
Again, feminists attempt to convince people that the Lord of the Universe, who is a warrior and an absolute monarchist, who favors strict hierarchy and obedience to His command, would create a man in His image, create a helper/assistant for his heterosexual male creation, and then—using the twisted “logic” of a feminist—argue that there is no leader in the relationship. Now, let’s analyze the terms that feminists have emphasized in Proverbs 31 in order to distort the Bible to fit their “equal partnership” and “co-leader” viewpoint.
“An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life. She looks for wool and flax, and works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night. And gives food to her household. And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength, and makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, and her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, and she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her, saying:” – Proverbs 31: 10 – 28
One feminist was so eager to show his viewpoint that he emphasized the words “her household” (Proverbs 31:21) as if to suggest that she is the primary head of the family. If the words read “her family” (, Strong’s Concordance entry H1004, “bayith,” Hebrew, meaning: house, household), these feminists could not be so deceptive, because no one interprets the words “her family” to mean “she is the head of the family,” just as when a child suggests to his friends, “Let’s have a sleepover at my house,” the words “my house” do not imply that the youngster actually owns the building in which his family resides and sleeps.
Examine these passages in light of the fact that the Torah (first five books of the Bible), Tanakh (Old Testament), and Brit Hadasha (New Covenant) – even in the absence of Paul of Tarsus’ unlawful, misogynistic rubbish–all call for obedient women and male leadership in the bayit (household, house).
Proverbs 31:10 – 31 Examined
Verse 10 “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
It is established that a virtuous woman is extremely rare.
Verse 11 “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.”
The Hebrew term for “husband” is ba’al, which also means lord, owner, and ruler. This verse is saying that it is proven that this lady provides for her husband (her master) to the extent that he has no desire for the property of others (Strong’s Concordance entry H7997, “shalal” Hebrew, meaning: plunder, booty, gain, spoils of war). According to the interpretation, the woman’s master (her husband) believes she will provide for him. As we proceed through the passages, we shall see how she pleases her lord, king, and master (husband). Contrast this with feminist philosophy, which would never expect women to “provide for their husbands,” nor defend the use of a word (ba’al) that signifies a lord, owner, or ruler to refer to a woman’s cisgender heterosexual male life partner.
Verse 12 “She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.”
This is blatant praise for a woman who renders good service to her personal king (husband). In the same way as real nobles devote their entire lives to the service of their country, this princess, who resembles Abraham’s beloved Sarah, devotes her entire life to the pleasure of her spouse.
Verse 13 “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
When it says she works “willingly with her hands,” it means she takes pleasure in her labor. Note that wool and flax (which is used to make linen) are clothing components. In direct contrast to the feminist ideal, this lady settles down to sew and knit for her family.
Verse 14 “She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
Chef Julia Child (15 August 1912 – 13 August 2004) introduced Americans to delectable French food with her first cookbook. In other words, the meals she prepares for her husband and children are delightful since she carefully selects a wide variety of delicious foods for them. Cooking and making clothing in the home are widely regarded as “women’s work,” despite the fact that males may be cooks and tailors. Furthermore, creating clothing for one’s husband and ensuring that he is well-fed are beneath feminists, who view such activities as domestic slavery.
Verse 15 “She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.”
Again, this ideal lady is devoted to her husband (lord) and family, and gets up early in the morning to make a delicious breakfast, and she’s generous enough to share with her staff. She is the polar opposite of the distorted feminist attitude on the role of women in marriage. The inclusion of the phrase “her maidens” (Strong’s Concordance entry H5291, “na’arah” Hebrew, meaning: young female) serves as a further reminder that this is a prophesy about a real noblewoman.
Verse 16 “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
Not only is she shrewd in how she spends her money, but she also never shirks her responsibilities. There is no indication that she and her husband (lord, owner, ruler, master) are co-leaders or equals in power, or that he should not “rule over” her (i.e., lead her). Whenever a subservient beta male decides to relegate himself to “co-leader” with his wife, his children will not see Unity of Command. This man is a poor model of manhood and family leadership. The relationship between God and Israel is analogous to that of a husband and wife (Isaiah 54:5, and many, many other verses). She must absolutely surrender to Him.
Verse 17 “She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.”
In other words, she exercises and isn’t lazy. This is a stark contrast to feminist “fat acceptance.” This woman takes care of her body…certainly to the pleasure of her husband (and this prophecy of an ideal woman is being delivered to a heterosexual man that would certainly be interested in this detail).
Verse 18 “She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
This is a lady who is prepared to stay up late to take care of family-related financial concerns.
Verse 19 “She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.”
Again, the Tanakh (Old Testament) promotes gender norms and women doing “women’s work” as opposed to feminist equality.
Verse 20 “She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.”
She demonstrates empathy. Notably, this indicates that she is Torah-observant, because there are numerous mitzvot (commandments) governing the treatment of the impoverished and disadvantaged.
Verse 21 “She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.”
Her family has warm, high-quality apparel, and we can be assured that she sewed some of the articles of clothing herself.
Verse 22 “She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.”
She is well-dressed and possesses the knowledge and ability to sew her own clothes. Contrast this with the modern, feminist-influenced woman who cannot sew or prepare a good meal even if her life depended on it.
Verse 23 “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.”
She has made the intelligent decision to wed a respected man who is well-known within groups of knowledgeable, powerful, and honorable individuals.
Verse 24 “She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”
Again, she is wise in business and finance, and does not shirk labor in order to accumulate money. She knows that the fruits of her hard work can be used to improve the condition of her life, and that of her husband and children.
Verse 25 “Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.”
In time, she will have the pleasure of laughing (Strong’s Concordance entry H7832: “sachaq” Hebrew, meaning: laugh, laugh at, mock) at all those who mocked her due to her reputation as a respectable and hardworking housewife. In other words, she has served her husband and family, and now she is laughing at the anti-Torah feminists who mocked her behavior.
Verse 26 “She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.”
What is the “law of kindness,” but the Torah itself?
Verse 27 “She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.”
Again, the prophecy envisions a noble woman who takes pleasure in being a homemaker.
Verse 28 “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.”
Surely, this woman—who cares for her children, does “women’s work,” is trustworthy, and is happy to get up early in the morning to make breakfast—deserves the praise of her family.
Verse 29 “Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.”
Again, we are speaking of a true noble woman who is above the common virtuous woman. This is a virtuous woman royale.
Verse 30 “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.”
When compared to the morality, intelligence, and good actions of a woman who fears God, a woman’s popularity in the community, or even her fame, or her reputation as one of the most beautiful women, means nothing.
Verse 31 “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.”
She is deserving of all the fruits of her labor, and the lords and elders of the nation will applaud her for her good actions and sterling reputation…as a faithful wife, obedient servant to her master (husband), and diligent mother and housewife.
With that stated, there is only one more verse to contemplate.
“Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.” – Proverbs 31:3
About The Author
