Opinions on faith and life

Female Supremacism: A Parody

2009-06-10

The arguments and lines of reason typically used to prop up male supremacism in Christianity can perhaps be better illustrated with parody than academic debate alone. So I have endeavored to use the same method they use on scripture to argue for its opposite. Please note that I am not actually arguing in favor of female supremacism, as I believe any kind of supremacism is against the very fiber of the teachings of Jesus.


In Genesis, we see that God saves His best work for last: humanity. And on this divine principle we observe that Eve, the woman, was made last of all, and is therefore shown to be in authority over Adam, the prototype. No authority was given to them over the animals until they both existed, which proves that the female is the one charged with authority over the male. Eve was created because Adam was not able to stand alone, but never does scripture state that Eve was in any kind of need.

Scripture says plainly that sin entered the world through Adam, because he refused to guard the garden from the serpent and stood idly by while Eve was tempted. The serpent targeted Eve because she was Adam’s guardian, his ally and partner, so he had to take her out first. Satan knew very well that Adam could not stand alone.

After the temptation and fall, God promised the Savior through the Seed of Eve alone, again showing her preeminence, and clearly illustrating her rank as federal head since her seed would be his remedy. Notice also that God has called a man to leave his parents and join to his wife; the inferior moves to join to the superior. All men have shared Adam’s weakness and should therefore never be given responsibility over the family.

In addition, God predicted that men would lust for leadership and be prone to usurping authority that does not belong to them. They have a history of violence and passing blame, qualities not suitable for the nurture and responsibility of either the home or the church. Speaking of the church, God has only ever used female terms to describe her. She is His Bride, His beloved, the one He sacrificed for and came to serve. She, as the glory of man, is his crown and the symbol of perfection.

Jesus included women among His disciples and chose only women to appear to first after His resurrection. Only women were brave enough to stand by Him during His trial and execution, and to boldly approach the tomb that glorious resurrection morning. They believed, but the men had to be convinced, and Jesus Himself had to appear to them because they wouldn’t believe the women.

Later, as the church grew, women figured prominently in working along side such luminaries as the apostle Paul. He counted many of them among his co-workers and praised many more. He never restricted their ministry nor ordered them to marry; in fact, he held up singleness as the ideal Christian state on several occasions. He reacted with indignation at the attempt of some to oppress women, asking them quite sarcastically whether they thought they were the authors of the Word of God. He had to remind such men that women too would someday judge angels, and were therefore quite capable of judging whether to cover their heads in worship. The men wanted to bow to culture, but Paul kept setting them straight.

We should not be surprised that men lust for leadership. But we must guard them against their natural craving to rule and oppress and urge them to be happy in their proper role. There are many other areas in which they can serve God, such as fixing things and putting up buildings. And lest they ask why God would call them to ministry so clearly yet forbid them to pursue it, we should remind them that God has just as clearly shown female superiority at every turn. After all, it was the woman’s seed that crushed Satan, proving that males alone carry the sin gene. They are sinning against God by aspiring to leadership in the church and home, because they naturally tend to usurp authority God gave to women.

The woman, designed to rescue the man from his weakness in being alone, is the bearer of the Savior and thus the rightful bearer of the gospel. She who could only be felled by the most devious trickery is the remedy for man’s weakness.


Do you see how easy it would be to take the very same kinds of arguments as the male supremacists and make an equal case for female supremacism? And why is it that history has almost no witness to female supremacism? Could it be that men really do crave to rule over women, just as God predicted? Yet you won’t find any of us egalitarians-- meaning no supremacy at all between believers-- arguing that because men crave rule, then women must restrain them. What I hope to have done here is to illustrate the inherent flaw in the male supremacist approach to scripture. They argue from silence, they bow to culture, they selectively apply only those parts that seem to favor their agenda while forbidding such selection to egals.

The best approach to scripture is one that does not require enough fine print to make a tax code writer jealous. And as I’ve said before, the proof is in the reaction: if men are only serving and not bossing, then they will not fight to keep their humble position.

17 Comments

truthseeker

Paula, this is hilarious yet ironically it is the same reasoning that is used to shore up the otherwise sadly sagging comp theory. Great job! It almost convinced me of female supremacy! :)

Janice

Very good, Paula. As far as I can see you’ve covered all the arguments and have subverted them. Good for you!

Paula Fether

Tanx ladies! :-)

Lin

Paula, very good points! You got all of it. I think you hit it on the head at the end. I will go a step further: These comp/pats want us to LIVE OUT the consequences of sin. And only so they can have power over other. It is man centered.

Paula Fether

Tanx Lin!

Yes, that’s exactly what they want. They want all women to **choose** to follow them "out of the garden" instead of staying in direct communion with God. And any woman who sees though this call to sin is vilified and slandered and shunned. As I mentioned in my Nicolaitan book, scripture explicitly states that believers are not to enslave themselves, but that’s what male supremacism is all about: convincing women that it is godly to do exactly that.

Rachel

LOL Thanks Rachel

Frozen Banana

So funny! I love it! I first remember hearing that because Eve was made before Adam, that Eve wasn’t as important when I was thirteen. It was a humdinger at the time!

Paula Fether

Tanx Rachel and FB!

Sonnet

Thanks Paula. Your parody is great.

I have often been taught that wives should **choose** to submit to their husbands except for when it would obviously be sinning...that this is God’s will and thus a specific command for wives. Since God’s word says that if we love Him, we will obey His commands (John Chap.14), I honestly believed that I was showing my love to God by **choosing** to submit to my husband even when I did not agree with his decisions. I did not feel the freedom to initiate further discussions with my husband when we were in disagreement because I thought that that would make me a contentious and unsubmissive wife. The strange thing is that he believed that I had become swayed into accepting his decisions and was now in agreement with him when I thought for sure that he knew I was *choosing* to submit. This resulted in me feeling unloved by him (that he was disregarding my thoughts and feelings) which led to feelings of alienation and resentment. It was not a good recipe for a healthy marriage.

It took me a long time to figure out that I was trying to serve two masters, that I had placed myself into bondage and slavery to another human, and that this *choosing* was not really a free choice but under compulsion to a man-made interpretation, law and doctrine. Soft comps say that to submit is not synonymous with to obey. And some comps even speak of mutual submisison. But when they go on to explain it, there is nothing mutual about it. It looks pretty much like obedience for wives. They may emphasize that a husband should not *force* his wife to submit to his final decisions, but if she wants to please God, then she should *willingly* submit to his decisions. They just find ways to speak around the politically incorrect words obedience and obey. "But a rose by any other name is still a rose."

I wonder just how many of these false teachers are purposefully trying to deceitfully mislead women and how many are actually deceived into believing that their view of submission really is different from obedience, bondage and slavery. I am so thankful that God has set me free from this deception.

Paula Fether

Thanks Sonnet!

Good question. Only God knows for sure, but there are some who would have to have split personalities not to know that what they’re teaching is against scripture, because they claim to know it and have the creds to prove it.

Yes, I rejoice with every freed prisoner. Men who feel threatened by strong and intelligent women are the wimpiest of all. The ones who play the word games are trying to stay happily married while not being laughed at by their "alpha" pals.

Lin

"But when they go on to explain it, there is nothing mutual about it. It looks pretty much like obedience for wives. They may emphasize that a husband should not *force* his wife to submit to his final decisions, but if she wants to please God, then she should *willingly* submit to his decisions. They just find ways to speak around the politically incorrect words obedience and obey. “But a rose by any other name is still a rose.”

Sonnet, you have nailed it.

Alison

Yep, you nailed it, Sonnet. Nicely done.

And great work, Paula. I think some of the comps ought to read this, since it holds up a mirror to just how twisted and distorted their theology really is. Like someone else, I was almost convinced that female supremacism is true, without my browser window reminding me that this was a parody!

Paula Fether

Tanx Alison! :-)

Sonnet

Paula, I love your last sentence. "And as I’ve said before, the proof is in the reaction: if men are only “serving” and not bossing, then they will not fight to keep their “humble position”." That thought has been sticking with me for days now.

Paula Fether

Tanx Sonnet!

Reminds me of an incident in college. Someone was reading a story to a group of us that had nothing but double-entendré. They were all laughing, even though the story was all about electronic components.

When someone objected to this, they claimed they didn’t mean anything but what the words said. Yet we all knew that they wouldn’t have been laughing without the dirty meanings.

Same thing with male supremacy. They claim they’re only teaching "servant/leader", but just try and pry their fingers off the wheel.

Cheryl Schatz

Paula, you said:

"We should not be surprised that men lust for leadership. But we must guard them against their natural craving to rule and oppress and urge them to be happy in their proper role."

Very, very funny!

Paula Fether

Tanx Cheryl! :-)