Characteristics of Evil Men

Economics has also been influenced by the rise of feminism. Doubling the workforce halves the wages and consequently forces all women into the workforce and makes raising a family unaffordable. Debts increase due to the feminist sense of dependency rather than male self-reliance. Feminist influenced has bankrupted the country and swelled the number of welfare recipients. Feminists rely upon the government to take care of them, while non-feminists take personal responsibility for their own welfare. Feminists obsess over outward appearance - keeping up with the Jones - disregarding private debt. And then if their expectations aren't realized, they simply blame it on men

The Feminists Influence in the Christian Community

"Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Isaiah 3:12

Over the last century Americans have been largely led astray with respect to the proper role relationship between the sexes. The influence of feminism particularly over the last few decades has had tremendous destructive impact upon society and yet has gone largely unchecked both in the world and in the church. And though much as Americans boast of a culture of freedom of ideas and freedom of speech, yet any kind of scrutinizing of feminism has been largely disallowed and characterized as bigoted, a reaction of which is itself bigoted, is it not? Evangelical Feminism is perhaps most disturbing seeing as the Bible makes clear and unambiguous statements which are in stark contrast to feminism. And yet I've found over the decades that churches are mos reluctant to even bring up the subject and actually teach what the Bible says on the matter, and those who do are often castigated, even driven out of churches. In fact when churches do teach on the subject, most frequently it's with the intent of trying to get around what the Bible clearly states. Consequently seeing that few are willing to take a public Biblical stand on the matter, and seeing as there's been so much damage due to feminism over the years, I decided to write this article.

Much as there may be many definitions of "feminism", what I'm talking about when I say "feminism" here is the rejection of what the Bible teaches concerning male headship, as for example it says: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." 1Cor 11:3 And much as feminists may disagree with one another on various points, you would be hardpressed to find a feminist, whether one who identifies themselves as a conservative evangelical or a liberal, who doesn't take issue with what the Bible says here.

The Bibical fact is, "man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." 1Cor 11:8,9 It's not a matter of "culture" as if one could discard such an idea with a "that was then, this is now" attitude. It's a timeless principle inherent in the very nature of men and women, part of God's intended purpose in creating the distinction of the sexes. And what has happened to American culture over the decades is what happens when you discard that principle.

One purpose behind God's creation of the gender roles is that i teaches the virtue of subordination. Notice the three vertical relationships pointed out in 1Cor 11:3 "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

God
Christ
Man
Woman

Do you think Christ is all bothered with the idea of being subordinate to His Father? Do you think a Christian man is going to object to the idea of being subordinate to Christ? So why is it that even Christian women reckon with contempt the very idea of being subordinate to men? Many I've talked to speak with disdain the very concept of subordination, equating it with an oppressive form of slavery. Yet over the decades I've found that American men, despite the emphasis on freedom in this country, don't have such a serious problem with subordination as women do. In fact you put a bunch of men together and they form a hierarchy, like a football team. A lot of times teenage men who grow up in a rebellious environment, of the effect of being raised by a single mother, will frequently try to find a place where they can be under authority, such as joining the military, joining a gang, or like situations, because taking a role of subordination comes naturally to men, a fact of which wives have used to their advantage, treating their husbands in just the same way as they would never allow themselves to be treated. But men are made to be subordinate to Christ, and Christ himself to God. But you put a bunch of women together and they don't tend to form a hierarchy, they tend to form a committee. Giving orders to women is stepping on egg shells. For some reason, unlike men, they just can't take it. Women can't take criticism because women are characteristically proud in comparison to men. That's one of their many weaknesses. For they are the weaker vessel in many ways.

Christ the Model of Subordination

It's a matter of humility. The Bible says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look no only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!" Php 2:3-8 Here Christ sets the example of humility. He complies with the wishes of the one in authority over him despite the personal cost to himself. It says that "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered" Heb 5:8 Obedience is never really in play until you are commanded to do that which you are reluctant to do. Jesus said, "I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." John 6:38 And in the end he said, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." Mt 26:39

Christian men generally have no problem in seeing this as the idea in being subordinate to their head, namely Christ. But such is no generally characteristic of Christian wives towards their head, namely their husband. While it's in the Christian marriage vows where the wife pledges to obey her husband, it's quite a different story in practice. While the wife should have in her mind, "I have gotten married not to do my own will but the will of my husband", how often if ever is that the case? And if instructed to do something that may require great personal sacrifice, something of which she didn't want to do, to the modern American women, that's simply grounds for divorce, let alone if when asked to be released from such instruction, the husband refuses, as also also God refused Christ his request. If today a husband treats his wife as God treated Christ, tha marriage would likely end in divorce if not imprisonment.

In fact, let me further validate that point. Let's say God married a feminist, such as Isaiah describes in Isaiah 3:12 in t he statement "women rule over them". How do you think that would turn out? It would end up like this, where God says, "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." Jer 3:8a And I think such would also be the case if God married a typical modern American evangelical feminist.

The main issue in embracing a role of subordination is embracing the virtue of humility. Why is that men can accept criticism while women cannot. In fact men often help one another maintain a proper level of humility by trying to humiliate one another, and it is considered manly to laugh it off. But humiliate a woman in the same manner and you'll have a revelation of the difference between the sexes. Why can't women take criticism? Or why can't they take it to the extent men can? Because as a gender women are characteristically proud in comparison to men. Yet humility is the most essential of all virtues. It is the character quality upon which all other virtues are built, and that which the Lord most values. The Lord declares, "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." Is 66:2b But concerning the women who rule over men, the Lord goes on to says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles." Is 3:16 Much as they reckon God's Word with contempt, so also God reckons them with contempt. And consequently I think many an Evangelical Feminist has deceived themselves into thinking they have a right relationship with God. Some have pointed out how churches are full of women demographically, claiming that women are therefore more spiritual than men. But as I see it if women are dominant in churches, it's also because they're driving men away, as many a man can't stand the stench of evangelical feminism.

Women often cloud their pride, even to themselves, with misconceptions about pride, using terms like having a poor self-image. You know what a poor self-image is? It's pride. Humility is a realistic view of oneself in view of God. We had a men's Bible study in which I criticized one guy, a good friend of mine, and he took offense, but calmed down and excused himself for being too sensitive. I told him he's not being sensitive, he's just being proud. Women are often excused for rage with the idea that they are fragile and sensitive. But such terms often cloud the fact that they often react out of pride. Pride is the primary root of their destructive influence upon their own lives and upon the lives of others around them.

Women the Weaker Vessel

Fact is, it's difficult for women to live up to the standards of men. For the Bible characterizes women as the "weaker partner". And such is not just the case physically, but in practically all areas of life, including virtues. As I noted above, men are stronger than women when it comes to humility. And such is generally the case for most virtues. Take greed for example. Men are not so insecure abou money as women are. Consequently you will find many a generous man, bu women are generally reluctant to practice generosity to the degree men do, in my experience. Consider also neutral attributes, like intelligence. Women do not have the capacity for intelligence to the degree men have. I'm talking about intelligence, not schooling. Raw intelligence is largely what nature brings to the table. Consequently, given women's disadvantage, the American education system has had to dumb down the system to accommodate women, as it also discourages men from persuing advanced degrees, while filling colleges with women, the consequence of which is not more intelligent women, but a less intelligent workforce. And through "equal rights" legislation, capable men are replaced with less capable women.

Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15 but males have a higher mean IQ from age 15 on. As noted by Lynn, R., & Irvwing P. (2004) And for example the membership of Mensa Canada, representative of those with high IQ's, has twice as many men than women in 2007. The effect of sex differences in IQ is largest at the high extreme of intelligence. For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism. Since many of the more prestigious roles in society are associated with high IQ, the lack of female representation in these roles may be partially due to fewer females being competitive at the highest levels. Such is the case in science and engineering where few women have shown the capacity to handle such careers on equal footing with men. But that's the nature of things. Bu due to feminism, in 2005, the distinguished economist Lawrence Summers was forced to resign as President of Harvard University after expressing the view, at a seminar on diversity in the academic workplace, that in some fields the innate cognitive differences between the sexes might make the search for a perfect 50:50 gender balance impossible. Because it is the nature of feminism to reject such truths.

As I mentioned, women can't take criticism because they are characteristically proud in comparison to men. Women obsess over vain things - their outward appearance. They train their husbands to lie. They don't want to hear the truth. They just want to be flattered.

Women not to Teach or have Authority over Men

Let's now consider what the Bible teaches about women's role in 1Tim 2:11-14

1Tim 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

This verse is probably best understood in light of the verses which follow it. There Paul not only gives a particular application of this idea but also defends it with scripture.

What Paul means by this verse is much the same as he meant in 1Cor 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." That is, it is not appropriate for women to exercise authority over men - one of the main exercises of authority in the Christian community being that of teaching (Explaining the Word of God) or prophecy (speaking applications of the Word of God), the contex of 1Cor 14:34 being that of public prophesying. And the verse which follows 1Cor 14:34 also says, "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." Here we see the allusion to teaching as well. But interesting to note his saying that "it is shameful for women to speak in church." This is much along the lines of what he was saying in 1Tim concerning women these last few verses - dealing with dress, for example. These all allude to the issue of appropriateness.

To be yet dealt with in the next few verses is whether the appropriateness or shamefulness had to just do with the culture back then, or whether Paul is speaking of a more universal principle which applies even today.

1Tim 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Note again the similar words used in these two sets of verses:

1Cor 14:34,35 "Let your women keep SILENT in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be SUBMISSIVE, as the law also says. And if they want to LEARN something, let them ask their own husbands a home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."
1Tim 2:11,12 "Let a woman LEARN in SILENCE with all SUBMISSION. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in SILENCE."

From verse 12 we gain insight as to what he means by the "silence" he was speaking of in the previous verse, as well as the silence he had spoken of with respect to women in 1Cor 14:34. Essentially women are no allowed as spokesmen in the church.

As we saw in 1Cor 14:34,35, women are not allowed to publicly teach men, whether by way of explanation or prophecy. But in addition we see in this verse they were not allowed to hold positions of authority over men. And thus many churches today don't allow women in leadership roles in the church in which they would either be instructing men or otherwise exercising authority over men.

And we can see this principle also in Jesus' ministry - as well as throughou the Bible. For example none of the apostles Jesus chose were women. Why? Next Paul explains this principle from the scriptures.

1Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

This is the first of Paul's two scriptural reasons as to why he does not allow women to teach or hold positions of authority over men.

The first thing we notice is that it's not a "cultural issue". Rather it's based upon the very nature of the relationship God define between men and women from Genesis. Therefore I discard any sort of "that was then, this is now" type of attitude towards these commands concerning women.

Secondly, remember the similar application he had in 1Cor 14:34, but which he added the defense "as the law also says". Where in the law was he alluding? Well we see from this verse that one place he had in mind was Genesis chapter 2. Remember that Genesis is the first book of the Law of Moses. Though he may also have had other places in the law in mind.

It is interesting that he has a very similar approach to the applications of what Genesis says of Adam and Eve as Jesus did when he spoke on the issue of divorce. Notice in Mark 10 Jesus' usage of Genesis saying:

"But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

So also using the same hermeneutic as Paul and Jesus with respect to Adam and Eve one could argue against homosexuality or polygamy. Thus wha the Bible says of Adam and Eve apparently is to be viewed as a preceden from which applications can be derived.

Now the particular fact that Paul focused on in this case was the ORDER of creation. From the order of creation Paul inferred that is was contrary to the design for a woman to exercise authority over a man.

Also we notice from Paul's application that what the Bible says of Adam and Eve doesn't apply exclusively to husband-wife relationships. For here he is applying it more generically - not just to marriages.

In 1Cor 11 he argues in a similar fashion using the Genesis of Adam and Eve, but with a view towards the application of women taking on a SYMBOL of one being under male authority - which is an outward affirmation of God's created order, when he says,

"For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1Cor 11:8-10

Thus Paul is concerned with the church acknowledging God's design, His created order, both in symbol and in practice.

1Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

This is the second scriptural reason as to why Paul does not allow women to teach or otherwise practice authority over men. And again it's based on the precedent of Adam and Eve. But what is the precedent in this case. In the previous verse Paul had spoken of the order of creation. It's possible that here he is alluding to the order of the fall. So that in both cases it's an issue of order. But it seems to me that in this verse Paul is no so much emphasizing the order of the fall, but the manner of the fall, twice using the word "deceived". He seems to be emphasizing the issue of one's gullibility.

If Eve's behavior is that which is characteristic of women, then Paul may be inferring from that precedent that women are in some significan sense more gullible than men. Well that's not a particularly politically correct thing to say these days. But if it was gullibility Paul was speaking of, one can understand why he didn't allow women in positions of teaching authority, in that they would be more susceptible to being led astray and thus leading others astray. Afterall elsewhere he also speaks as such, "Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives‘ tales" 1Tim 4:7 Such things women are particularly prone to.

And it's furthermore possible that while verse 13 is the explanation as to why it is not appropriate for women to hold positions of authority over men, this verse may be a further explanation as to why they shouldn' be in the position of teaching men. In fact even among men the Bible instructs "let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." Jam 3:1 Such positions are reserved for those with the appropriate abilities and the maturity which comes from experience "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself agains the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Teaching is a battle in the realm of ideas - not suited for the gullible.

And speaking of the gullible, some have fallen into the false idea tha upon becoming Christian, women are no longer under the precedents of Genesis concerning the creation and fall of Eve - but that Christian women are to have an equal role - equal positions - with that of men in all things. Such people have been deceived. For in contrast to such an egalitarian idea, the apostle applies those precedents in Genesis to Christian men and women in his gender specific commands. (As politically incorrect as that may be!)

In contrast, the unbelievably silly notions that evangelical feminists come up with to get around such scriptures, and the fact the women are led astray by feminist theology just goes to prove the point that the interpretation of scripture should not be entrusted to women.

The Religious Realm Only?

Christians are often accused of hypocrisy in acting one way in church and a different way out of church. Such would be the case also if the principle of male headship were limited to the religious realm, or jus to the family. For reasons Paul gives for not assigning women to roles of teaching or having authority over men is just as valid outside the church. For the reasons he gives has to do with the very nature of the sexes. To behave differently in society is hypocrisy.

Consequently, for example, when it comes to elections, I celebrate God's distinct role of the genders by not voting for women. It is ungodly for women to be in authority over men. Likewise I advise men to avoid women who make themselves out to be teachers, and particularly teachers of men. It's ungodly for women to teach men in an official capacity, and any capacity it's to be understood that women easily end up teaching falsely.

The basis of feminism lies in a rejection of God's design of the role relationships between men and women and in particular is a rejection of the women's subordinate role, not only to man, but to God.

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Chris is God." 1Cor 11:3

This basic principle of female subordination to male authority is no only disregarded by the church, let alone by the world, but also mos women contemptuously reckon such an idea as sin, thus calling good evil and evil good. For the role of subordination God assigned to women is a good thing, something the godly would embrace, just as Christ embraces his subordinate role to the Father. But as David said, "the godly are no more", so it is today. "While I was still searching but not finding— I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." Ecc 7:28

Isaiah writes, "Their children are rebellious and women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Isaiah 3:12 These go hand in hand. For while the role of the husband is that of leadership, which is reflected in their children by such things as their children taking initiative, the role of the wife is that of subordination, by which their children learn humility and submission. Consequently rebellious children are the result of women usurping authority over men. Christian leadership today, dominated by Evangelical Feminist have largely led the Christian community today in this regard, largely neglecting even so much as mentioning verses which speak on the woman's role. And worse yet, teaching false interpretations of such verses so as to comply with the demands and thinking of the feminists upon whom they are financially dependent.

A few verses later Isaiah writes, The LORD says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles. Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald." Is 3:16,17 Pride characterizes such women. Why is it that men can accept criticism, bu women cannot? It's because of pride. Characteristically preachers will make fun of men, but they won't make fun of women. Why? Because women are proud and won't take it. Women are characteristically proud and as such reckon with contempt the idea of submitting themselves to male authority.

The role of husband is a legitimate God given role of authority. Ye today such an idea is largely disregarded. And not only so, but rather wives rule over their husbands. "Wives, submi to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Eph 5:22-24

And just as wives don't submit to their husbands, so also such a reflection of the church's attitude towards Christ. With the rise of feminism has come the rise of Free Grace Theology with its rejection of the Lordship of Christ. Thus the average Christian today reckons submission to Christ a matter of convenience, just like wives today who claim to "submit" to their husbands when it's convenient for them, or whenever on a whim they feel like or already intended to do their husband's will. But obedience is never really in play until one has to say, "Not my will but yours be done". Indeed today wives will not even so much as submit to their husband's will as their husbands submit to their will. Indeed it is men, not women, today who provide the model of humility and subordination, men taking up the role which prideful rebellious women largely have rejected.

Meanwhile women usurp positions of authority over men in the church and in the world. But Paul writes, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; i was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1Tim 2:11-14

In the nature of creation God has assigned men, not women, the role of authority. And the nature of the fall has shown women to be poor leaders and prone to being deceived by the devil. What did God say to Adam, To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." Gen 3:17 All because he listened to his wife. Consequently, ever since then, wives have been trying to mislead their husbands.

Women often say that men are violent. But women are far more violen than men, not the mention angry. For they are driven not by their reason but by their emotions. How frequently do you hear of fathers murdering their own children? Yet women do so in abundance. In the US alone mothers have murdered 50million of their own babies, innocen children. There's nothing new here. Way back in the book of Kings, "the king said to her, "What is troubling you?" And she answered, "This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may ea him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ "So we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him’; but she has hidden her son." 2Kings 6:28,29 Likewise today mothers eat their own young, having lost all sensitivity, and yet they so proudly and persistently demand the right to do so, such that now the world has made it legal.

"Man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." 1Cor 11:8,9 But what women have evolved into are monsters, not only being useless, but harmful. The rise of feminism is the 20th century corresponds to the rise in divorce, abortion, sexual immorality and the destruction of marriage. Indeed, even to the rise of homosexuality. For as society has listened to women in their rejection of the assigned gender role, so also boundary between the sexes disappear. "A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." Deut 22:5 Yet this has been a distinguishing characteristic of feminism, as is also the shaven head on women and long hair on men. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering." 1Cor 11:14,15

Men, don't be like Adam. Stop voting for women. Stop assigning women positions of authority over men. Stop listening to the commands of your wife. Yes, they will be angry. That's their nature. Yes they will divorce you. That's their nature.

Feminist Double Standard

A Worldly Blog reflects modern feminists values. It gives 4 reasons "to dump him". To show the hypocrisy of such blogs, let's see how it reads if we turn the tables.

The First Reason the Modern Feminists give "to dump him" is:

1. He isn't supportive. The modern woman expects a true life partner. Gone are the days of aspiring to take care of a man or putting your needs on the backburner for his. Non-supportive traits include:

Making fun of or belittling your goals and ambitions in career or life
Making you feel guilty for spending time at work
Not helping around the house
Ignoring you in times of need or distress
Pressuring you into making life decisions like quitting your job, moving or having children

If you bring it up and he still doesn't get it, dump him.

Now let's turn that around. For if women were judged by the same standards as men, as feminists claim, this would read:

The 1st Reason to dump her:

1. She isn't supportive. The modern man expects a true life partner. Gone are the days of aspiring to take care of a woman or putting your needs on the backburner for hers. Non-supportive traits include:

Making fun of or belittling your goals and ambitions in career or life
Making you feel guilty for spending time at work
Not helping around the house
Ignoring you in times of need or distress
Pressuring you into making life decisions like quitting your job, moving or having children

If you bring it up and she still doesn't get it, dump her.

Let's continue:

The Feminist advocates dumping him if:

2. You can't be yourself around him. Are you playing a character of who you think he wants to be with? No only does this perpetuate a relationship based on lies (even if it's just through omission), but it also can be detrimental to your emotional well-being.

Lying about your job or considering a breast enhancement just to impress someone or to fit into their "ideal" is a bad idea. The bes partners are the ones who make you feel great in your own skin and who you can relax around. If you reveal your true self to someone you're dating, and he doesn't appreciate your true colors, dump him.

Conversely men should dump women if:

2. You can't be yourself around her. Are you playing a character of who you think she wants to be with? No only does this perpetuate a relationship based on lies (even if it's just through omission), but it also can be detrimental to your emotional well-being.

Lying about your job or considering a male enhancement just to impress someone or to fit into their "ideal" is a bad idea. The bes partners are the ones who make you feel great in your own skin and who you can relax around. If you reveal your true self to someone you're dating, and she doesn't appreciate your true colors, dump her.

3. He's a user. We all know the type - the freeloading dude who spends his days in the coffee shop, nights playing in a band and lives with his parents. However, users aren't always this easy to spot. It may start slowly as he "forgets" his wallet or has his car "repaired," but if you notice that these situations are becoming more normal than exceptions, it's time to run. You are not an ATM, a taxi driver, a cell phone provider, hotel or sex machine. A real relationship consists of contributions from both sides -- not just emotionally but also financially. If you think he's taking advantage of your generosity, dump him

Then you would think, conversely:

3. She's a user. We all know the type - the freeloading woman who spends her days in the coffee shop, nights playing around and lives with her parents. However, users aren't always this easy to spot. It may start slowly as she "forgets" her purse or has her car "repaired," but if you notice that these situations are becoming more normal than exceptions, it's time to run. You are not an ATM, a taxi driver, a cell phone provider, hotel or sex machine. A real relationship consists of contributions from both sides -- not just emotionally but also financially. If you think she's taking advantage of your generosity, dump her.

4. He doesn't get along with your friends and/or family. What would life be without your girlfriends? Any person you are seriously considering dating also will most likely spend time with the people in your life who you care about. While variety is the spice of life, if you find that your new boo and your friends or family are getting into knock-down, drag-out fights, he speaks to them inappropriately or talks about them badly in public, despite your feelings, dump him.

And conversely

4. She doesn't get along with your friends and/or family. What would life be without your guy friends? Any person you are seriously considering dating also will most likely spend time with the people in your life who you care about. While variety is the spice of life, if you find that your new girl and your friends or family are getting into knock-down, drag-out fights, she speaks to them inappropriately or talks about them badly in public, despite your feelings, dump her.

Typically Feminists don't apply the same standard to men as they apply to women. Women get away with murder, literally in the case of abortion. Ask yourself, if a "modern women" were treated as they treat men, if they judge themselves by the same standard they judge men, how would they feel about that? Hypocrites!

Notes Under Development

Why the reluctance of churches to teach against feminism?
Goes unchecked in the Christian community - not allowed to scrutinize.

God's Rebellious Kids
God's Failed Married
Jesus' example of subordination
Marriage - the analogy of Christ and the Church
Jesus didn't choose women as apostles

Destructive Effects of Feminism

Sexual immorality - divorce and adultery.
Marriage - what angers husbands most.
Teaching men to lie

Voting & Holding positions of authority over men
Positions of Teaching
Submission in Marriage
Conditional?
Usurping authority - bossy (Men, need guidance? Get married and you will be told what to do every moment of the day)

Dress - outward appearance - egalitarian

Children

Rejection of the concept of Male authority in the family
Father's Authority
Husband's Authority

Divorce & Adulterous Remarriages &
http://www.biblenews1.com/marriage/marriags.htm
Cohabitation resulting in bastards (Bastardization of the population)
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/cohab-revised2.pdf
Custody awards
http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/graph.htm

Sexual Immorality, Homosexuality

Murder
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html
Rise of Irrationalism, Illogical, Emotionally based ideas - Theories of Post Modernism.

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

A Biblical Perspective on | Modern American Feminism