This is a loaded question, but to get to the point, yes, we do. Now we have to define what “weaker” means. In the biblical sense of the word, “weaker” does not mean less intelligent, less worthy, less able to work competently or less valuable. “Weaker” in the Scriptural sense is an economic term. What we mean by “economic” here has nothing to do with dollars and cents. Rather, the “economy” is the culture or ethos in which we live. Within this framework, God has declared that the woman is the “weaker,” not to deride her or make her look helpless, but to show that she was made to depend upon the man and the man made to lead, protect and guide her. This is a paradox of Christianity that is found from the beginning of the Bible to the end: The first goes last; the strong dies for the weak; the Groom dies for the Bride. All of us, as Christians, are to “lay down our lives for the brethren” (I John 3:16). But in the unique and special relationship between man and woman (husband-wife; father-daughter; brother-sister; etc.), the man is to consider the woman before himself and make it his special aim to care for her and protect her. This makes little sense to a world in which we “look out for Number One.” In fact, St. Paul tells us it will look pretty much like “foolishness” to those who do not believe in Christ (I Corinthians 1:18). But this paradox is living poetry. And putting others and their needs first is not solely the realm of the man. A woman is to put others first in her own life as well, whether it be her husband, her children, aging relatives, friends or strangers. In this way, God’s “strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). We lay down our own lives (our interests, desires, motives and wishes) in order to put others first and bless them. But, in the Bible’s economy, it is Christ Who sets the supreme example as the Bridegroom Who lays down His life for His Bride; and this is exactly how St. Paul tells husbands they are to treat their own wives (Ephesians 5:25). This doesn’t mean that a man can be a bully or a negligent husband as long as he is willing to throw himself in front of a bus to save his wife’s life. Rather, it means that he should set a daily example of Christ’s love for the Church by setting aside his own desires, motives and needs in order to minister to the bride (usually his wife, although it can be other women as well). A good illustration of the whole concept of “weak” is given by the Rev. Doug Wilson, who asks his audience to picture a rare, expensive china teacup next to a sledgehammer. Which one is “weak?” The teacup, obviously. Which one is better? Ah! Immediately the question becomes absurd. “Better for what?” we have to ask. You can’t drink tea from a sledgehammer or use it to set a beautiful table. In that sense, the sledgehammer is the “weak” one. And you can’t use a teacup to break rocks or take down a brick wall; it wasn’t designed for that purpose. Each object does its own job well. Being the “weaker vessel” does not make women inferior, useless, wimpy or incapable. Instead, it bestows upon them the honor of being the protected half of the whole of humanity. Men were created with bigger bodies, greater muscle mass and their own brand of courage in order to “nourish and cherish” the other half of humanity. Women were created with softer bodies, more delicate bone structure and totally different emotional needs in order to call forth this response from men and honor it with thanks instead of disdain or insult. Is weakness degrading or insulting? Only if a fine, rare Limoges teacup is a degraded or insulted object. We know it is not. Its delicacy and its rarity make it a cherished treasure set apart for wonderful uses.

Category: Answering Objections

1. As we state quite openly on the site, Christians and the Christian church have often fallen down on the job when it comes to upholding biblical standards. We are sinners and not perfect. However, in each age, there have been "voices crying out in the wilderness" against the madness. There were Christians writing during the Enlightenment (John Adams is one) who firmly believed in biblical property rights. There were more in the 19th century who spoke out against the lax attitude of the church toward problems that would create many of the societal ills we experience today (R.L. Dabney's writings from the 1870s-1880s are particularly prophetic).

2. There have been Christians working quietly and steadily for hundreds of years to combat unbiblical legislation -- the feminists are just the ones who have gotten the most publicity. :-\ Feminism hasn't given us back what was rightfully ours; that has always been there in Scripture. While feminism often highlights real problems, its solutions are almost all top-down and legislatively heavy (a product of Marxism, which fed the feminist movement from the 1840s on). When Christians stand for biblical truth, good always results. Unfortunately, we have gone through some serious "dry spells" when Christians get distracted from what God has so graciously given them in His Word and have retreated from shaping the culture, society and the laws which help nations function.

Category: Answering Objections

We do read the writings of modern feminists (authors as well as journalists), and we have quotes from many of them scattered throughout the articles you will find on the site. The Quotes page actually highlights comments from people who have written against feminism in its many forms and so does not feature feminists at all. Also see the article "What Is Feminism?" on our site.

We've studied the feminist movements of the past 200 years and realize there are many, many differences between the feminists of the 1790s, those of the 1840s and those from the 1920s on. The current "Third-Wave" feminists have done much to distance themselves from the bra-burners of the 1960s, and they are to be commended for seeing many of the problems from that time period. However, we at L.A.F. believe that anything which departs from the biblical model of womanhood (and manhood) cannot hold up over time. The current wailing of women who have put career over children and family (featured in Time magazine and on "60 Minutes" in the past couple of months) evidences the fact that feminism (either full-blown or "mild") hasn't satisfied the souls of the women who have followed its tenets. But this doesn't mean that we believe feminists are wrong about everything and never contribute any good to society. All of us are sinners, yet, by God's grace, we can have a positive impact on our families, friends, communities and society as a whole. There are many atheists who have done beautiful things in the world; but this does not incline us to endorse atheism. God's common grace is given to all, therefore we often see good things come from people of corrupt morals and lax ethics or even just mistaken viewpoints. Wonders never cease.

Finally, we do not presume to judge anyone. The Word of God is the judge of us all, and we are all called into conformity with God's standards. We all fail in many areas. We acknowledge this at L.A.F. time and time again (see our FAQs in addition to our articles). God's Word convicts us just as much as it can convict the next person. We are only here to proclaim that His Standard is good, just and beautiful. Where that Standard seems harsh or unreasonable in our modern times, we are not given the leeway to alter or abolish it. We do want to present the biblical model for gracious, thoughtful, effective womanhood in a winsome and lovely manner. Where we fail, we welcome counsel and correction -- even rebuke! But we cannot agree that all views are equally valid. This is a logical impossibility as well as a moral and spiritual one. Under such a system of thought, murder becomes just another "personal choice." At some point, there must be a Standard which guides our behavior. My personal views are meaningless; God's views are eternal and bring peace, illumination and rest.

Category: Answering Objections

The question here is actually even more fundamental. We can go to Pontius Pilate's cynical question of Christ, "What is truth?" Indeed, if there is no unchanging, transcendent Truth, can there be laws of logic or any trustworthy basis for right versus wrong? If man's reason is to be the only basis for truth, then truth changes with each individual's understanding or whim.

The Bible teaches us that God Himself is Truth and that He never changes, nor does His Word. We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; that God is fully powerful enough to transmit His Word perfectly, even through fallen men, and to keep it throughout the ages. While Christians are often mocked for this "leap of faith," we can only inquire in return, "If there is no transcendent God (only a chaotic cosmos in constant flux), where does the non-Christian find unchanging Truth upon which to base his assumptions about life?" Where do unchanging laws of logic (which are transcendent) come from? How can law and society exist if each individual determines truth for himself? Majority vote? Cultural consensus? These are hardly stable foundations upon which to build a worldview or a world.

Finally, we at L.A.F. do not feel that we are "sacrific[ing] an awful lot of freedom" at all. On the contrary, we find that the Truth does, indeed, "set you free." The paradox (the strong dies for the weak; the last is first) is poetry, and it is freedom indeed.

Category: Answering Objections

This is the heart of the matter entirely, and it is upon this shaky foundation that radical feminism is built. If there are no standards of "good" and "bad" womanhood, and "it's all a matter of interpretation," then why bother to argue with any of our premises (or anyone else's, for that matter)? If each individual determines what is right or wrong, bad or good, then who is to say rape is wrong? Who is to say that the oppression of women is wrong? What if some cultures believe these are "good" and not "bad?" Or forget cultures entirely -- if even one individual believes these perversions of biblical law and justice are "good," who are we to argue? That person is only "interpreting" for himself or herself. As Christians, we at L.A.F. do believe in an absolute, unchanging standard of right and wrong, good and bad, manhood and womanhood. If there is not a transcendent standard to which mankind can appeal, then we cannot explain logic, let alone absolute law. If moral law can shift with the times and cultures or individual tastes and preferences, women can never truly be safe or honored.

Category: Answering Objections

You will not find women treated as "animals" under the Old Testament law. On the contrary, women are guaranteed inheritance and property rights, freedom from bodily harm and more. This question is thoroughly addressed under "Myths of Feminism Exploded." We provide the Scriptural references which show the overall protection -- not exploitation -- of women in biblical law and society. Scripture imposed the death penalty upon rapists and harsh penalties upon men who struck or injured others (including female servants and pregnant women).

Category: Answering Objections

Because Jesus was "in the beginning" and "was God" (John 1:1) and is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb. 13:8), His word does not differ one jot or tittle from the word delivered in the Old Testament. He is "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14). When He walked the earth, He did not contradict the Father or come to sweep away all that had gone before in the name of a new order or "revolution." On the contrary, He confirmed the validity of the law He came to fulfill and obey (Matt. 5:17-19). His treatment of the Pharisees shows over and over again that they had misinterpreted the Word of God and created lists of manmade "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" in the name of piety. Christ pulled the rug out from under their feet at every encounter, showing that they were misapplying His Father's Word and therefore disobeying it. Women's salvation never did "depend upon the grace of their husbands," because salvation was always a gift of grace, not the result of "works" (Rom. 4:1-8). Salvation never depended upon the gender of the saved (or their social status or anything else). The Old Testament ceremonial laws were only shadows pointing toward Christ's holiness and perfection -- the laws of washings and abstention from foods, etc. were also not delivered to women alone. There are, in fact, far more laws for the cleansing of men and priests than there are for women! A man who was "ceremonially unclean" endured the same time of being "cut off" from the temple that a woman did. Women were not considered "dirtier" than men or of lesser value in God's sight. From Creation, woman was equally representative of God's image; a God-established difference in roles for men and women does not indicate a difference in value. Woman did not receive the short end of the stick at the fall of man, either. Instead, blame fell squarely upon Adam's head as the representative of the human race -- "in Adam all die" says I Corinthians 15:22 (not in Eve!).

Category: Answering Objections

As for Paul's supposed contradiction of Christ, we have to get to the fundamentals of your argument: that Scripture is fallible and susceptible to change. If we attempt to build upon this shaky foundation, we have nowhere to go but down. If God's Word contradicts itself, then we cannot trust God as ultimate lawgiver, arbiter of Truth or upholder of justice. God is then weak and unable to preserve His Word or establish it, and we are all free to pick and choose what we will and will not obey. Then we're back to square one: What if I decide to reject the commandments against killing? Who is to say that my interpretation is "bad" or "evil?" Cannibalistic tribes in remote parts of the world then cannot and should not be reprimanded or corrected for their behavior, since there is no absolute standard that holds them accountable for murder. They are following their own consciences, right? In this way, we can decide for ourselves which parts of the Bible we will keep and which we will toss. The result is not a just society or a high moral order, though. English Common law (though imperfect) was based entirely upon Scriptural law. This common law heritage, which was handed down to Americans by Blackstone and others, protected women because it could appeal to a Standard which did not change with time or cultural dictates. Today our culture "dictates" that millions of the unborn are unfit, that the elderly are a nuisance and that each individual can determine right and wrong for himself. How can justice survive under such circumstances? ("Your honor, I was only doing what my conscience dictates. If your conscience dictates otherwise, that's your problem. I interpret the law for myself.") Only chaos can result from such "jurisprudence."

Category: Answering Objections

God's version of womanhood, as presented in Proverbs 31, does, indeed, require good stewardship of finances in order to generously give to the poor while also beautifully managing the household entrusted to us. Deuteronomy 8:18 reminds us that it is God Who gives the power to get wealth. Ecclesiastes 5:19 tells us that wealth and riches are the gift of God. At the same time, we are told not to place our trust in riches (Prov. 11:28), to boast that we have accumulated our own wealth (Deut. 8:17) or to pursue riches at the expense of our neighbor (Prov. 22:16). It is Marxism and Communism that teach that riches are evil and the result of bad behavior on the part of one class of society against another. But we have to ask where riches come from in the first place. They do not just magically appear from nowhere. While there are those who cheat and steal to obtain wealth from others, wealth can only be built in the first place by God-honoring methods, including hard work, diligence, stewardship and careful usage of talents and means given by God. The answer to poverty in the world is not to "redistribute" wealth (as if wealth had somehow accidentally piled itself on someone at the expense of others). The answer is to honor God's law by working hard, not exploiting our neighbors and providing for the needs of the poor according to God's perfect commandments. It is not the job of the state to insure that everyone has an equal lifestyle or "share" of the wealth of the world. It is the job of individuals and the Church to honor God with their riches, providing for others and making wise business decisions that benefit their neighbors. The Proverbs 31 woman is a fantastic example, as she works hard in her own home, building her family's estate and contributing generously to others at the same time. The "version of womanhood" we are promoting is not at all exclusively Western or wealthy. If you perceive our mission as one of sewing ruffles and frills on dispensable furbelows and gew-gaws, I would respectfully ask you to read all of the articles we have posted. As I've written in the Is This Another Victorian Site?" article, L.A.F. is not about returning to a "good old days" ideal of lace and teacups; it is about adhering to the beautiful standards of God's Word, which call women to hard work within the home, their families and the community. Lace and teacups are nice in their place, but they are not the be-all and end-all of our existence. We are well aware of the great blessings and privileges God has bestowed upon America and upon our families when we see the poverty and difficulties experienced by women in other nations and cultures. However, this should not cause us to throw away what God has graciously given, but to use it all the more for His kingdom and His glory. An excellent resource on this topic (which goes into far more detail than I have) is David Chilton's book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators. Chilton answers Ronald Sider, an economist who calls for wealth redistribution and governmental welfare programs in the name of Christ. A look into Marxist and socialist societies around the world should immediately convince us that these "isms" are not the answer. Look at socialist Sudan today, where Christians are martyred by the government and where millions starve because the government locks up food aid instead of giving it to those in need. Ungodly governmental and individual practices result in poverty and greater disasters. Our job as Christians is to refute the bad theology and wrong thinking that contribute to these practices, devastating cultures and peoples around the world. And we must not forget Who has given America her wealth and the ability to gain it. As stewards of God's blessings, we are obligated to support the poor according to His standards.

Category: Answering Objections

You mention that we imply that men only rape women because women encourage them to do so by provocative dress. We are well aware that there are men who rape innocent children, old women and others who do not give them the slightest provocation. Those men should most certainly be held accountable for their actions and condemned for breaking God's law. But this does not mean that women can then behave like prostitutes and expect to be treated like angels. A woman who demeans herself (and the rest of her sex) by dressing in a provocative outfit is asking men to treat her without respect. A woman who walks by a man in a string bikini (inviting him to stare at her unclothed parts), should not be surprised when the man ogles her, whistles or treats her in a provocative manner. Does this absolve the man of his responsibility to behave as a gentleman? Not at all! The behavior of a woman (no matter how low) does not excuse a man who then takes advantage of her. He is guilty, yes. But by the same token, she is not innocent. Could a waitress at "Hooters" sue a customer for staring at her chest? The whole purpose of that ridiculous establishment is to invite men to stare! The exploitation of women is a serious problem and not one we dismiss out of hand if the woman is scantily dressed. But we also feel that Christians can (and should) call women to the biblical standard of modesty, which not only honors women but helps men to honor them as well (again, there are brutes who will not honor women no matter what, but this doesn't give women a license to dishonor themselves by dressing like trash).

Category: Answering Objections

"Non-denominational" refers to the fact that Christians from other denominational backgrounds are welcome to share through LAF. We have writers from many different denominations (Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of the Brethren, etc.). Yes, we are wholeheartedly and unashamedly promoting Christian beliefs -- that is the purpose of our site -- but we do not believe that only one denomination has the corner on biblical truth (or is free of error). And, of course, non-Christian visitors are welcome here also -- welcome to explore ideas, share questions and debate on our message board.

Category: Answering Objections

We do not argue that men do not have weaknesses. On the contrary, St. Paul tells us that man is just as dependent upon woman as woman is upon man. Man cannot exist without woman. Woman gives birth to man and nurtures him. And a man without a good helpmate (as Adam was before the creation of Eve) is in need of woman. When Adam saw Eve, he immediately burst forth into poetry: "This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' because she was taken out of man." Later, St. Paul tells us that this great mystery (woman coming from man, then all of mankind coming from the woman) is meant to be a beautiful picture of Christ and His Bride, the Church. Their mutal dependency upon each other is a wondrous thing, not something to escape.

But to get back to your point, we do believe that women were made physically weaker than men for a reason. We all know the statstics about male upper-body strength, the abilities of men in battle to staunch a deadly wound and go on fighting, etc. These are qualities God gave to men so that they would protect and cherish the lifebearers of humanity: women. Evolution cannot account for such a disparity. Why on earth would mankind split into two sexes to start with (asexual reproduction is far more efficient and leaves less room for error or loss)? Then, why is the female of the sex physically weaker and more prone to injury or assualt? In an evolved cosmos, we shouldn't have sex differentiation, and we definitely should not have a female (the bearer of the young) that needs so much protection! But God is not only an incredible Creator, He is a poet and a storyteller. The relationship between the man and the woman is meant to illustrate the wholeness of the Godhead, each member connected to the other and interdependent. And we are also to illustrate the mystery of the submission apparent even in the Godhead -- the Son in obedience to the Father and the Spirit sent at the command of the Son. As Christ obeyed the Father, so men are to obey God. As Christ laid down His life for His Bride, the Church, so men are to cherish, protect and honor their own wives. To the world, this all seems foolish, but to us, it is poetry, art and music. What rich imagery God gives us through the relationships He has created!

Category: Answering Objections

We agree with you entirely! But just because feminists have pointed out real evils doesn't make them qualified to bring those evils to an end. That might be a little like asking an arsonist to join the volunteer fire department. The "solutions" feminists have brought up have only added fuel to the fire. Rape and assault have both risen astronomically in the past fifty years. If the radical feminists' vision of "free love" and "equality" was such a fantastic idea, shouldn't we have less sexual abuse? Shouldn't we have more women in meaningful, beautiful relationships with good men? Instead, wicked men have been given the keys to the kingdom--all the sex they want with no strings attached. If the "girlfriend" feels used or abused, too bad, it's time to move on to the next one. Helen Gurley Brown's Sex and the Single Girl has just been republished as a "feminist classic" and extolled for what it promotes: women making themselves into sex objects in order to climb the ladder of "success." Men have never had it so "good." -- That is, the wrong kind of men have never had it so easy. Columnist Vox Day writes, "The sexual revolution actually freed men from the responsibilities that traditionally accompanied access to sex. Whereas a man once needed to all but promise marriage before taking a lover, he now can freely expect a woman to satisfy his desires on the third date, if not the first. The real revolution was the wholesale transference of power in the male-female dynamic from women to men, and now any reasonably handsome young man can effortlessly rack up more sexual conquests in four years of college than did the legendary Casanova in a lifetime." (Also see his article,Who Let the Dogs Out?) Incredibly, there are still gentlemen left in this dizzy world. The ladies who put up this site are married to two of them. Their fathers were two more of them. We know men in our churches and in our communities who work hard, play fair and treat their wives (or lady friends) with respect, courtesy and honor. They may be a rare breed, but they are out there. LAF is here to honor them and praise them. We thank God for them every day. We are not here to promote a "macho" view of manhood (which is warped and unbiblical) any more than we are here to promote wives taking beatings from abusive husbands. The problems between the sexes have existed since the Fall, but the solution isn't for women to descend to the lowest common denominator and start behaving like the worst of men. Yes, many feminists have pointed out the evils of abuse, rape and macho bullying. We give them credit for that. But they cannot claim to be the only people on the planet who have done so. God's Word has condemned every one of these evils since the dawn of time. And God's solution is for men to repent, cease from sinning, and protect and cherish all women everywhere, having no tolerance for the cads and crooks who do otherwise.

Category: Answering Objections

You would have to give this site a very shallow read to come away with the idea that we oppose higher education for women. "Homemaker" does not mean "Ignoramous" in our dictionary, nor does a stay-at-home wife or mother need only to understand the art of bedmaking and dishwashing in order to excel in her sphere.

We are very much in favor of a woman receiving a thorough "higher" education. We believe a deep, well-rounded and grounded classical education is a must for the woman of God who hopes to raise up generations (and influence others around her) to obey God and advance Christ's kingdom with intelligence, kindness and wit. So we are not at all against a "college" education. What we warn against is a young woman leaving the protection of her father or guardian in order to "strive with the men" in an away-from-home setting. (See also the article, "Sending Daughters Away" by Doug Phillips.) I know from my own experience that college away from home primed me for the workforce and stripped me of my desire to remain at home. This will not happen to every woman who leaves home, of course, but it is the experience of the vast majority who do, unfortunately. Our argument against going away to college is not an argument against education or learning to shine as lights in the darkness at all. A fabulous education can be had without leaving the protection and oversight of home (women can take courses over the 'net, commute daily to a local college, etc.). Many homeschoolers who were given a thorough education report that the first three years of college seems like so much wheel-spinning, because they had been prepared to jump directly into their major area of study -- not relearn all the basics of history and science. A thorough classical education can prepare a woman to be the intelligent helpmate God intends her to be, and she should continue to learn for the rest of her life. Education should be lifelong, after all. College is not the stopping point -- neither is a Ph.D., for that matter. We just need to help our daughters keep in mind that they are unique woman -- not made to function like a man but to complement man's role through the intelligent fulfillment of their precious role!

The main point is that God created men to leave home and start their own establishments. He created women to be given to a man in marriage -- not to go out and fend for herself in a dog-eat-dog world, competing against men and trying to prove she can make it on her own.

Married or unmarried, every woman has a unique and precious role in the church and the community -- and she doesn't have to leave godly authorities in order to accomplish her goals. The precious truth of Scripture is that Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church and that He protects, provides for, nourishes and loves the Bride. Our job as women is to present a picture to the world of the Heavenly Bride, rejoicing in our Savior's love by obeying His commands and accepting His oversight gladly. This doesn't make women doormats or brainless -- far from it! Christ needs a capable, intelligent and quick-witted bride. Praise God for giving us the means (books, mentors, teachers, etc.) to love Him with our minds! What a joy!

Category: Answering Objections

To begin with, it would be helpful to have a working definition of legalism. There are several definitions given in standard dictionaries, including the following:

1. "The doctrine that salvation is gained through good works" (Random House College Dictionary) 2. "Strict adherence to law, especially to the letter rather than the spirit" (The Random House College Dictionary) 3. "The doctrine of salvation by works, as distinguished from that by grace" (New Illustrated Webster's Dictionary of the English Language)

The legalists with whom Jesus sparred most often in the Bible were the Pharisees. Time and again, Christ confronted them about their supposed "righteousness," showing them that what they called "godliness" was nothing more than pride based upon man-made works--not humble, thankful obedience to God-given commands. Pride in our own "righteousness" is folly, indeed, because we have no righteousness on our own (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:10). All of the goodness we have in us comes from Christ's atoning work on the cross (Titus 3:4-6) and His ongoing sanctification (Phil. 1:6).

However, we must also take care that we do not stray into the error of antinomianism, which says, "I don't have to obey the law at all, because I am under grace (Rom. 6:14)." In order to make such a statement, we must throw out the rest of Romans 6--not to mention a great portion of the apostolic exhortations on good works. Paul writes, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (verses 15-18). John clearly teaches us that sin is "lawlessness" (I John 3:4). In other words, we would not know what sin was if we did not have the Law of God (Rom. 3:10, 5:20, 7:7). The good news of the Gospel is not that God's Holy, Perfect, Just, and "delightful" law (Ps. 19:7; Ps. 119:72, 89, 92, 97; Rom. 7:12) has been thrown out as useless but that that law cannot condemn us to death in Christ Jesus! Christ redeems us from the curse of the law (death), but he does not then turn us over to lawlessness and tell us we are free to do anything we want in the name of not being legalists. Instead, now that we are no longer slaves to sin, we are slaves to righteousness, just as Paul wrote. And this slavery isn't a burdensome, wearying thing (I John 5:3)--it is glorious and freeing, because God's commandments are life-giving and beautiful (Ps. 119:50, 93)!

It is in this context that we must approach God's clear commandments for feminine modesty -- not with a self-righteous pride or with a horror of God's beautiful law. The Bible is full of commands on modesty (for both men and women). For an in-depth look at these commands and their applications, we recommend that you read the articles on our site; we won't repeat them in detail here. Suffice it to say, that if you'll give the articles a fair reading, you will see that we do not advocate a harsh legalism when it comes to feminine modesty. We do not dictate a "uniform" for Christian women, nor do we condemn people whose personal tastes might differ from ours. However, we do believe it is important to call women to study the modesty commands carefully and with sound biblical judgment--with an eye toward pleasing the Lord and delighting in His commands; not with an eye toward being self-righteous or holier-than-thou. You simply will not find such a view advocated on this site. The commands for modesty are broad enough to admit a wide variety of tastes; yet those tastes must all be bounded within God's desire that women be distinctively feminine (Deut. 22:5) and modest in heart as well as apparel (I Peter 3:3-4).

Concerning the other issues you've raised, I would again point you to the articles on the site, which have not been written out of a desire to create hyper-legalists but with a sincere desire to please the Lord and obey Him. God does clearly call women to the home (Proverbs 31; Titus 2:3-5; I Tim. 5:14) and to care for their own children. Bringing up examples of Hebrew youths who thrived in a pagan environment does not negate the Lord's clear commands. Those youths lived in exile, when God judged the Israelites for violating His law! And Deborah was raised up as a judge to demonstrate God's displeasure with disobedient Israelite men (Judges 4:9; Is. 3:2). We mustn't deliberately disobey God's commands in order to do some perceived good. Indeed, there are people whom the Lord has used in non-ideal situations, but that shouldn't encourage us to sell ourselves into captivity to accomplish good.

Category: Answering Objections

Isn't it incredible that we've come to a point where a woman who makes the decision to stay at home knows she will have to defend the sanity of that decision? It is truly a shame, but this is definitely something for which it is worth cultivating a few gracious answers. Here are just a few suggestions: 1. I'm very thankful that I will be home. I just hope I can do a very good job with the myriad of duties I'll have there. 2. I've been in a career for a while, and now I want to do what is most important to me: caring for my husband and home, and providing a place of hospitality for others. 3. I've been lately convicted in my heart that I must make my home my career. There is so much to do that I simply wouldn't have time to work for anyone else. 4. I've been reading in the Bible about God's design for women, and I find it absolutely beautiful. I want to follow that, as best I can. I want to be like the Proverbs 31 woman. Staying at home doesn't automatically make a woman brainless or spineless, though you'd certainly think this was the case from the way the radical feminists have described homemakers for the past 30 years ("parasites," "trappped," "drones"). It's time to take a real pride in the beautiful duties of cultivating home culture! All the best, Mrs. Sherman and Mrs. Chancey

Category: Answering Objections

Thank you for the thoughtful question, Kate. If you'll take a few moments to read through the LAF Theme Articles (I'm particularly thinking of "What Is Feminism?", "You Don't Know Feminism", and "What Is Womanhood?"), you will see that we do not lump all feminists into a single category. Even feminists agree that they disagree and cannot be categorized! We feel that many women who use the term "feminist" to describe basic beliefs about human rights and the inherent value of women would be better termed "feminine-ists," because radical feminism carries far too much baggage with it. I explain this in detail in "You Don't Know Feminism." Young women like Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.org would fit this category (non-radicals who do not oppose women staying at home). And, of course, there are Feminists for Life and other groups of non-radicals who stand together for noble causes. But, as we state over and over again on the site, you do not have to be a feminist to believe that women have inherent value as human beings, that women should be honored and cherished instead of abused or sidelined, and that women are just as important to God as men. These beliefs are as old as the created order (as the Bible demonstrates); feminism just "discovered" them after the fact. While feminists have often pointed to real ills (wife abuse, rape, etc.), they aren't the only ones fighting these evils, so they cannot take sole credit for advancing the cause of women. Sadly, most of the causes they have fought for in the past forty years have actually contributed to the impoverishment and abandonment of women. For more on this, I'd recommend Carolyn Graglia's book, Domestic Tranquility.

Kind regards,
Mrs. Chancey

Category: Answering Objections

Dear Allison,

Thank you for the note. The title of this website is totally meant to be provocative. We want readers to stop and ask, "Against feminism? How can that be?" We want to challenge people to think about feminism and realize that not all the areas feminists claim credit for belong under the guise of feminism. The rights to own property, to drive a car, to open a bank account, and to travel across state lines have all existed prior to and without a "woman's movement." Yes, there have been restrictions on certain areas in different cultures in different times, but our argument is that women don't gain their "rights" through feminism but through God. As we demonstrate in the "Myths" section of the FAQs, the Bible already granted women broad inheritance, property ownership, and other personal rights long before the feminists came along with their agendas. Have Christian societies always perfectly enforced or guaranteed these rights? No. But no human society has ever been perfect. Today we are robbing men of parental rights and holding them to a harsher standard in many cases in the name of "equality," so feminism is creating just as many problems as it claims to fix.

The other points you bring up (like broader options for work) are only applicable today because of the incredibly materialistic and paycheck-driven society in which we live. Back when our economy revolved around households, all women "worked" (all women still work!), because all families worked together. Women have owned their own businesses and produced goods for centuries. This is a fact of history. Today, however, our society is so tied into paychecks and salaries that we tend to value only work that is done for pay (ignoring the incredible importance of the work that women cannot afford to neglect in the home unless they ignore the needs of the next generation). I would strongly recommend reading Home-Alone America by Mary Eberstadt for a thorough look at what takes place when a society places work above family and paychecks above children. Mrs. Eberstadt examines the problems we face today (day care, psychotropic drugs, violence in schools, etc.) from an economic and sociological standpoint and demonstrates that we cannot afford to lose the work our foremothers did as a matter of course (regardless of the "pay").

Have there been noble feminists who have done good things in the past? Yes, indeed. Be sure to read the article by Carolyn Moir at http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_723.shtml. But has feminism as a whole tended toward the destruction of our freedoms as women? When I look around at a pornographic culture that holds womankind in contempt, throws away babies as trash, and encourages infidelity and divorce, I cannot but answer, "Yes." My grandmother had more freedom to be creative and innovative as a woman because of the protections her supposedly "restrictive" society gave her. We here at LAF feel we have lost much and at too great a cost.

You do not need to be a feminist to oppose rape. You do not need to be a feminist to oppose abuse. You do not need to be a feminist to applaud womanly strengths or encourage women to be thinkers and doers. As women, we are part of mankind and created in the image of God. Without woman, mankind is incomplete. Equal before God, we nevertheless have a unique role that men cannot fill. Why give up this incredible privilege? Feminism as a movement (particularly in the last 80 years) has sought to pull us all down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality. For my part, I prefer to rise to the great challenge of womanhood than to compete with men for a role I wasn't designed to fill.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Jennie Chancey

Category: Answering Objections