This is from Founder’s Ministries. Nice till see more people taking a stand against the egalitarian spirit of the modern age. Here’s the best quote
“They pretend to claim the holy ground of equality, “If I fly the jet through enemy territory, it is only equal for her to.” – “If I provide financially for the household, it is only just for her to.” – “If I can marry a woman, it is only right for her to.” This man, applauded by the world for his egalitarian affirmation of women, is in reality a coward, sluggard, and pervert, one who is happy to use women to satisfy his lusts. The world’s notion of equality results in the unequal (and oppressive) treatment of women.”
This might be close to being off topic, but I question his appeal to Genesis 3:16 as proving that fallen men will oppress women. Is there any basis for reading “he will rule over you” as “he will oppress you”?
I don’t have it in front of me, so I’m going off of memory, but I know Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology makes the argument that the woman’s desire for her husband in Gen. 3:16 should be interpreted as a desire to usurp his authority, and the man’s rule over her should be interpreted as meaning tyrannical instead of loving leadership. He draws a parallel to the same words used in Genesis 4:7, where rule is usually translated as master or control. I’m not necessarily persuaded that’s the correct interpretation, but I imagine that’s what the author’s understanding of Genesis 3:16 is. If I remember correctly, Grudem makes a fairly convincing argument for this reading of the text, although like I said, I’m not sure I’m persuaded.
I think this is a pressing question to the men of our day. Should it be? Probably not.
Of course one can rule on an oppressive way but leadership predates the fall and doesn’t necessitate oppression.
And then there’s Christ’s redemption which will restore a proper leadership, but doesn’t generally happen all at once, especially on a country as rebellious as ours.