As I’ve noted before complementarians use an especially cynical term to deny headship. The term is servant leader, and while the individual words are right, the meaning of the phrase is not headship. But the cynicism of the term goes even farther. Complementarians use the term servant leader as a way to con men and women who have servant’s hearts into rejecting biblical roles in marriage. The reason this is so cynical is the complementarians themselves have disdain for men and women with servant’s hearts.
The term involves a subtle bait and switch that begins with the implication that anyone who objects to the term doesn’t believe that leaders can be servants. Complementarians know that would-be biblical husbands believe that there is no contradiction in a leader also being a servant. By coining this new term to replace biblical headship, complementarians are challenging traditional Christian men to affirm that leadership and service can coexist in the same role. The cynical brilliance of this strategy is that complementarians themselves don’t believe this. Complementarians don’t believe that leadership is a form of service. They see leadership and service as a zero sum game. They think at any given time a husband can either be leading or serving, but not both. This is why complementarians talk of a servant leader being 99% servant, 1% leader. It is also why if anyone brings up the topic of leadership, they will say a husband needs to focus instead on service.
Less subtle is the complementarian disgust for Christians with a servant’s heart. Being servile, or being a servant, are disgusting things in the eyes of the complementarian. This may seem counter intuitive given the complementarian focus on husbands-as-servants, but this is due to complementarians adopting the mind frame of the ugly feminist. Complementarians want men to serve not because it is godly, but because they imagine that being a servant is humiliating, and they want to humiliate men. You can see the truth of this when complementarians use the same terms in reference to wives. Suddenly the mask slips, and complementarians admit their disgust for one who has a servant’s heart.
As Pastor Doug Wilson likes to say:
If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin
The same sentiment is expressed in the CBMW founding statement, albeit with slightly different terms. According to the Danvers Statement, a wife must forever be on her guard not to become servile.
Related: It tastes better that way.
Pingback: Complementarian contempt for the servant’s heart. | @the_arv
First comment!
Great post Dalrock, as usual.
Wilson
If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin
So much for that whole “mutual submission” notion, then.
On Planet Complimentarity women may submit if they wish (but not too much!), men must submit. These are the contorted knots men must tie themselves into when they buy the Feminist notion of men and women being interchangeable.
Exercise: try reading any CBMW document substituting “doormat” or “slave” for servant.
“Doormat leader”, “slave leader”, etc. may be illuminating to the actual, hidden, purpose.
Excellent way of ripping the mask off of them.
I wish complimentarians would just be honest…they want the wife to run the marriage and the husband be the helpmate. Quit with the egalitarian, equal partnership, or servant leadership nonsense because we know it’s a lie when put into action. Just flat out tell us how you want to take God’s model for marriage and invert it so that it tickles the ears oft women and to give you more money.
In other words…I’d tell them to quit peeing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.
“They think at any given time a husband can either be leading or serving, but not both. This is why complementarians talk of a servant leader being 99% servant, 1% leader. It is also why if anyone brings up the topic of leadership, they will say a husband needs to focus instead on service.”
The Complimentarians remind me of the Medieval Flagellants. Once again, my motto is don’t trust anyone who wants to be holier than Christ.
They always bring up Jesus washing the disciples feet for this example, but they always neglect to point out that Jesus washing the disciples feet didn’t make the disciples any less subordinate to Christ, and that Christ wasn’t thereby indenturing Himself to be their permanent foot washer.
Agreed…remember Christ pointed out the fact they called Him Lord and Teacher…which He said was correct. And if He the Lord and Teacher is doing this…they should be doing the same because He showed them this example.
Quit with the egalitarian, equal partnership, or servant leadership nonsense because we know it’s a lie when put into action. Just flat out tell us how you want to take God’s model for marriage and invert it so that it tickles the ears oft women and to give you more money.
Churchianity really needs to just openly apostacize, toss aside the Bible, and declare itself a new religion. Maybe churchians will eventually be shamed into doing so once it becomes obvious that a sufficient number of people no longer mistake them for real Christians.
Also Christ called them “friends” when He washed their feet. They had been through much in three years….seen much,learned much of His Fathers kingdom. They were indeed a band of brothers at this point. Christ didn’t just meet them and after week “washed their feet”
Perhaps it has been mentioned before but Servant Leader is an Oxymoron comprising two nouns of contradictory meaning. American Protestantism is somewhat outside my area of experience or competence but it surprises me that when the shot-gun wedding that joined these two words together occurred that those who officiated at the lexical ceremony failed to see how unsuited were the parties – or was that the point. I say the marriage should be annulled on the ground that the term is incoherent and meaningless and worse a blot on the English language.
@Opus
There is no contradiction whatsoever in the terms. From a Christian point of view they go hand in hand. The problem is the very people pushing the term share your disbelief.
It is also why if anyone brings up the topic of leadership, they will say a husband needs to focus instead on service.
Agreed. Douglas Wilson goes much further though. Anytime he talks about husbands daring to assert his authority over his wife or the home, he makes sure to vilify that very idea whenever he can.
So, boss man, Muslim bossy pants, and wife beaters. He is quite prepared to make anyone look bad who would dare suggest that a servant leader ought to be able to assert his own authority.
But remember, this isn’t Doug poisoning the well. How do we know he didn’t poison the well despite his habitual use of well-poisoning labels? Cuz he said so!
So don’t worry, Wilson defenders. Despite the damning quotes above, never fear-Doug Wilson didn’t poison the well. He said he didn’t, so that means he didn’t, and for most of you, that’s probably good enough.
P.S. Did I mention I really hate defenders of Doug Wilson? lol
Good stuff, Dalrock. As always, I greatly appreciate all the time you put into these posts.
@Opus, the idea behind Biblical “servant leadership” is that each of us can serve God and others by utilizing our God-given abilities. Those with leadership ability can serve (benefit others) by exercising that ability.
@Opus, I forgot to add that a husband has no choice but to exercise leadership over his wife and children, just as his wife has no choice but to become his suitable helper, because that is God’s design for the marriage relationship. A husband who fears God will serve his wife (love her) by leading her, just as a wife who fears God will follow his lead (submit).
This goes into Neo-Reactionary thought. Telling teenagers to wash each other’s feet (even strangers that they don’t know) because “Jesus did it”. Is very different then a respected Sargent washing the feet of men below him that have fought together.
Julius Evola’s Men Among the Ruins:
“Superiority and power need to go hand in hand, as long as we remember that power is based on superiority and not vice versa, and that superiority is connected with qualities that have always been thought by most people to constitute the true foundation of what others attempt to explain in terms of brutal “natural selection.” Ancient primitive man essentially obeyed not the strongest members of society, but those in whom he perceived a saturation of mana (i.e., a sacred energy and life force) and who, for this reason, seemed to him best qualified to perform activities usually precluded to others. An analogous situation occurs where certain men have been followed, obeyed, and venerated for displaying a high degree of endurance, responsibility, lucidity, and a dangerous, open, and heroic life that others could not; it was decisive here to be able to recognize a special right and a special dignity in a free way. To depend on such leaders constituted not the subjugation, but rather the elevation of the person; this, however, makes no sense to the defenders of the “immortal principles” and to the supporters of “human dignity” because of their obtuseness. It is only the presence of superior individuals that bestows on a multitude of beings and on a system of disciplines of material life a meaning and a justification they previously lacked. It is the inferior who needs the superior, and not the other way around.”
“It is the inferior who needs the superior, and not the other way around.”
@AnonS, you’re welcome to quote whoever you want, just wanted to point out that the notion of inferior/superior you quoted is not Biblical. God doesn’t consider a person with more “mana” (or any other particular ability) to be inherently superior to any other, and thus I will not either.
The notion of follower-types needing leader-types is, of course, Biblical. We are all intended to follow God, and thus accept his design for earthly relationships, including marriage & family, employment, civil order, etc.
OP — “Complementarians want men to serve not because it is godly, but because they imagine that being a servant is humiliating, and they want to humiliate men.”
Sure. Humiliating their betters is the POINT of all their anti-Christian nonsense. Bring the Other Guy down, raise Me Me Me up. Dollars and kudos received from the female congregants, and their WKs, is just the gravy.
God in heaven, look at the photos of modern ‘Christian pastors’! Look at Dougie Dubya! They’re the third-rate dorks who couldn’t excel at ANYTHING in life. So natchally they gravitate to the ‘ministry’, where they can go to co-dorky bible skools and ‘divinity’ colleges, get their tickets punched, and graduate into an easy, steady, MC or UMC lifestyle. All they gotta do is stand on the faces of better men (and boys) whilst deconstructing the Word of God. Jeez. Even the Tenth Fretensis engaged their enemies frontally. Like men. The Dork Pastorate are more like worms burrowed into church pews. Stab from behind.
Ninety percent of what I see from these American ‘pastors’ is just Sperm Wars posturing and treachery, covered over by piety and a pretty building that people imagine God actually inhabits. :O) Because look how purty!
Couldn’t agree more.
Just remembered a conversation in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, in which the negative traits of the parson Dr. Grant are discussed. Fanny points out that it’s probably a good thing he’s a parson and not, say, a naval captain, as his negative traits would affect a lot more people than a country parson. It was a good point for that time, but then the Internet came along . . .
@Splashman, are there different levels of punishment in hell? https://www.gotquestions.org/levels-hell.html
Are there different rewards in heaven? https://www.gotquestions.org/rewards-in-heaven.html
Is even the idea very unfair? I don’t know what to fully make of it, but from observing people they do vary in their moral qualities.
Most pastors strike me as someone earning an easy income based on perceived holiness. Makes it hard to respect any of them.
Pingback: Complementarian contempt for the servant’s heart. | Reaction Times
Most pastors strike me as someone earning an easy income based on perceived holiness. Makes it hard to respect any of them.
I don’t label them “churchian franchise CEOs” for nothing.
Sir, you point out complementarian contempt, and join in with your own contempt, which then spreads and grows and multiplies. Might you take the problems you see with the world, and work to make it a better place instead of more bitter one?
For what it’s worth, I think they should scrap the term servant-leader as well.
You’ll also note that when Jesus washed the disciples feet, Peter told Him he was Doing It Wrong! That’s not how you are supposed to lead. And so Jesus had to insist that Peter let Him do it. Whereupon Peter again insisted Jesus was doing it wrong, and wanted the whole body washed, which lead into the explanation.
Jesus is our leader, and right here He is leading by example. He even says so. Then He points out how no servant is greater than the master, and as He, as the master, served them then so too should we serve each other.
As an aside, the each other is important here. We aren’t called to roll over and submit to those outside the church to “serve” them.
What these complementarians do is use the serving as an excuse to elevate the woman above her lord in the marriage.No matter how hard they try, it never works. The lower they drive the man, implicitly the lower they drive the woman. I suppose that is one reason women hate a servile man, their own self worth is bound up in him.
https://www.wral.com/where-churches-have-become-temples-of-cheese-fitness-and-eroticism/17733092/
As of April, 547 churches in Quebec had been closed, sold or transformed, according to the Québec Religious Heritage Council. … “I don’t feel any taboo in transforming a church into a theater, as we are remaining true to the church’s mission of serving the community,” St-Georges said. [Old churches are rented out for debauched events that directly mock Christianity inside a former church.] … noted that playfully subverting the original function of churches was the result of a deep distrust of religious authority. “Feminism is very strong here,” he said, “and people remember what the church did to their mothers and grandmothers.”
Somewhere in there is a ’cause and effect’ I believe? Don’t count on the churchians to ever figure it out.
Figure it out…they are one of the biggest promoters of it.
Dalrock, you have a way of bringing clarity to mud that I envy. Well done.
[D: Thank you.]
Rebekah
Sir, you point out complementarian contempt, and join in with your own contempt, which then spreads and grows and multiplies.
You’re new here. Somethings deserve contempt, such as feminism. Husbands on the other hand need respect just as intensely as wives need love and affection.
Complimentarians teach men to abase themselves before their wives. This is destructive to marriages, and therefore complementarians deserve contempt.
Suggest you read more here, a lot more, before falsely accusing Dalrock of making the world a more bitter place. Although if the past is any guide, you are just another “driveby” offering a uninformed critique then running away.
Keep going with that…you’ll soon see why the complimentarians are wrong in what they preach.
@AnonS,
Agreed.
Anonymous,
Becky is a concern troll. Followed the link to her blog, all upset about how “hateful” Lori Alexander is when telling young women not to be sluts. Let’s see…. what kind of woman thinks it’s hateful to tell young women not to be sluts? Why “reformed” churchian sluts, of course.
They always bring up Jesus washing the disciples feet for this example, but they always neglect to point out that Jesus washing the disciples feet didn’t make the disciples any less subordinate to Christ, and that Christ wasn’t thereby indenturing Himself to be their permanent foot washer.
They also neglect to point out that Jesus washed the feet of his male deciples, but allowed women to wash HIS feet with their HAIR!!
Anyone who has truly led understands that leadership IS/ service.
One of the traditional reasons for marriage is the mutual help that each spouse should have from the other. In this sense both a husband and wife should serve each other, e.g. if one gets sick, the healthy one takes care of the sick one. There is, however, one service that a husband should provide to his wife, but the wife should not provide to her husband, and that is the service of making decisions. Making a decision belongs only to husbands. And making a decision is indeed a service, because making a decision that affects not only oneself but also other people is to accept a huge burden of responsibility; it involves accepting the proverbial “buck” instead of “passing the buck” to someone else, and it means owning the consequences of one’s decision, even if the consequences are bad. So to be in the position of a decision-maker is risky, and as the Catholic philosopher Dr. Alice von Hildebrand says in her book “The Privilege of Being a Woman”, “It is safer to obey than to command”. By taking the role of decision-maker on themselves, husbands relieve their wives of that burdensome responsibility, and in that sense it is a privilege to be a wife, because a wife is exempt from the service of making decisions. The fact that a wife should submit to the decisions of her husband is, I think, a special case of the more general reality that women need from men guidance that women cannot provide for themselves, as for example Dr. von Hildebrand says in the same book, “Throughout her autobiography, Saint Teresa of Avila repeatedly refers to the dangers menacing the spiritual life of ‘the weaker sex’: emotionalism, dreaming, illusions, self-centeredness. She repeatedly stresses how much they are in need of guidance. Two great spiritual directors, Saint Francis of Sales and Dom Colomba Marmion, emphasize the fact that ‘however intellectual or enlightened a woman may be, God, according to the ordinary rulings of His providence, wills her to be directed by a man who is His minister.’ [Dom Raymond Thibaut, Abbot Columba Marmion St. Louis, MS: Herder Book Co., 1961, p. 231] This is a theme which keeps recurring in his spiritual letters. Women need men whose mission is to help them to channel their emotions, to distinguish between those that are valid and those that are tainted by irrationality, those which are legitimate and those which are illegitimate.” Accordingly St. Paul does not allow a woman to teach, the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church have an all-male priesthood and episcopate, etc.
@Damned Crackers
Since no one is holier than God those who claim to be holier are actually profane and wicked. Like pharisees who are appalled at drunkard and glutton Jesus.
They think themselves “
”too pure“”to enjoy healthy earthly pleasures. Yet they were the most wicked out of all groups Jesus encountered in his ministry.
For the record, Doug Wilson was the first person I heard say, “Men serve by leading.” That was an eye-opening statement for me. A husband’s true “service” comes not in doing what others want/ask him to do, but by laying out a course of action and then delineating who does what in order to make it happen.
And as for the foot-washing episode, when Peter objected, Jesus responded, (my paraphrase) “Either you let Me do this, or you can take your stuff and go.” Even in His service, Jesus was calling the shots and laying down the rules. It was literally His way, or the Highway.
Christ was at the time of footwashing effectively blood brothers with the disciples.
Thank you Dalrock for equating the term, ”Servant Leader” with cynicism. And cynicism it most certainly is.
In every other area of life – management and especially the military, a leader has to lead from the front. When he gives the order, he obeys it, and his soldiers are expected to obey it. If he doesn’t obey his own order, his soldiers will lose respect for him and probably do him in in a ”friendly fire”accident. If his soldiers don’t obey, they are court-martialled for insubordination. Montgomery and Patton, for example, led from the front. So did Rommel and Galland,who knew the war was lost but led his fighters by getting in a plane and fighting himself. Whatever side they were on, these men led from the front and set the example for their soldiers to follow.
In ”Servant Leader” marriage advice, the wife IS NOT EXPECTED TO OBEY. This is because ”Servant Leader” husbandry is connected to the policy of insubordination for women as a virtue. This takes the form of the long list of exemptions and panic-like warnings against ”being a doormat” when Ephesians 5, 1 Cor 7 and 1 Peter 3 are preached on.
I once told a meeting that a man’s life is like a horse drawing a wagon. Marriage means two horses are placed in the harness, the wagon is much lighter and the road travelled is much easier for both.
If, however, one horse decides not to pull, decides that she hates the reins, bucks out, rears and decides to move against the harness, then that horse is useless and gets taken out and shot.
The story is quickly followed by the sound of a pin drop, along with the sound of crickets chirping for Christian couples….
I know I have been disagreed with on it in the past, but I think the point of how many times this happened (once) is worth comparing with the number of times Jesus was clearly in charge directing the disciples. That clearly makes a lie of the 99% servant desire. Jesus did it to serve a principle, not note that men were supposed to continuously serve their wives without ever leading, except possibly where the wife wanted to go. (Chauffeur leadership)
Also of note…the footwashing was Christ establishing the priesthood. When it comes to marriage that’s taken care of in the example of Christ and the church.
@BillyS
Chauffeur leadership is much more accurate. That is what most women seem to want, and what these snakes are selling.
As someone else pointed out, as well, Jesus told Peter in no uncertain terms “I’ve chosen to serve you in this way. If you don’t accept that, get out.” That doesn’t seem to fit what they’re trying to tell men to do by bringing it up either.
“For the record, Doug Wilson was the first person I heard say, “Men serve by leading.” That was an eye-opening statement for me.”
Not everything Wilson says is wrong, but just because he happened to get this right does not excuse the fact that he is wrong at the foundation level regarding marriage. His last post about this shows his open sympathy to the Duluth model.
The guy is great at mouthing the right platitudes to suck conservative leaning people in, and then mixing in the ordinary feminist poison common in this culture. The wrapping looks good, but the product is the same.
God is Laughing on July 30, 2018 at 8:41 pm
“Anyone who has truly led understands that leadership IS/ service.”
Yeah, sure is true. Not only that, it’s sacrifice, and laying down your life for others.
There’s a lot of times it would be really easy to do anything else than lead, as it is a thankless job for the ordinary husband. Your leadership is not appreciated because you have to make hard decisions in the family’s best interest with a perspective they do not have and therefore can’t appreciate, and in addition, your family may look at your authority with envy because you get to make those decisions.
There’s enough sacrifice in being the leader without the kind of “servant leadership” the average church pushes. That is just self flagellation.
Luke 7:6-9 KJV
[6] Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: [7] Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. [8] For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it . [9] When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Frankly, from what I’ve read of Wilson, he (and many others) more likely has a blind spot to some of the cultural feminism rather than deliberately poisoning the well with it. So he’s not LYING to claim he doesn’t poison the well, but he’s not right either: it’s more a case of not seeing the poison in what he pours into it. And the well was already tainted upstream of himself.
Here’s the rub, though: what DOES the biblically obedient husband do to reign in his rebellious wife? If she’s not sexually astray and maintains the house well and the kids tolerably, but is willful and shrewish to him, what is his recommended COA? Without kink and before resorting to church discipline (supposing they’d back him), the only references I know offhand for it are “McClintock” (the John Wayne movie) and Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew.” There’s GOT to be something more regular than THOSE, surely?
I’m convinced that the end result of the war being waged upon biblical masculinity and biblical femininity is to create a new androgynous humanity. If the West does not collapse soon, then the future seems like a morbid subject to contemplate.
“…male and female God created them” (Genesis 1:27). This fundamental truth is despised by those who hate God.
AnonS, or anyone who has read Julius Evola, have you read Revolt Against The Modern World? I’m wondering if it would be worth getting a copy. That quote you gave piqued my interest.
@ JJ Grriffing
it’s more a case of not seeing the poison in what he pours into it. And the well was already tainted upstream of himse
No. It’s a case of deficating in the river because those upstream had urinated in it.
Here’s the rub, though: what DOES the biblically obedient husband do to reign in his rebellious wife? If she’s not sexually astray and maintains the house well and the kids tolerably, but is willful and shrewish to him, what is his recommended COA?
This is why husbands must be the spiritual leader FROM THE START. It’s very hard to fix the situation once you allow it to start, even if you didn’t know not to allow it in the first place.
For those already in trouble, I don’t have a lot of good advice. My divorce was final a year ago. I do know it will be precarious. You can’t fight it directly. You must use grace to turn her attitude. Quoting scripture won’t usually help. Remember she doesn’t actually respect you as a leader……..yet. Look at your home church…..do they support you? If not, and she isn’t receptive to moving churches, find the couple that most embodies a godly marriage and befriend them. Only befriend those who have the kind of marriage you are trying to build.
I know……..it’s not a solution…..but small baby steps.
Actually, ignore that comment I just made ^ , Evola sounds like a pagan nutcase.
Jesus’ washing of his disciples feet was indeed to demonstrate a principle, as BillyS stated above. It was to demonstrate how Jesus is the one who washes us clean of our sin!
“Evola sounds like a pagan nutcase.”
Yeah he kinda is, but his critiques of modernity still resonant.
“If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin”
The first thing such a husband needs to do is find a church that doesn’t preach vile lies like this. Finding such a church might not be as easy as you’d think, because the notion that women are incapable of sinning (and thus have no need to confess or repent) has become so widespread. Why don’t people see such an attitude as actually demeaning to women? It’s treating them like children to see them as incapable of being responsible for anything that goes wrong. Why don’t they feel patronized rather than entitled? If in fact women cannot be held responsible for anything, then a logical corollary would be that they should not be put in any positions of responsibility. These people want to have it both ways.
Dalrock NEEDS to read Rachel Held Evans. She doesn’t like complementariansim either but for different reasons
From the Danvers statement:
“In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.”
This is pure wolf in sheep’s clothing devilishness. ‘Intelligent willing submission’ means we do it your way when I agree that is what we should do. That is simply covert rule rather than overt rule (‘usurpation’) or actual submission (‘servility’).
Submission only when I want to (willing submission) is not submission at all.
Denny Bilson
Dalrock NEEDS to read Rachel Held Evans.
Why don’t you summarize her writing for us?
She doesn’t like complementariansim either but for different reasons
No doubt. So what?
Hose_B,
I thought my church supported me until I found out later they had been listening to my wife and she was “the most unhappy woman they had seen”. Thus their “divorce is not an option” went out the window. Add it a passive pastor who really let his wife rule, in spite of the formal rules only allowing formal male leadership, and their support was really for her leaving.
The pastor did talk to her once, after quite a bit of prompting on my end, but it was too late then.
‘It doesn’t matter what they say but what they do’ applies to churches same as women.
Details of their theology on marriage and divorce means nothing when they worship women.
Maybe Dalrock has already read Rachel “the sin of patriarchy” Held Evans. I doubt such reading will alter his views much:
https://relevantmagazine.com/god/church/rachel-held-evans-explains-bible-really-says-women-leadership/
In my household, I am the leader. I expect my wife’s unquestioning obedience in all things, and she has always given it to me. Doesn’t mean I never take her thoughts or desires into account (of course, I take many things into account), but once I reach a decision it is not her place to question it…but merely to obey.
She also has always taught our children from toddlerhood that Daddy is the head of the household, and must always be respected and obeyed. She is also very careful to model this behavior herself in front of them, so that it is reinforced in their minds.
I suppose that nowadays this makes us “extremists”. So be it. It works well for us, and we have a great marriage. And contrary to the always-angry feminists, my wife is happy and content. She would be the first to tell you how she prides herself on submitting to her husband in all things.
These nutty faux-feminist churchians can get bent. They are a bunch of Judases.
The wrapping looks good, but the product is the same
A fat lie wrapped in the skin of truth.
Gender role reversal and androgyny are Satan’s ancient lies spread and practiced by many religions for centuries and are intended to spit at God. His natural created order and the very essence of the two sexes are now perverted by those claiming to follow him. The patients now run the asylum. Meanwhile Hillsong fills the sterile halls from the overhead speakers.
Somewhat related article from the insane asylum formerly known as New York City:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11172
“College offers course advocating ‘wages for housework’
Eugene Lang College is offering a course this Fall predicated on the belief that women should be paid for housework, emotional labor, and other forms of “invisible labor.”
The course is based on Silvia Frederici’s 1975 essay “Wages Against Housework,” which argues that women should demand wages from their husbands for housework.”
———————————————————————————————————-
Some of the best comments:
Devon Saggers
If a woman lives alone, then who is going to pay her to clean her own home, cook her own meals, and do her own laundry?
Lewin Wickes
What about the yard work? Well, I’m way ahead on this. I pay my wife for the housework. She pays me for the yard work. We both deposit our earnings in the joint account. Problem solved!-
Jared Black
Long time ago there was an article claiming house keeping was worth $200,000 a year. I was suprised that the gov’t didn’t see that as taxable income and place a levy on it.
Lazlo Toth
I agree with this entirely. I pay my wife $12/hour for her work, and she records her time. Let’s do $50 hours per week so that she gets overtime – . Out of that she covers her healthcare insurance ($600+/month), healthcare deductibles and copays ($250/month) her portion of the mortgage ($3200/month/4 = $800/month), the cost of her car (lease value about $600/month), car insurance ($100/month), utilities ($700/4=$175/month), food (about $400/month) clothing (about $200/month) and her portion of the other various things in our household (say, another $750/month). She makes about $2838 before taxes for all of this. But she has to spend $3925 for all of the items mentioned above and has to pay income tax and social security and medicare tax. And I haven’t charged her anything for the expenses of our two children but if she’s now earning she should contribute to that financially. I’m getting a much better deal because I keep all the other money since this is now a wage job and we are no longer sharing my income as husband and wife. Also, if we go to a restaurant I can now demand that she pay her half out of her wages. I also should get paid for my “invisible labor.” I agreed to our arrangement but it is stressful in ways that may not be readily apparent to be the sole breadwinner. Plus, I paid for my wife’s college some time ago. I want that money back if this is now a wage relationship.
Then we get to sex. Does she get to charge for that, putting aside the law? Could I be so presumptuous as to say we both get value from that if it is actually lovemaking instead of just sex? Should she pay for me if I do a good job? Should I demand more frequent sex to make up for the more than $1000/month that she cannot cover under the financial framework above? Should I demand that she cater to any kinkiness I might develop as partial compensation? Can I fire her and hire someone else to do the work and simply withhold everything?
Re. the Rachel Held Evans comments — she’s the worst – she mocks the Bible for a living and the Left loves her for it. Pro-gay, pro-legalized abortion, anti-“patriarchy,” pro-LGBTQX, etc. She just wrote a book with the disingenuous title “Inspired” (she explicitly denies inspiration in the traditional sense – claiming, for example, that God didn’t *really* order the clearing out of the Promised Land, those lying, blaspheming prophets just made that up). http://bit.ly/EvansWolf