Why Being An Anti-Feminist Male Does Not Mean That You Are A Sexist Male

I have been quite puzzled for some time at how many feminists can make the leaps that they do in drawing conclusions about people with such wide gaps in logic. In the feminist world view, I would be considered sexist. I am quite comfortable with that monicker, considering the broad definition that it is given in today's society. With that being said, in reality, I am not sexist just because I am an anti-feminist.

Depending upon how you use "sexist", I either could or could not be. If used as a noun, I definitely fit the mold of a sexist, because I do believe that in the real world, because of the delegation of duties and utility of each sex, that social roles exist for each gender. If you use "sexist" as an adjective, then I definitely am not, because I do not believe that women are inferior to men, nor men superior to women. So I am a sexist, but not a sexist male. This is almost as confusing as feminist logic, but here is the link for dictionary.com that I am using, referring to the American Heritage definition for a noun and the WordNet definition of the adjective.

So let me now explain myself. First of all, I believe that the Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God Himself. God inspired the writers, and they wrote the words inspired by God. The word "inspired" means "breathed in".

From that, I draw from God's creation Adam, after both he and Eve transgressed the commandment of God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that God had different roles in mind for each Adam and Eve. To Adam, He said that he would eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face. To Eve, He said that her sorrows would be multiplied in conception, and that woman would be saved in childbearing. He also commanded that the husband would rule over the wife. This was the social order of God, not man.

So God gave Adam the commandment that he would eat of the earth, by his sweat. Adam was commanded to provide for himself, and implied to provide for his family and to protect them as well. Eve was commanded to submit to her husband, and to be saved, or preserved, she must bear children. God equipped Eve to care for her children while Adam worked to provide for their living. Simple, yet a divine delegation of duties.

In God's grand scheme, he did not make one sex greater than the other, rather he gave each sex their own strengths so as to coexist in harmony, bearing children for posterity. This really irks feminists because they fear being looked upon as baby machines. This, unfortunately for them, is what keeps them so bitter and lonely, because the ability to give birth to children and then to single-handedly see to their natural survival until old enough to eat as the adults is a divine gift and one that, by His design, attracts men to women. In other words, feminity and all that it entails is the strength of a woman.

Likewise, the strength of men and his ability to take care of his mate is attractive to women, and this is also by God's design.

But how does this apply to today's modern society? Does this mean that women should remain in the home, pregnant and barefoot, relying on her husband for all her needs? Does this mean that men should not accept women for "who they are" and allow her to make all the decisions around her life?

The answer to the first question is that God has not changed ever, and all things relevant to Adam and Eve are relevant today. The answer to question number two is that it depends upon the couples desire to have children and if they have them already. If a couple wishes to have children or happens to have children, then the answer would be yes (although not necessarily barefoot). For a woman to have a child and then leave it for someone else to raise while she attends to her "needs", which in reality translate to "wants", is not the best thing for her child. If the couple wishes not to have children, then by all means women should pursue their interests. And the answer to question three again depends upon whether or not the couple has children. Sometimes, because divine responsibility is placed on a husband to provide and care for his family, he must make decisions that may be at variance with his wife.

A lot of what I just said sounds harsh in todays hypersensitive society, but it only makes good sense. And I would submit that if more people followed the prescription of the Bible in as pure a form as possible without interjecting their shade of opinion and without fear of those who may look upon them as "backward", then we would see a lot less divorces, a lot less domestic violence, a lot less child abuse, a lot less sexual perversions, and generally a lot less issues that we face in society that has its roots in the struggle of traditional values versus secular popularism.

Many people would conclude from the above that I am probably a harsh authoritarian who keeps his wife underfoot. Consider the following.

My wife and I married while we were both still in college. We were expecting our first child while both of us were still in college. We decided that I would continue, as at the moment it only made practical sense that I should and become the sole provider while she stayed home to take care of our child. She still has three years of college under her belt in terms of degree, and is a highly intelligent individual who has homeschooled our three children, while I have continued to work and provide the financial needs of our family.

I cook. I clean. I wash clothes. I clean toilets. I change diapers. I put our children to bed. I help them with school projects. She does all of the above more than me. But we share in the things that need to be done that both of us can do. I do not boss my wife. But I do make decisions for our family that, when reasoned, she respects and abides. Likewise, in almost all instances her influence and guidance leads me to the final decision about the issues that we face as a family. I am no better nor am I more deserving of anything than she is. We work together in our respective roles within our family.

Unfortunately, feminists often play upon the stereotype of the abusive, controlling husband to scare women into either believing that they will be controlled and have no personhood in a situation that is traditional, Bible-based values, hence the belligerence toward the Bible, God and Jesus. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible teaches men against that type of behavior, but rather to love his wife as he does his own flesh.

So I am sexist, but not a sexist male. My advice is that men should be men, and women should be women. Each should use the strengths within their gender that God gave them, and don't be afraid to tackle the roles that those strengths and talents entail. You will not be trouble-free, but I will guarantee that when troubles come, you will get through them better, and you will be happier for it in the long term.