The realities of female inferiority and submission

[This is the second guest post in a row written by a woman I know. Apart from minor editorial changes, I have left it untouched.]

Submission Does Not Create Dominance

by ContentWoman

In my first post here I broached the question of women’s inferiority [ContentWoman argues the case for her own inferiority here], and now I will continue on female submission. As I said previously, a woman has an empty space between her legs that is meant to be acted upon and filled; a void cannot act upon substance. Similarly, her submission is a response to being acted upon, or dominated, by a man, not something she does on her own. The truth is evident in the design of our bodies. Woman is a secondary, derived being and, therefore, inevitably inferior. Woman is most useful in her role as a subordinate to man.

Before I continue, let me simply say that this is a philosophical discussion about the concepts of male and female, not about the particular men and women we have now. What we have now is unnatural, with women acting as men and men who are subservient to women, while both are fearful of each other for real and imaginary reasons. This is not how it is supposed to be, and we know this by the fruits of the experiment. We have as a culture tried to equalise men and women and it is not working well for the simple reason that it was always a bad idea that was bound to fail because it is not possible to make equal two things that are inherently unequal.

To illustrate this, how do men and women operate in the world? A man can dominate one woman and he can go out and dominate within the world. A woman can submit to one man who dominates her, but she cannot submit to the world. For her, this is like serving two masters; for him, he is master – of himself, of his woman, and of the world (not literally, but potentially). We are simply made differently and for different purpose; women are made to be subject to one man, not to make a mark on the world directly; men are made to leave a mark and lead. Again, this relates to our sexual natures, as a man’s sexual nature is to act upon and leave his mark, and a woman is made to receive and foster what he gives to her.

Women, as fundamentally receptive, responsive beings, work best under the guidance of a man. I am writing these posts under the guidance and with the approval of my masculine authority, because we figure out these things together. This is for my benefit and protection. It is not oppressive in the least, since I would rather have his approval and, on the contrary, I feel much more secure knowing that he has my back.


A woman will not have this if she cannot trust her man to protect her, and she will not be able to trust him to protect her if he crumbles over her emotionality or ignores her altogether, neither of which is the loving behaviour of a superior. Parents are the superiors of children, and parents are expected not to crumble when a child is upset or to ignore a child that needs comforting. This is simply to illustrate the relationship between superior and inferior, not to imply that a grown woman is or should be as a child.

All this is why any talk of women’s submission as an antecedent to dominance is by and large a waste of time, since submission can only occur in response to dominance. This is a reality in the same way as it is a reality that a woman cannot fuck, screw or “bone” a man in the natural world. Of course there is an amount of “volition” involved as there is always the possibility of resistance and refusal, but the physiological response is involuntary, and resistance can be overcome. This is not a tacit endorsement of rape, but illustrative of the truth of our respective positions as shown by the reality of our physical bodies. Acting upon is not a violation and while many people presume such a man violates a woman, it actually brings her security since his strength is under his control and not used to harm her.

Put another way, the volition comes in where free will comes in – we can reject God and we can resist a dominant man, but only to a point in both cases, since God is always there regardless, and a dominant man can overpower and overwhelm a woman. Nevertheless, a dominant man is not domineering and the same is true of God. So in such a situation, she is always offered a way to assert her free will.

Expecting submission before dominance is like thinking that salvation comes through loving God before He loves you. This is not possible, since God loves us long before we have an inkling even of His existence – indeed, even before our physical existence. We have the freedom to turn our backs on God but He wants us to come back, and loves us anyway. God does not withdraw His love but we can withdraw ours and often do, since our love can never be equal to God’s perfect (and superior) love. The Church is the bride of Christ (and therefore Christians live in marital submission). God is our Father and King (patriarchy), another aspect of the Trinity. We feel safe within His protection, as a woman feels safe in the protection of a dominant man, and we submit to a powerful God as we cannot submit to nothing or a weak god.

About these ads

118 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Lena S. on September 21, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    This woman uses a lot of words to say what I’ve said a bunch of times in one simple sentence: A woman cannot submit to a marshmallow.


  2. Ha, Lena. Well women do like to waffle on.

    Another defect of your sex?


  3. “It was the only picture I could find of a woman kneeling to a man. All the rest are of men kneeling to women, to propose marriage.”

    Isn’t that sad. You can find plenty if you get into more erotic imagery, but its a shame there is not better G rated imagery to capture the D/s dynamic.


    • Laura, yes. I have replaced it now with a better image, which I believe was taken by a woman professional photographer.

      BTW, I would strongly advise young men NOT to kneel to propose. It is inappropriate. I did not. I put my girlfriend, now wife, on my lap and asked her.


      • Beautiful! A man kneeling sets the tone for the entire marriage. A woman should kneel, because she is the one being bestowed with the honor of him choosing her.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2013 at 1:32 am

        Laura, I would not expect a woman to kneel. But a man should never kneel to a woman. As you say, it sets the wrong tone. I put my then girlfriend astride my lap and asked her. Also, I knew what her answer would be. I would also advise a young man to only propose if he is fairly sure of the girl’s answer, and certainly not in public.

      • “BTW, I would strongly advise young men NOT to kneel to propose. It is inappropriate.”

        I agree. I never understood why the man is supposed to kneel as if before some sort of goddess as opposed to the soon-to-be wife he’s supposed to rule over. It’s like he’s begging. That’s something I’ll never do.

    • Posted by Lena S. on September 22, 2013 at 1:34 am

      Yes, a man kneeling – yuck! That’s ‘dread game’ for me. Embarrassing. Public proposals even worse. Just look on YouTube for “proposal fail” lol.


      • In the old Sarum rite of marriage, the bride would kiss the groom’s feet as a sign of her intended submission to his authority.

        I believe some of those proposal fails are contrived.

  4. […] The ebook in the last post … The realities of female inferiority and submission […]


  5. […] ContentWoman: Woman: Accept Reality and Take Your Place; Submission Does Not Create Dominance […]


  6. C. S. Lewis expressed this brilliantly in That Hideous Strength:

    — “Yes,” said the Director. “There is no escape. If it were a virginal rejection of the male, He would allow it. Such souls can bypass the male and go on to meet something far more masculine, higher up, to which they must make a yet deeper surrender. But your trouble has been what old poets called Daungier. We call it Pride. You are offended by the masculine itself: the loud, irruptive, possessive thing–the gold lion, the bearded bull–which breaks through the hedges and scatters the little kingdom of your primness as the dwarfs scattered the carefully made bed. The male you could have escaped, for it exists only on the biological level. But the masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it. You had better agree with your adversary quickly.” —


  7. Posted by Lena S. on September 22, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    An observation… It’s the “creepy” guys who are subject to the whims of women regarding the law. That is, non-assertive and by and large harmless everyday beta males who manage to trip a fearful woman’s radar. She feels his lack of ability to protect her and projects it onto him as a danger to her.

    This is where men have become fearful of women, thus more “creepy”, then women have become more fearful of “creepy” men, and it’s a vicious circle.


    • Yes, Lena, one thing I have noticed is that women are more upset by a placatory tone than by bluntness. I think you dislike the insincerity. As for beta guys getting targetted, it seems that some of the recent high-profile sexual harrassment cases have involved cases of SF nerds and so on. Whereas a “jock” can humiliate the Duke slut by leaving her earrings outside his door for her to collect after he screwed her, and she meekly accepted that …


      • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm

        Yes, Lena, one thing I have noticed is that women are more upset by a placatory tone than by bluntness. I think you dislike the insincerity

        Disagree, as women are more upset by a placatory tone from a husband / LTR even when it is sincere. It’s the attempt at placating her, rather than leading or dominating her, that triggers the hindbrain insecurity.

        Although variations abound, as in “Now, now, dear, we’ll come back to this shop later when the crowd has thinned out. You’re getting all wound up” which leads to “I”M NOT GETTING WOUND UP!” in a sharp, feminine tone. All that is needed here is a bit of a smirk and silence, as her own words echo – loudly – round inside her head.

      • I thought that was what I said. Trying to placate a woman leads to anger.

      • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm

        I thought that was what I said. Trying to placate a woman leads to anger.

        Looked like you were saying that it’s only the insincere efforts at placation that lead to anger.

  8. Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 23, 2013 at 3:44 am

    Newsflash: Women Are Solipsistic, Believe Every Other Woman Is Just Like Them.

    Film at 11:00…


  9. Posted by Lena S. on September 23, 2013 at 5:26 am

    This is amusing. I’ll leave this here since I’ve been banned after two comments on her previous post (I wasn’t planning on commenting any further, but since I inspired a post):

    Of course, women don’t understand love because it is a masculine concept, like honour and loyalty and all the other virtues. Women understand fear and respect. Husbands love; wives submit and follow. Virtue has the Latin root vir, which means man, thus virtue was traditionally associated with manliness.

    One might say that her defensiveness over my comments is a sort of display of penis envy, a desire to possess what naturally belongs to men.

    One man among a thousand I have found, a woman among them all I have not found.


    • I can understand why you were banned there. Margery (who IS happily married btw) was politely expressing her opinion, whilst you were unnecessarily belligerent and rude.

      Lena S. said:

      “Bollocks. I stopped right there. You don’t know love so you deny its existence. If God is Love, does God wax and wane? Does He only stick around because He is committed to us?”

      Margery said:
      ” I have obviously struck a nerve with you for you to lash out like this. I didn’t mean to offend. But you should probably try reading what I said and the conversation that ensued before you make such ridiculous assumptions about me and, in affect, my marriage.
      Also for the record what I have said doesn’t go against your quote. If it did then no one has ever loved as anger, selfishness, etc is all a part of being human. Because we’re imperfect.”

      Lena S. said:
      “Projection, defensiveness, rationalisation, and a strawman. I commented on what you wrote and your reply to me suggests that I hit a nerve. (That’s the projection – I’ll leave you to work out the others since it is better for you to do that than for me to spoon feed you).”

      Now, if you go in there ranting like a ball busting virago, expect to be summarily dismissed.

      Unbelievable, uncalled for behaviour. Such a nasty tone! This woman did nothing to warrant such a response.


    • No Laura.. A ball busting virago is an aggressive and decidedly unfeminine woman.

      Most men do not want to marry such a woman.

      A woman CAN be feminine and express an opinion without being crass and rude.

      Sunshine Mary is a case in point.

      It’s also one of the reasons why she is such a popular blogger.

      Apart from the fact that she treats all commenters the same way in which she herself would like to be treated.. She’s fair and even handed.

      Having a witty repartee is also a big plus. :D


      • and I take it you are the perfect beacon of feminine discourse? Do you feel the way you communicate your points are feminine and gentle?

      • LOL.. Not a bad try at deflecting ..

        You know Laura, if you are nice, pleasant and engaging, you too, can be a popular blogger like SSM. :D

        Posting unbiased pieces of substance would also go a long way. ;)

  10. I would not have though that a woman wrote this sensible post.
    Thanks it was wonderful and wise


  11. I would never have thought that a gal made this post. Thanks. BTW can you please unspam the last comment I made? thanks


  12. Posted by about lifting on September 23, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    thanks muchas gracias.


  13. Posted by Lena S. on September 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm


    “Ball busting virago” is how arguments and disagreements use to go down, before woman’s delicate sensibilities got in the way and everything had to be refined and soften.

    Yes, that was a good post. And I wasn’t aware Margery had balls… What a strange world we live in.


  14. Answer my question–it is reasonable. If you feel you are a good model of feminine speech, I want to know, so I can better model myself after you.

    And popularity is not a virtue.


  15. Taken to stamping your feet now, eh, Laura?

    No please?

    Tsk tsk tsk. Didn’t your Mommy teach you any manners?


  16. This is starting to sound like a squabble among housemaids below stairs.

    Due to the low quality of female commentary on this post, future comments from women on this series of posts will be moderated.


  17. Certainly an unfortunate degree of snark, though I don’t blame all equally, certainly.


  18. […] has been arguing here and here recently, as a guest blogger, that women are inferior to men, tout court. If this feeling is shared […]


  19. Posted by Free Your Mind on September 27, 2013 at 10:44 pm

    Seems very bizarre to me that you feel such a strong need to push your ideals of submissive women on other women, why not allow them to come to their own conclusion about their individual circumstances. Why do you feel so threatened by “strong” women? I can’t help but feel it is nothing more than your own insecurities rearing their head here. If you think the journey to equality is what is the detriment of modern society, you are extremely delusional. Equality is about tuning into the collective human consiousness, something you are clearly unaware of. Your notions are outdated and ludicrous.


  20. Posted by 7man on September 27, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    @ Free Your Mind

    Meanwhile, other a few women are content and well-sexed. (But not the empowered women.)


    • Posted by Lena S. on September 27, 2013 at 11:26 pm

      People always think talking about something is “pushing it on other people” when it comes to anything that isn’t standard propaganda. Typical. People accused us of that too.


  21. Posted by Deep Strength on September 27, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    All this is why any talk of women’s submission as an antecedent to dominance is by and large a waste of time, since submission can only occur in response to dominance.

    This is incorrect.

    1 Corinthians 7

    12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

    1 Peter 3

    In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right [b]without being frightened by any fear.

    Submission of a wife to her husband should occur, EVEN if he is a non-believer. And it is unconditional.

    Not to mention the other multiple times that submission is a command to the wife without condition (Gen 3, 1 Corinthians 11, Eph 5, Colossians 3, Titus 2, etc.).

    Husbands are commanded to what they are commanded. And wives are called to what they are commanded. Different roles and different responsibilities for each sex in marriage.


  22. Posted by 7man on September 27, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    @ Deep Strength

    That is nice in theory, but in practice it doesn’t happen. Remember that Genesis says that the woman was created for the man. Therefore women are in a submissive position and the Biblical admonitions only make sense in the natural order.

    Where is the most effective place to thump a woman with the Bible? (I have not yet found such locus.)


    • Posted by Deep Strength on September 28, 2013 at 12:00 am

      What theory? It’s straight from the Bible. The passages are as clear as day.

      Women in today’s churchianity are in rebellion. It is their choice or not to submit to their husbands or not. It also doesn’t help that both societies, “pastors”, and other church “leadership” continually cut down husbands while exhorting women as “spiritually superior.”

      If you’re a Christian and can’t accept these passages at face value then we will have to agree to disagree.


      • Posted by 7man on October 5, 2013 at 2:57 pm

        You cannot lead a woman by pointing to the Bible. The Bible is true, but a man should lead by leading and not by pointing.

      • These two things are not mutually exclusive.

        A husband should be leading because he wants to obey God, and pointing out where his wife is in Scriptural error.

        Unfortunately, only the former — husbands “manning up” and “leading” — has been proven to not work in today’s “Christianity.” One need only look on the failure of Promise Keepers.

        A wife has to accept on her own to submit to her husband and follow God or not. It is her choice and her choice alone, whether the husband is leading or not leading.

  23. Posted by 7man on October 5, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    In the past, Generals used to lead the troops into war. He was out in front and exposed. I suppose the troops could choose to follow or be cowards. (Usually cowards were shot or court martialed.) Nevertheless, a man leads regardless of whether he is followed.

    OK fine, go ahead and point but then lead the way. Don’t expect a woman to go where you point while you are sitting on your posterior.

    Every man can choose whether to lead or to follow or to sit on his ass and point.


  24. In my experience, pointing to scripture comes across as weak to a woman. Lead, set the tone, call the shots, whatever you want to call it; and then let her follow you or not. It is easier to follow a live man than an immobile book and principle. Women are people focussed not idea focussed.

    As for Promise Keepers, anyone with any sense could predict its failure. I can just imagine little Cartman from South Park calling it “Gay” and he would be absolutely right. Women snicker at that kind of thing, trust me.


    • And it doesn’t matter what a woman says. What does she do? There are “continents-full” of women who are “chaste, obedient, sexual, supportive” (in their minds) and can talk the talk. But the reality is different. With women, theory and practice are only tenuously related.


  25. […] Women, as fundamentally receptive, responsive beings, work best under the guidance of a man. I am wr… […]


  26. Posted by Clare on October 14, 2013 at 7:44 am

    As a Christian would just like to express my inexpressible disappointment with these misogynistic posts and similar comments. There are differences between men and women and I wholeheartedly support their celebration. Both sexes learn from the qualities of each other.
    Unless men fully respect that women are equal both because of and in spite of their differences, they will always denigrate women with the power they were given to protect them. In the past some cultures have subjected whole races to slavery following the above patterns of justification.
    To give a little context to the the Bible quoted above – it states that a women must ‘submit’ to her husband WHILE the man is called to serve her AS Christ served the Church. This means love to the point of dying for his wife i.e. sacrificing her both in big and little things every day. The woman in turn submits to his sacrificial love and protects her husband’s heart.
    This is a complementary and therefore equal and necessary exchange for any truly loving relationship to grow. Power struggles should not be strong theme in relationships, because each person should be confident in the gifts they have been given to enrich themselves, other people and the world and more importantly, they should be confident in the true dignity that is instilled in them as children of God. Power struggles, talk of ‘dominance’ and ‘submission’ in relationship are fruitless because every human being has this inherent dignity.


    • Show me the Scriptures that prove men and women are equal. Go on; I challenge you.

      Won’t find any.

      Instead, you’ll find things like this.

      I noticed you put the word ‘submit’ in quotation marks thus, but serve without, thus. How telling.

      Your allegiance to Team Woman clearly is of greater importance to you than fidelity to what the Scriptures actually teach.

      We all believe in complementarity, too. But that word means that wives should actually submit, not just ‘submit’. Huge difference; true submission, rather than ‘submission’, entails obedience, just as the Church is to obey and submit to Christ, who indeed did give His life for the Church. But did the disciples ever question He was their Lord, even when He did wash their feet? Of course not. And He continually told them what they should do, and they listened, and except when occasionally lapsing into sin and disobeying, they obeyed; they submitted.

      As should wives towards their husbands, not merely ‘submitting’ without truly submitting.


      • Posted by Clare on October 15, 2013 at 5:06 am

        ‘Team Woman’ can only exist if there is a ‘Team Man’. If you insist on power struggle battle between the sexes then I suppose yes, we are on different teams. But to take this perspective is to miss the point entirely.

        I used the word ‘submit’ in quotation marks because of the way the word has been mis-used and misunderstood. It is derived from the Latin phrase ‘under’ the ‘mission’. I.e. women place themselves under the mission of Christ – love to the point of constant sacrifice. They can only truly submit for the good when this mission is being carried out. Men (and women) are subject to original sin, and so it is sometimes necessary for women to refrain from submission to protect both herself and the relationship, for the good of both.

        You also have to also remember the context of the Scriptures – they are historical texts and cannot always be taken literally (it would be ridiculous for us to follow certain cultural norms mentioned in the Bible, that belong to an entirely different time and place). The Church holds certain doctrines to be true and among them is the inherent, equal dignity every human person has as a child of God.

        Men and women work together to make this world a better place (if they choose to), learning from the qualities of each other. To emphasise the importance of women, Blessed Fulton Sheen’s quote is telling:
        “When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”

      • I’m Protestant, so I go with what Scripture teaches. But I highly doubt, from what I know about the Catholic Church, that it teaches equality of the sexes as you suggest; their limiting of the priesthood to men (as we trad Prots also do) shows they have no absolute commitment to egalitarianism as modern progressives do.

        As for the power struggle, that started with Eve’s disobedience (and Adam’s). And with God’s sentence upon her and all women – which has carried on with all women and men, ever since.

        IOW, right from the beginning, as a result of the Fall, God pronounced that women would try to rule men, emotionally manipulate them into acting the way they want; that they would try to control them, even though it is their place to be ruled by their husbands, as per the result of the Fall (though their place, pre-Fall, was still to be ‘an help-meet’ for their husbands, but it didn’t require control in the same way it now does).

        So, the Book of Genesis anticipated the endless ‘struggle’ of the sexes, that has necessarily flowed from the Fall, and that will continue till the end of time.

        Submission is thus God-ordained; it isn’t voluntary; your argument about withholding it is specious and absurd.

        Team Man does not exist, because men don’t naturally work that way; but women are herd creatures, and will join either Team Woman or Team Her Man.

        Sheen was wrong; women are NOT morally superior to men; that’s just Victorian Anglican / Methodist bullshit, that unfortunately has been bought into by everyone. See that passage in Ecclesiastes I linked above. That’s the reality. The problem you Catholics have in having celibate unmarried clergy is that you have them giving advice on marriage that they’re really not equipped to give, not having such an experience. And so you get people like Sheen who don’t know what the heck they’re talking about, vis-à-vis relationships. Not my problem. :)

      • Yes, well I mostly agree with Will. Any man who has lived with a woman for a few days will know that many celibates, and I include John Paul II in this as a prime example, have a starry-eyed view of women not borne out by reality.

        Such men had probably seen women in an earlier time, at their best. The recent behaviour of women would have chastened them. I detect a more realistic view of women in the last two popes, Benedict and Francis.

        I would like to see a citation for the quote attributed to Bp Sheen.

        I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that a wife should sit in judgment on her husband and his performance. That is completely topsy-turvy.

      • Posted by Jim on March 14, 2014 at 3:24 am

        Bp Sheen is what’s called a white knight or mangina. Christians are no where near immune to this delusion.

    • Posted by 7man's woman (a.k.a. Lena S.) on October 14, 2013 at 2:47 pm

      Is the Church equal to Christ? Is dying for someone a greater sacrifice than submitting to someone? Even though Christ is superior to us, does he not love us beyond what we are even capable of imagining? How do we return that love? Is the dignity of the Church increased of lessened by its submission to Christ?


      • Posted by Clare on October 15, 2013 at 4:52 am

        I fully agree that the Church is increased by its submission to Christ – because Christ is perfect man as well as perfect God. He is the ideal men (and women) strive for and will always fall short of because of original sin. However Jesus is also divinity – something all earthly men aren’t. Earthly men are all too human, just as the Church and women are also human and full of faults. Nevertheless, every human is a son or daughter of God (being made in his image and likeness). The only ‘standard’ that should therefore be employed to compare men and women is how well they live their lives modelled on Christ.

        The more a man is like Christ, the more a woman is able to submit to him and so the pair grow in a truly loving relationship. The less he is like Christ, the more the woman is unable to submit to him, needing to protect both herself and the relationship (the man, because of his faults, failing to do so).

        I would also like to point out that being perfect man, as a child Jesus himself submitted to his parents and particularly Mary his Mother – also an archetype of the Church. Later he died for that Church.

    • Posted by Jim on January 4, 2014 at 6:17 pm

      Sorry sweetheart. I could tell from your first sentence that you’re not a Christian just a typical Left-Feminist.


      • Posted by Clare on January 6, 2014 at 5:30 am

        Haha. Guess again Jim.. Would you believe I am actually on a trip in Holy Land right now, discovering my Christian roots.. Ps. It’s absolutely amazing here, every Christian should make this trip once on their life!

      • It’s not necessary for me to guess again. Where you travel is irrelevant. Your behavior says you’re not a Christian. Lip service is worthless and so is standing on ground little lady.

  27. Whoa, 7 and CL! Just wanted to say hello again. You’re right, everyone’s gotta serve someone.


  28. Posted by The Truth on October 18, 2013 at 2:57 am

    I think who ever wrote this should take a good, hard look at their life. They are lying to themselves through this ideology that anyone is inferior to anyone. Especially women to men! She clearly was not brought up in an uplifting environment, and I shudder thinking about what a traumatic childhood she must have led to come to such conclusions. For women everywhere, this article is the exact reason why Feminism is so crucial to society. Women were not made unequal, just like one ethnicity was not made superior. Clearly religion plays a major role in this person’s absurd and destructive thoughts, only supporting my beliefs that no “God” would ever want this. I’m crying for humanity and hoping for the day where everyone can just accept that everyone was born equal regardless of gender. This unnecessary need to put other people down is absolutely idiotic and hopefully we, as a world, can come to that conclusion sooner than later.


    • I have let this series of assertions and psychologising of a woman unknown to the commenter through because this is a site that, unlike many feminist sites, does not censor alternative viewpoints, no matter how expressed. (Provided they are not abusive. That is, I am happy to accept mediocre and maudlin comments like this, but not crude ones.)


    • Posted by Clare on October 19, 2013 at 9:39 pm

      THANK YOU ‘The Truth’! Finally someone can see this rubbish for what it is.

      Julian the Sheen quote is from his book ‘Life is Worth Living’. It wasn’t meant as a judgment against men – merely that men and women have differing qualities which assist one another.

      On the Scripture point The Fall of course, did lead to the battle of the sexes, but this means that we should be aiming to rise above that, seeking to work together while acknowledging equality in the struggle against sin – rather than ‘accepting’ that relationships between men and women are disordered and that women will deceive, and men will ‘lord’ their power over women (deception and misuse of power are obviously aspects of original sin in themselves).

      I hope one day the above commenters (especially those who are Christian) will be able to look at this issue clearly, honestly and without such misguided judgment (or wilful misinterpretation). Seeking the truth about relationships is important, going to the core of who we are, so I hope you continue to search for the real Truth until you realise you have found it (I suggest for this subject area, John Paul II’s ‘Love and Responsibility’ or the simplified version ‘Men, women and relationships’ by Edward Sri).


      • I have let this through out of fairness, Clare, but it is only your opinion. Bp Sheen was not infallible. Nor was John Paul II in his personal teaching. I suggest you read St Paul, for some arguments against your naïve egalitarianism. There are texts all through the New Testament that militate against your case. You must know this. “The woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman”. “For the woman was deceived first and became a transgressor.” “I do not suffer a woman to teach”. “The head of every woman is the man”.

        Clare, reflect on those …

        Bp Sheen was writing about women before the abortion holocaust. I think that has taught us all about the morality of women. Pray and reflect on the behaviour of your sisters rather than purporting to teach men here.

      • Posted by 7man on October 20, 2013 at 12:13 am

        I bet Clare would also proclaim that her own shit doesn’t stink.

    • Posted by Clare on October 22, 2013 at 8:39 am

      Thankyou for letting my comments through Julian, I do appreciate that. I hope you find some self-respecting, God-fearing women who will show you otherwise. FYI, St Paul wasn’t infallible either. And abortion, I hope you agree, is a failing of all humanity, not just women. Men have are protectors of life just as women are.


      • Clare, I have been happily married for over 27 years.

        If you mean some other woman will “correct” me, are you not being a bit presumptuous? Perhaps a God-fearing man will correct you?

        St Paul is scripture. New Testament. It carries great weight.

        Women choose to have abortions, Clare. Ultimately it is their choice.

    • Posted by Jim on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 am

      “I think who ever wrote this should take a good, hard look at their life.”

      Projection is a common trait of a delusional mind.


  29. Posted by 7man on October 23, 2013 at 1:53 am

    I suspect that Clare is a single unclaimed woman.


  30. Posted by Nimdok on October 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Hello. First off, I should say that I love your blog. Keep up the good work!

    That aside, as a man, I always remain somewhat skeptical when people make claims of womens’ inferiority. It is true that men are physically superior to women, have a better understanding of material and abstract matters and possess a greater practical expertise, but to call women outright “inferior” may be dangerously misleading for men who are ignorant of their nature.

    Many women are a lot more clever than they seem, especially the ones who act ditzy to garner sympathy. What they lack in practical intelligence, they more than make up for it with their innate social expertise. Throughout human history, women have *always* maintained their protected class status, and have played with men en masse akin to puppetmasters. While some say that we live in a man’s world, I believe the world has always been womens’ world. Only now, women have many more tools to use to advertise their over-inflated sexuality as well as hide the unflattering facts about it.

    Such is why I don’t like it when women are called “inferior”. All men should be educated on what women are capable of. Their solipsism, hypergamous instincts, as well as the difficulties they have in processing ethics.

    In addition, I believe that being the “dom” partner in a heterosexual relationship, aside from a religious marriage with a perfectly obedient wife, simply means being the useful idiot of the “sub” female, as it is HER who benefits the most from the relationship by a large margin.

    -She needs and cherishes the man’s emotional investment greater than vice-versa.
    -She benefits financially (in most cases). His money is theirs and her money is hers alone.
    -She enjoys the sex a lot more than him (assuming she is skillfully ravaged).
    -She uses him as a status-symbol to receive the envy of other women.

    What does the man get? The occasional 10 seconds of pleasure, and help with domestic tasks.

    The fact that even now, with monstrous divorce laws, western women can still easily catch and devour men like black widows makes it difficult to argue women’s inferiority. The stallion’s greater stamina and speed doesn’t make it superior to the female rider who tames and uses it.

    All men should memorize the simple fact that; Men are romantics. Women are pragmatists.


    • Posted by Clare on October 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

      Julian and all above, my apologies if I was presumptuous earlier – my intention wasn’t to be antagonistic or any sort of ‘raging feminist’.

      But if I may, for your own broader understanding of the true Christian position on this subject (even if only to construct stronger arguments against it) let me strongly recommend this text on this topic of wives, husbands, the family and St Paul.

      Or if you prefer, the video/audio link is a captivating watch/listen and can be accessed here:

      There are even many points in there I have no doubt you will heartily agree with! (The video is entitled ‘Wives do What?!’)


    • Clare, thanks. You are persistent! I shall probably look at those links later. I have to say I am not wedded to a particular view. I used to be a complementarian, and I think a case can be made for that. ContentWoman puts the case for female inferiority strongly however and in recent times I have come to wonder if your sex are indeed equal. God seems happy to make some beings superior to others.

      I do appreciate your respectful tone. I dislike being lectured by women.

      I gather you accept the headship and primacy of the man, but you want to stress, in the modern idiom, the equal dignity of the woman. Please correct me if I am wrong.

      There is certainly nothing shameful in being a woman, and Christ clearly cared about women, as should all men, as Bl. John Paul II reminded us.

      I am a sort of intellectual and I like to play with and test ideas.

      I do wish you well, Clare, and I am sure God would want me to listen to you. I am sorry if I was rough before. I sometimes forget myself.


      • Posted by Jim on March 14, 2014 at 3:29 am

        “Clare, thanks. You are persistent!”

        Yes indeed. Persistently foolish and arrogant. But that’s par for the course in the vast bulk of western women.

    • This is adorable.

      “She enjoys the sex a lot more than him (assuming she is skillfully ravaged).”

      While the women in my experience certainly seem to enjoy sex if skillfully RAVISHED, only the most masochistic enjoy being severely and extensively damaged in the process. They also appear to enjoy those who demonstrate a skillful mastery of the English language. And speaking of appearances, how are you able to speak from a woman’s PoV anyway?

      Heh, sometimes the misogyny just shines through :)


      • This comment responds to that by “Nimdok”.

      • Posted by Nimdok on December 8, 2013 at 9:49 am

        @Anon Adderlan

        Thanks for the heads up. I did mean to say “ravished”, not ravaged. As it happens, English is not my native language. (I would appreciate it if the site administrator can fix that in my original post).

        And I don’t have to be telepathic to know how women feel. Pretty much everything I wrote was from a male point of view, including the anecdote about sex. Men can’t enjoy it nearly as much as women can, especially if they are mutilated/circumised. This is a well-established fact mentioned in plenty of sexuality/evo-psych books and game theory/PUA sites.

        And… Personally I never think of myself as a “misogynist”, even though I get that a lot whenever I speak pure, unadultered facts in such discussions. It seems to be a banal, stand-by label used by emotionally sensitive people when they can’t offer anything substantial in such an argument beyond nit-picks.

  31. Posted by 7man on October 29, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Women do have a great impact on society..
    Notes on the Pussification of America


  32. Posted by Jim on March 14, 2014 at 3:33 am

    A couple of points to keep in mind:

    “Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal… If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.”
    (Cato the Elder, speech in the Roman Senate in 195 BC)

    ” I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”
    (Queen Victoria)

    Is anyone really surprised that these views have proven extremely prophetic?


  33. Posted by valor on May 19, 2014 at 9:23 am

    i’ve read from a blogger called peacefulwife that she submitted to her husband before he became dominant. this was after years of a frustrating marriage where she didn’t understand why everything was so shitty for her, she started researching on her own, aka a human being with a functioning brain, and she eventually learned that her aggressive behavior was the prime cause of her unhappiness. it took months but eventually her gradual submission to her husband had a profound effect on him. he was no mangina to start of course, he didn’t grovel or supplicate, but he didn’t know how to respond to her behaviors properly in a way that would lead to satisfaction to both of them. the point being is that all men who have at least some of their manhood intact will gradually learn how to dominate in the face of a properly submissive woman, it just takes some more goading to get there than others.

    one thing i don’t like personally is even in the manosphere there’s so much hate on men in general. the nature of women is revealed, and men are blamed for not being dominant enough. while that is true to an extent, men have both their aggressive and compassionate side to various degrees based on the individual. if you stomp on that dominant aggression then certain people will cave, it doesn’t make them less of a man it just means that the universe is out of balance, aka raging feminists emasculating any man they can get their hands on.

    the message should be to both genders, and never just one. men are to exercise courage and dominance, women are to practice humility and submission. we’re two sides of a coin that complete each other, yin and yang. we’ve got to work together to make the earth spin on its proper axis, and anyone who places all the burden on a single gender is doing more harm than good, as it is supporting the bs that’s destroying society.


    • Posted by valor on May 19, 2014 at 9:27 am

      what i should have said was: you cannot create dominance, but you can draw it out from someone whose natural dominance lies dormant. i’ve had the same happen to me with the first naturally submissive woman i ever met. i never thought i had it in me as i’m a pretty soft and sensitive guy, but damn did i realize that my natural state is that of iron dominance. it was the first time a relationship with a woman felt right.


      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 19, 2014 at 10:46 am

        Oh, I think it is one of those things people like to pretend is not true: that the happiest marriages are those in which husbands and wives fulfill their natural roles. People will go through all sorts of contortions to deny it. But it is really just common sense.

        The view on the dynamic behind this in the above piece was that of one woman.

        All I can say is that, generally speaking, the most contented times of my marriage over the last thirty years have been those in which the marital hierarchy has been most clearly expressed. My wife and I have always tacitly worked to facilitate this, even since I retired, both symbolically and in more tangible ways.

      • Posted by Jim on May 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm

        “People will go through all sorts of contortions to deny it.”

        That’s what happens when idiotic left-political ideologies become an acting religion.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm

        Strangely, left wing men used to have balls. But feminism came along and they mostly surrendered them.

  34. Posted by alphabetasoup on May 21, 2014 at 5:32 am

    I have become increasingly suspicious of the word “equality” lately. The more I see it used, the more it becomes apparent that this is yet another red herring thrown out by the idealistic dreamers.

    In a recent conversation with a young man who is seeking a wife, the subject of submission came up. Refreshingly most of the women involved were all (mostly) comfortable with the idea of submitting, but most of their comments had the caveat of ‘equality’ throw in there just to make sure that they didnt appear inferior. I understand this but am not sure why the equality is even necessary.

    My question to them was this: Is not equality a statement of value, and isn’t value always determined by context? Because context is always changing doesnt value at that particular time change as well? It makes me wonder if ever men and women are equal at all.

    P.S Julian, I know you are a film buff and fan of Australian films in particular, have you ever seen the film Romulus My Father?


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 21, 2014 at 7:42 am

      That men and women are equal is a shibboleth of our time. It could be argued, and it could be argued against. From a scriptural perspective, I see no strong evidence that men and women are equal. There appears to be a natural order.

      Physically and intellectually women do not appear to be equal to men. And scripture contains some passages that suggest they are morally inferior. “For the woman transgressed and became a sinner”.

      Once I would have accepted that women are morally better in some respects than men, but the behaviour of women in recent times (their massive recourse to abortion, to take one example) makes me doubt even that.

      As a Catholic, I tend to take note of what popes say, and recent popes have tended to stress the equality of women. But no infallible statement has been made. Aquinas argued that women were inferior, for example. Equality is probably a legitimate position, but a belief in women’s inferiority is probably also sustainable.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 21, 2014 at 8:34 am

      As for Romulus My Father, no, I have never seen it. I believe it was based on a story by Raimond Gaita. I once read an article of his in the Australian conservative magazine Quadrant and thought it was awful tosh. So I am not much disposed towards the fellow.

      As for being a “film buff”, I have thought about that. I have watched a fair few films, but my knowledge of, say, the Golden Age of Hollywood is dwarfed by that of one of my friends. I mostly know more recent films, and I make no effort to be encyclopaedic. I have favourite directors, Cronenberg, Stillman, and so on, and I mostly focus on a small range of films. It is also no accident that some of my favourite films tend to feature cute brunettes.


  35. Posted by alphabetasoup on May 21, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I guess my recent thoughts are tending towards seeing equality as undefineable and therefore moot. I think the word is to be completely defined in context, or ignored completely.

    I am beginning to think that the way the progressives have gained so much traction in the last 150 years or so is because of their ability not to adapt their principles but instead slowly change the context until their perspective seems obvious.

    I am completely unfamiliar with the author and my only experience of him is the story. I found the story very poignant and the movie was well made. It is a very disturbing story and has a lot of modern signifigance in todays society. I would recommend it. It very sad to be sure but there is a lot of truth in it.


  36. Posted by alphabetasoup on May 21, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Thank you for the link. I will give it a read when I get the chance. On the whole I would say that women are inferior and my wife would as well.(my superior intellect has finally convinced her) I just dont think they are inferior in every way. Again, I am beginning to see that our modern paradigm is incorrect. We were never intended to be equal so we have stop trying to fit our modern concept of equality into marriage. There is no room for it there.

    The creation story seems to be very deliberately worded to communicate truths that I cant quite wrap my mind around yet. When the rib was removed from Adam it seems to say that God removed a piece from Adam just so he could see it and relate to it, but it was no longer HIM. What does this rib signify? I have no problem with taking the story to be literal, but there are obvious metaphysical properties as well. I would like to know what the church fathers thought about this but as of yet not been able to find much.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm

      Aquinas’ argument, which is quite strong I feel, is that “when one being [woman] is made for the sake of another [man], it is inferior to the original being” (paraphrasing). St Paul notes that “the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman.”

      I do not believe in Genesis literally, but I think it is revelatory.

      This seems to imply inferiority tout court.

      Much of the difficulty between the sexes stems from attempts to make or prove women equal to men, for example wives to husbands.

      Most people at most times would have assumed that men were superior to women. Moderns in the West are the outliers in this regard.


      • Posted by alphabetasoup on May 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm

        Great article. This is essentially what I was getting at. Just not so eloquently.

        I think the only reason I take Genesis literaly is because Jesus himself did so. I personally am open to it being metaphoric as well. In my mind the two views can coexist. I think it’s the strict literalist that runs into trouble.

      • Posted by Jim on May 21, 2014 at 3:39 pm

        “I do not believe in Genesis literally”

        Why not? What leads you to believe it isn’t? I ask because many of them do take it literally.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 22, 2014 at 1:00 am

        I am a biologist by training and evolution has always made sense to me. I can think of scenarios in which both what scientists say about the world and what Genesis says about the creation of man and woman could both be strictly accurate, but they are fairly fanciful.

        In any case, Genesis is scripture and has authority in that respect.

      • Posted by Jim on May 25, 2014 at 6:34 pm

        “could both be strictly accurate”


  37. Posted by alphabetasoup on May 22, 2014 at 2:22 am

    Sorry about veering off topic there Julian. I didnt intend to.


  38. Posted by CJB on May 29, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Julian, this article may be of interest to you. Don’t worry, the author loves patriarchy ;)


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 29, 2014 at 10:04 am

      An interesting perspective. Thank you.


      • Posted by Jim on May 29, 2014 at 11:40 pm

        Just read the article. She’s still drinking the feminist koolaid. Typical though.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 30, 2014 at 12:09 am

        I glanced at the article and I thought she was not completely off-beam. Christian authority is one of service. Even the Pope calls himself “the servant of the people of God”. But Christian authority is real. In my view, a husband has real authority over his wife, and although he has a duty to consider her well-being, he is not – in my opinion – bound to exercise his authority in a way which his wife always likes or is comfortable with.

      • Posted by Jim on May 30, 2014 at 3:43 am

        Well, saying I’m a feminist but believe in patriarchy is like saying I believe an atheist but I believe in God. Way to contradictory for me.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 30, 2014 at 3:47 am

        My impression was that she was saying that feminism, in the sense of what it truly good for women, is best served by patriarchy. That male protection allows a woman the best life.

        I should read her piece some more.

        As a Catholic, she realises that the masculine hierarchy extends all the way to God the Father. Traditionally, a woman is always under male authority in the Catholic system. Either a father, a husband, or at a minimum, under the male clerical hierarchy. She confesses her sins to a male priest, for example.

        It must be strange, but comforting, being a traditional woman.

  39. Posted by Julian O'Dea on October 22, 2014 at 4:26 am

  40. “Watch A Bunch Of Little Girls Curse Like Sailors To Promote Feminism”

    “The people at FCKH8 have enlisted a few young ladies between the ages of 6 to 13 to get the word out about feminism and inequality between the sexes.”

    Just as we were warned…


  41. […] “The realities of female inferiority and submission” […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers

%d bloggers like this: