Women are being cheated

It never fails to amaze me how things often come together to show us something, teach us something, or in today's case for me, lead me to write about something.

Just this morning I read an article on foster parenting. The article in itself was both profound and extremely simple. There was little to the article other than trying to help people see where all the foster kids come from and where they are in the daily goings on of life. The big point seemed to be that behind every drug raid, car accident, fire, domestic battle, and arrest there is often a child that must be cared for, an innocent child that may have nowhere else to go but to a foster home.

The other aspect of that article was to try and show people how they can help those foster kids, and explaining that helping them doesn't always come in the form of fostering them. The article gave a list of things to do for foster parents that will help the whole family taking in the child...take them dinner, go shopping for the family, help provide the things that child needs, etc...

This morning was also the result of a couple of things in my own life that got me to thinking about...well, things. My husband and I had a couple of conversations, one about something he enjoys doing in his down time. A conversation that is fairly regular around here but for some reason today that conversation struck me the wrong way. It rubbed against feelings and upset me. I don't think my husband is aware of that...he will be when he reads this though. But this morning that conversation came very close to making me cry.

Why?

I have no idea. I can only say that I'm at a point in my life where thoughts and feelings sometimes get the better of me for absolutely no reason at all.

Almost immediately after that conversation I saw one of those Armenian 'Christian' poster things. This one was about "I" asked God for this and He said 'No'. There was a long list of things that 'I' supposedly asked God for most of which made no sense...things like asking God for more faith only to be told 'no' that He will not supply more faith that it is our place to develop more faith. At the very end of this paragraph it said 'I' asked God to love other people more deeply and God said...something to the effect of 'finally you asked for the right thing' then it went on to say something like treasure these moments.

And not long after that my grown daughter text me out of the blue. I called her back, disrupted her at her work, and got to hear her voice. It was a precious moment that made my morning just because I got to hear her voice.

Then came the second conversation with my husband, this one instigated by me. There is a huge company, a company that seems to have their hand in everything, raking in millions (or more) every year, that is now trying to promote an agenda in the children's movies they make. There latest...stunt...hit the news this last week and has had many people up in arms, some vowing to boycott the company, some vowing to have nothing to do with the latest stunt, and others...others supporting this move or claiming its a way to discuss certain issues with their kids. But today I saw a woman promoting a secondary company that is owned by this huge company and wondered if this woman knew what she was promoting. Then I wondered what I might have dealings with that I may not know this company owns. So I looked it up and found out that this huge company owns far more than I thought they did. Not that it really matters.

But I went and shared some of what I learned with my husband. That got us started on a conversation where my husband pointed out that all these companies, all the people that hate God, will promote sinful things just because those sinful things fill their hearts. And they will want everyone to embrace what they love.

I agree with that. But the conversation moved on from there and my husband said that those same people hate women not working. And they do. Oh, how they do. I can't count the number of times I have had someone say something derogatory or make faces that clearly told me their thoughts when they found out I am a stay at home wife and mother. Some women simply say 'I could never do that' and others...well, others say lots of other things. I've even been asked why in the world I would ever want to do that. And just about every one of those encounters has come from other women.

I've had relatives tell me that my money belongs to my husband and that my car isn't my car it's my husbands car. Now, technically, my car is registered to my husband but then...my husbands vehicle is registered to me, so... what does any of that mean? And why do people not see that husbands and wives own all together? Why don't they see that's whats mine belongs to my husband and what's his belongs to me? Why the division in marriage in any way? Why not see a married couple as a unit and not as a 'that belongs to your husband'? My husband doesn't think of our car as his car even though it's registered to him...he calls it my car. And he doesn't think of his vehicle as mine even though it is registered to me...he calls it his. And the money he provides us...he calls it ours, unless it's in my possession and then he calls it mine. So why do other people, people who really have no business in our personal life, refer to it as anything else?

Because there is an agenda. A push by people and companies to want women working outside the home, to want people to put there kids in day care and public school, to want...well, something that they want for all people because they have some idea of that's how things should be and they base their ideas on nothing more than their own thought of what is right and wrong.

And in the midst of all this that has happened in little over two hours I sat down to look at a magazine that came in the mail the other day and I haven't taken the time to look at yet, in fact, I had to hunt it down when I decided to look at it. I didn't even know where it was.

And there inside the front page was a note from the woman that puts out this magazine, her own personal ministry, telling of how she was only able to publish one magazine last year despite her intent to publish no less than four a year because they publish when donations allow and last year the money just didn't come in. Then she told of how they had had four weddings in their family in the last year and how important she thinks it is to have all the family involved in weddings because friends will come and go in a persons life but your kids will one day look at pictures of family and be thrilled to see how aunt or uncle has changed over the years.

When I turned the page, the first article in the magazine was written by a woman that started her story by saying she has kids in age from five to adult and that she had lunch with her grown son just the other day and wiped food out of his beard. Than she marveled at the fact that he had a beard and said it was just yesterday that she washed peanut butter off his face. And now the little boy that vowed to live with her forever is married and has a beard.

And I thought of my grown daughter, the daughter that I spoke to this morning, and of my son, the son that used to tell me he was going to marry me when he grows up.

And I thought of all the other things, all the million and one things, that add up in a day. Do those women that told me they could never be a stay at home mom realize that their little boys are falling in love with 'teachers' at day care and imagine marrying them instead of their mommy...not that any son should marry his mother but it is a natural part of little boyhood that is there and gone in the blink of an eye. Do the women that turned up their nose at the idea of spending every day with their family know the feeling of their preteen daughter sitting beside them on the couch, cuddling up close, just to talk to mom for a few minutes, do they know the joy of a day spent reading books, playing games, or even watching movies? Are those women there when the storms rage and their kids seek shelter in their lap? Are they there to go outside and watch the pouring rain or see their child's joy at playing in the rain?

Are those women that say they could never be a stay at home wife there to experience the joy of greeting her husband when he comes home from work? Are they there to do the things for him that make his life a little bit easier as he works to take care of her? Do they know the joy, contentment, and appreciation of knowing her husband is working hard, fighting the elements, dealing with people, so that she doesn't have to? Do they know the satisfaction brought when her husband thanks her for doing the things he doesn't have time to do? And do they know the joy of just being available whenever her husband wishes to spend his time with her?

Those are all little things, little moments, things that can easily be passed over or not even realized as we go about the course of our day. All the smiles, the hands to hold, faces to wipe, coats to button, shoes to tie, lunches to make, and cups of coffee to refill are so easily passed by as a woman 'could never do that' and so she spends her day working at some job, doing a million other things, and doing it all for someone that can and will replace her when the time is right. And it all happens while her kids idolize a teacher or friends mom, while their husband comes home to an empty house...while all the little moments of their family pass by without them knowing.

I used to work in a daycare, many, many years ago, and was told that I was never to tell a parent when their child took their first steps. We were to keep absolutely silent about that so that the parents could see their 'first' steps themselves. Only it was an allusion because that baby took it's first steps while with me. I witnessed that amazing moment in parenthood...to someone elses child. I dried tears, washed faces, tied shoes. I doctored owies, soothed nightmares, and rocked sick babies. Because mommy 'couldn't do that'. And because mommy couldn't do that she missed out on the baby that held onto my hair as it fell asleep, in seeing her baby smile for the first time, learn to crawl, learn to walk. In getting the steady stream of flowers from a child whose heart is trying to make the person they love happy. I got the colored pictures, the little hands in mine, and all the other little 'nothing' moments that make up a day in the life of a child.

And as I think of all those things, of all the kids that I played mommy to and of my own children and all the moments I shared with them. As I think of all the moments I've shared with my husband because I was home to share them....granted I get more moments than most because my husband works from home...I think of how empty life would be if I 'couldn't do that'.

And 'that' is what women are supposed to be. 'That' is what the Lord made us to be. "That'' is what we were created to be. I've never been a career woman, never wanted to leave my family so I could work. I've always longed to be 'that' wife, 'that' mom. And I can't imagine the emptiness that must come to those women that could never be 'that' mom, or 'that' wife.

Yet those very women, the women that miss out on so much with their husbands and children, try to tell me that I should give it all up to have what they have...I could have it all too. Only I do have it all. I have all the moments they never get. What satisfaction do they have when their boss congratulates them on a job well done? What enjoyment do they get at knowing they did their job well today? What fun do they have in their work meetings or parties?

Is it all enough to know that someone else saw their childs first real steps? Is it enough to know that another woman got the bouquet of flowers their child picked and that she was the one sharing their childs tea party? Was it enough to know that today someone else dried their childs tears and rocked them to sleep?

Or was it enough to offset the fact that their husband picked their kids up from school and their entire family came home to an empty house? Was it enough to know that when her husband wants time with her...she's too tired to give it? Or she has to focus on some project for work?

But then...some of those people that 'could never do that' also want me to believe that having a husband and children is a detriment to being happy and fulfilled. There are women out there that truly believe that, that push that on other women. And there are companies out there that put that into their products, fill their movies, songs, and books with it.

The thing is...all those people miss out on what's truly important, while they reject what the Lord says is right, they miss out on the baby smiles, the first steps, the thank you's for the cups of coffee, the conversations, the hugs, kisses, cuddles and love.

Look at all the things that women are cheated out of because they have bought into the lies of 'I could never do that' or even the agenda to make women think that being a wife and mother is somehow demeaning, even to the point of turning women into slaves. It's such a HUGE lie and those poor women don't see it. They are being cheated out of the greatest part of being a woman.

While women march in the streets, complain and proclaim to anyone that will listen that they are being treated as second class citizens, while they demand equal pay and equal rights...women are cheated out of the greatest part of being a woman.

Love or hate?

A number of months ago I wrote an article that I titled 'What is love', you can find that post here: http://journeyingtochrist.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-is-love.html#comment-form. I don't recall all the reasons why I wrote that post but I do remember that it had a lot to do with what America defines as love today.

Because I could remember writing the post but not what was in it I reread that post today. It was just as applicable today as it was the day I wrote it. But today I read something that has me wanting to write on love again.

Love truly is a funny thing. It's a very complicated thing and if we were to really ask ourselves what love is...could we come up with an adequate answer? By human definition, love is this feel good emotion, said to come from the heart, that makes us inclined to favor one person over another. We marry for love. We love our children. We love our friends.

We may even tell people we love them when we don't mean it. As a kid I had a relative that would tell me they loved me, if I didn't answer with 'I love you' then I would get into trouble. So...I responded by saying 'I love you' but I never once felt love for that person, in fact I strongly disliked that person but to save myself...I said 'I love you'.

I once knew someone that would say 'anyone can say I love you, you have to show someone that you love them'.

Love is...what?

Is it actions? Is it words? Is it a gushy feeling deep inside you when you're around someone?

The other day my husband was doing something that was just...my husband, but in his doing what he naturally does it made me laugh and brought a bit of fun and joy to my day and so I told him, ''I love you''. He responded by telling me he loved me and then asking, 'what was that for', not because I don't tell him that I love him, I do, but because of the way I said it and maybe the tone of voice I used when I said it. But the truth is I told him I loved him because of the way he made me feel at that moment, it was a happy gushy kind of feeling and he caused it with his actions, which had nothing to do with me. He was just being him, doing something that had nothing to do with me, but I saw him and it made me happy and so I told him I loved him.

But that was a feeling.

And yet...that is love. But it's not the only kind of love.

My husband shows he loves by taking care of those he loves. He provides for us, does for us. This morning I got up to a blazing fire in the fireplace. What a wonderful thing to wake up to on a cold morning. That was my husband taking care of us, warming our home. He cuts wood to use in that fire place for one reason only...because his family enjoys it. My husband never uses that fireplace when he's home alone.

And so, through his actions, my husband shows us that he loves us.

Still, I find myself asking...what is love? Can we truly ever answer that question and if we do, are we answering in the true meaning of love or are we answering in our human emotions understanding of what love is?

I know someone online, only through social media, that often writes of how they cannot get anyone to take them to the places they want to go. This person writes of how happy they are when their friends take them places, of how loved they are because those people transport them to places, and then complain about how no one seems to care about them when they can't get a ride to somewhere they want to go. Let me just say straight out that I've had to mentally stifle my fingers from writing out a reply many, many times to this person. It gets irritating seeing this person write of how loved they are when someone is doing for them but then complain about how no one cares about them when no one is doing for them.

Their definition of love appears to be based on what others can do for them. And quite honestly I find it hard not to point out to this person, someone that lives across the country from me, someone I've never met and probably never will meet, that those people that love them so much when they are doing for them and don't care anything about them when they aren't doing for them all have lives of their own, that they are already going out of their way for this person.

But for that person, love appears to be what someone else can do for them.

And I find myself wondering...what is love?

Not in the sense of truly not understanding what love is, I do understand that, but in the sense of there has to be a greater definition of what love is than just how we, as fallen people, define it.

I've heard it said that love rules the world, that love is what makes the world go round. And it's true. Love does rule the world, love is what caused the world to go round but it isn't our human understanding of love that rules the world or makes it go round.

All of Scripture tells us the story of God and His love for His people, the people that he chose to be His before He ever made the earth. The earth, and everything on it, is here because of God's love for His people. And so...love rules the world, love is why the earth was made, it goes round because of God's love for His people.

But God's love is nowhere close to how humans define love.

About a week ago I found myself in a conversation with my uncle. He had seen a picture of a five year old Muslim boy being detained in handcuffs at an airport. My uncle was upset over that picture because this was 'God's child' and 'what would Jesus do'. Oh, the conversation that ensued over that. I pointed out that people in a religion that do not believe in the true God are people that live in defiance of God and that this child likely was not 'God's child'. My uncle didn't seem to get it. I would up explaining that God is a holy God and that He loves with a righteous love.

God's love is not the same as our human idea of what love is.

He killed His own son to appease His wrath so that He could love fallen people. Does that sound like a human kind of love? How many people do you know that get so angry with those they love that they must pour their wrath onto one person, wrath that ends in death, so that they can love others? God's love defies our human understanding of what love is.

That is pretty much what I read this morning that got me to thinking about love...again. Except that what I read wasn't close to being worded the way I just worded it. What I read said that we have a man-centered view of love that has people believing from babyhood that if we don't make much of them than we don't love them.

And it's true.

I have a relative that read a parenting book that taught that we must affirm our children's feelings that all their bad behavior is simply a need for more attention. According to that book a parent must pour great emotion and time into their child and when their child is bad they should not discipline and should instead pour even more time and emotion into that child because it simply isn't getting enough attention.

I never read that book but what has brought people to the point of believing that a child simply needs more attention when they are bad and that they shouldn't be disciplined? I grew up being told that a child needs attention from their parents and that if they don't get that attention when they are good then they will be bad because bad attention is better than no attention. I have seen that played out but I can't say a misbehaving kid needs only more attention.

And yet...that seems to be our cultures belief on what love is nowadays. Kids need more attention. Young adults and adults that throw tantrums in public because something doesn't go their way need to be accepted and affirmed in their beliefs.

We are told to love them regardless of their actions or behaviors. We are told we hate them if we tell them they are behaving in a bad way. We are told that we are intolerant if we don't want to put up with their actions or lifestyle.

And we are told all these things in the name of 'love'.

But that isn't how God defines love. Scripture shows us God's love from the first word to the last word. And we are shown the highest level of love. Christ died for those that God gave to Him. He died for His people so that He might save them for Himself.

He is like the treasure at the end of the rainbow or tucked inside a treasure chest. We must seek after Him, living for Him, as He defines life, so that we might experience the greatest love their is. God is love but His love is not the gushy love everyone kind of love that people would have us to believe He is. God loves with a holy love because He also hates with a holy hate and we cannot separate His love from His hate.

God is love.

God is hate.

That is love. That is God's love. He has high standards for people, he expects His people to live a certain way, and there is no compromise on His definition of what love is.

We as people can only comprehend love from our human hearts and minds. Scripture says that our hearts are deceitful above all things. Our hearts must have a higher definition of what love is or we can't define love but by our emotions.

People today have all kinds of mixed views of what love is but mostly they believe that love means accepting everyone along with their actions. That's not love. That's actually hate. Scripture says that a parent that does not discipline their child hates their child. We may not need to discipline the people in the world but if we accept their sins without telling them what those sins will cost them...we hate them.

Love is not defined by our ability to not offend someone. Love is defined by God and what He says love is. People have an amazing way of muddling things up. Adam and Eve did it in the garden of Eden and people have been doing it ever since. We mess everything up.

And now people are trying to base love not on a biblical or even moral standard of what love is but on a sinful standard. To love someone, says our culture, we must love them and their sins, if we do not then we hate them.

Animal idolatry

As my grandmother aged she changed. Something about the aging process changed her from the woman I knew growing up to a different woman while still being the same woman, if that makes sense. Somewhere inside the woman that age was turning her into was still the grandmother I knew all my life. The older she got, the more age got the better of her, the more she changed.

She's in her 80's now and living in a nursing home. But once upon a time, about ten years ago, she lived in that place between being the grandmother I grew up knowing and being the woman that now suffers from Alzheimers and other ailments. And somewhere in that place, between where she is now and what she used to be, she had a dog. One single dog. That was nothing new for her. I'm not sure I can recall a time in my life when my grandparents didn't have at least one dog. They just seemed to be dog people. My grandmother favored Chihuahuas. My grandpa favored whatever dog he had at the moment. My grandmother preferred to keep her dogs at home. She trained them to do two things, 1) stay out of the kitchen and 2) sleep in a dog crate. That was it. Beyond that her dogs had the run of the house to do as they pleased including biting the grandkids. My grandpa preferred to take his dog with him. He taught his dogs to get in his truck, to wait there with the windows down, and he often bought them chicken from restaurants just because 'they like it'.

That was my grandparents and their pets. They often had two dogs. His and hers. That was just...Grandma and Grandpa. They had their dogs and you enjoyed them or put up with them depending on your feelings about dogs because Grandma and Grandpa always had them.

So my grandmother having a dog was nothing new, nothing special. She had her dog. In her mind her dog was well cared for and loved. And maybe it was. But her dog lived in the house, was rarely, if ever, bathed, covered in fleas and barely housebroken. But Grandma loved her dog and well...by that point Grandma lived alone. She needed the companionship of the dog, we all told ourselves and each other. She needed what protection that dog could offer. She needed...whatever she thought that dog could supply. We helped her get flea medicine and bathe the dog.

But somewhere along the line that dog became two dogs. Then three. Then four. Then...I don't know what the final count was before we convinced her she should not have all those dogs. But my poor grandmother loved those dogs. She really and truly loved every one of them. She had one that my uncle bought her as a puppy that once grown would bite her on a regular basis. That dog was the cause of her getting stitches more than once. We couldn't convince her to part with it because by then my uncle had died and in my grandmother's mind that dog was all she had left of her son.

Someone else gave her a very old Chihuahua. That dog had problems. It could barely eat and had had a stroke or something. It had no control over its tongue. That poor dogs tongue hung out of its mouth constantly.

The thing is that somewhere in her time of collecting dogs she lost the ability to see them as dogs. It started with the Chihuahua that couldn't control its tongue. That dog required a whole lot of care. She hand fed it and took to taking it everywhere she went. The dog was grown but she carried it in a purse, even taking it into restaurants because somehow my grandmother had the idea that because the dog could not eat hard food and had a hard time with other types of food that the dog could not be left alone for any reason.

We all dealt with it, trying to encourage her to leave the dog at home for its own good, trying to convince her that there were places she wasn't allowed to take the dog. And in the end Grandma took the dog everywhere until she somehow decided that it was best left at home when she went to town.

Long before that day came my grandmother took to calling that dog her baby and somehow from there that one dog being her baby became all of her dogs being her babies. And in her mind those dogs were truly her babies. I don't think she was able to distinguish between the dogs she called her babies and real babies. I have seen her interrupt strangers in town, strangers that were talking of their children or grandchildren, strangers speaking of brand new babies born into their family, to tell them about her 'babies'. The strangers would think by the way my grandmother spoke that she was talking of real babies and they would join the conversation thinking they were discussing real babies.

When my grandmother told them that her 'baby' was sick, those strangers worried over those babies thinking they were human babies. We tried talking to my grandmother about it to no avail. Strangers that found out she was speaking of dogs and not babies would either smile and extract themselves from the conversation or laugh about how they thought she was speaking of real babies.

But the thing is to my grandmother...she was. In her mind those dogs were babies. Her babies. And she truly could not see the difference in them and in real human babies.

We chalked it up to her age the same way we chalked up other things to her age. It was just one of those things about Grandma now that didn't used to be there.

Up until my grandmother started referring to her dogs as babies I had NEVER heard of anyone calling their animal their baby. I had known many people that loved their animals. Had met and known people that went to great expense and invested lots of time in their animals but somehow all the people I knew or met had PETS not babies. No matter how much they might love their animals they still had PETS.

Back then I did very little online. No social media. No blogging. I had email and did little else beyond some research now and then. As a result I thought this phenomena of calling animals babies was some odd trait my grandmother picked up as she aged and assumed it wasn't something most other sane people did.

Now I know better.

I can't count the number of people I've met in town that spoke of their 'babies', the number of people online that call their animals their 'babies; or 'fur babies' and well...the number of people that just plain speak of animals as if they are somehow kids or at least humans.

Just the other day I saw a post on social media about someone that had seen a dog on their daughters neighbors roof. Apparently the neighbors leave a window open so their dogs can go in and out as they wish but instead of going into the yard they go onto the roof. I have to admit I found the concept a little odd but the pictures were amusing. Who expects to see a dog sitting on a roof?

But it was the comments that bothered me. So many people spoke of how the owners were negligent in letting the dogs get on the roof. Some spoke of animal cruelty.

Really?

This was a dog that appeared well cared for. And yet the fact that the dog willingly went onto the roof meant the owners were cruel and negligent. I just can't make the connection.

There are rules, laws even, about animals of any kind being allowed in businesses where food is sold or served and yet more and more these days I see dogs, and a few other animals, in grocery stores. And no one tells them to remove the animal from the store. Workers pass by the dog like its not there or worse, stop and chat with the owner, talking about or to the dog. What happened to the rules and laws that mean those animals cannot be where food is sold?

I recently was at a doctors office, waiting in the car for a relative to come out, and discovered that another patient had brought their dog to their appointment. They did leave the dog in the car, something the dog was either not used to or did not like because it barked nonstop the entire time I was waiting in the parking lot. When my relative came out of the doctors office they commented on how the dog could be heard inside and how the receptionist was upset because it was disturbing to listen to.

There's nothing, in and of itself, bad about someone taking their dog anywhere and leaving it in their vehicle but this person took a dog that obviously cannot handle being left alone in the car and parked right up next to the front of the doctors office ensuring that everyone around, including patients in extreme pain, had to listen to their beloved pet.

I will be the first person to admit that I am not what the world refers to as an animal person. I can take animals or leave them and if I'm doing the care taking, more often than not I will leave them, but I don't mind a well behaved, well trained animal so long as it's clean and not in the store where I'm buying my groceries. I'm sorry but seeing a dog sitting in the baby seat in a shopping cart and knowing someone is going to place their baby in that same seat later is disturbing. So is the thought of buying food that someone's dog may have licked or even peed on. Yes, I have been in the store when someones dog, while riding in the cart, peed. In the floor. On the food in the shopping cart. What did the owner of the animal do? Hurry away from the evidence that their pet just left on the floor. I have no idea what they did with the things in the cart that were ruined.

But the thing is...animals don't seem to be seen as animals anymore. Somehow they are being elevated to something higher than humans, more akin to some kind of god. Maybe it's always been there and I just never saw it but it seems to me that it's escalating at a rapid pace.

There are contests for animals, usually dogs. There are day cares for dogs. Spa's for dogs. Vacation spots for dogs. There are fancy dresses, life jackets, suits, and Halloween costumes for dogs. You name it, you can probably get it for your dog and a good number of other types of pets too.

Somehow, somewhere along the line animals, especially dogs, followed closely by cats, have become idols in the extreme. And no one seems to see it. I see posts on social media all the time, posts by professing 'Christians', that speak of their 'baby' or their 'fur babies' and no one, not even the other professing 'Christians' correct them. No one says that those animals are pets and not kids. No one asks them if they realize they have made idols of their animals.

Scripture tells us that man is to use animals to serve us. We are shown animals that are used for transportation, animals that are used for food, even animals that were used to show God's wrath. But we are told not to make an idol of anything. And yet, here people are, idolizing animals to a point so far out there that I don't even know how to describe it.

I have a relative that owns a dog that takes food right out of her kids hands, that eats her food while she's eating it. And that's okay because the dog wants it. Ummm...really? This same dog bites her kids for any and every reason and it's okay because this nearly year old dog is just a 'little puppy' and 'needs to chew'. This same dog is referred to as her 'baby', 'kid' and is 'one of the family'. In fact it's one of the family to the point that they take it just about everywhere with them, even to visit friends and family.

Is that not idolatry?

Is that not placing the same, or more, importance on the dog than on the kids? This dog, by the way, was given the real human baby's favorite blanket. It is allowed to chew on all the kids toys because this dog is 'one of the kids' and it is 'Mommy and daddy's baby'.

I wish that these examples I've given in this post were rare and unusual happenings. I really wish they were. But they aren't.

There is an entire television channel dedicated to animals. I had the misfortune of seeing part of a show on that channel recently. It was something about animal rescues and in that episode the police, I don't know if they were actual police or animal enforcement officers, went to a house where they said the owner hadn't been seen for over two or three, I can't remember which, months. They walked around the outside of the house, a house that looked like it was lived in, and were VERY upset to discover a dead dog inside a dog house in the backyard. It seemed that these officers were actually disgusted at the dogs deceased condition.

They talked about that 'poor' dog. They talked about how could anyone do this to an animal. And all the time I was sitting there watching I wondered when they were going to get around to worrying about where the person or people were that belonged in that house. If they had been missing for two or three months...should the animals have been the number one concern?

But the animals were the number one concern. From that dog house in the back yard the officers continued their look-see around the house then talked about going inside. They spoke of seeing a dog that was still alive through a window and a bird cage that they couldn't tell if it was occupied or not. But they did not wonder where the person or people were that should have been in that home. They worried about what they would find inside that house but it wasn't the worry of finding dead people that concerned them, it was what condition they might find animals in that had them worried.

About the first thing they noticed when they entered the house was several guns propped in a corner. What I noticed was they weren't cheap or old guns. They appeared to be in good condition and they were higher powered rifles. They didn't strike me as the kind of thing a person would just move off and leave. The officers took notice of them but never mentioned that where there are guns like that there should be people. Maybe they know something I don't. Maybe people just up and move off and leave their fancy guns every day but in my experience gun people don't just leave their guns. They might leave everything else but they don't leave their guns. Not without some serious extenuating circumstances anyway.

And yet here these officers were, noting the guns, but giving no thought to where the person was. They just went right on talking about what animals they might find in the house and what condition those animals might be in.

We never did find out where the owners were but the officers were pleased to rescue one living dog from a house where the owner was missing. It was as if the animals were all that mattered.

I can't help but see in that show, in that animal station, the promotion of animal idolatry. There are kids shows that promote dogs as the most important characters, shows that portray dogs as being human like, shows that, well...push dogs.

But it's not all dogs. There are just as many shows about cats. Although that's pretty much where the animal love ends. There's some push of horses and other furry things but very little about lizards, snakes, birds, or any other kind of nonstandard pet.

There are even complete shows about the killing of alligators and snakes. No one seems to care if a snake is captured and cut open while its still alive but let a dog go out on a roof of its own accord and it's animal cruelty. Catch an alligator with some kind of line and hook then shoot it in the head and it's perfectly fine but don't neglect to feed your cat. Let cattle and chickens live in filthy, feces infested muck up to their knees then kill them and eat them and that's okay but don't chain your dog without giving it a place to get out of the sun.

It seems that animal idolatry is everywhere, even in chickens and cattle. There are those that won't eat meat because it's animal cruelty. Those that plaster certain breeds of animals on their clothing and coffee cups. Those that think so highly of their pets that they could care less that they just put their animal in a shopping cart where a child will later be put, a child that could have life threatening allergies.

I know of a family whose young son is so allergic to cats that he goes into anaphalactic shock if a cat has been in their yard and the boy goes outside, even if there is no sign of a cat anywhere around. There are people that are terrified of animals. And yet, people bring their pets into stores despite laws and rules forbidding that very thing.

Is that the reason the Lord put animals on this earth? Are dogs here to have their owners cooking them fancy dinners, buying them wardrobes of clothes and piles of toys or are they here to serve people, providing security, assistance to the disabled, clean up of the earth through eating waste, providing transportation, and search and rescue missions? Dogs can be well cared for while being trained to serve and help the people around them.

Are cats here to be bought fancy canned food, elaborate tree scratching posts (designed to mimic experiences they would have living in the wild), and having their every meow catered to or are they here to hunt mice and other rodents?

Are animals here to serve?

Or to be served?

The enslavement of marriage

I recently wrote a post over a feminist poster that I saw, something that I tried very hard to just skim past when I saw it but then what I saw stayed with me so much that I needed to write just to clear up my own thoughts.

Well, today I saw something that effected me very much the same way. It was once again something having to do with feminists although I was kind of amazed that this came straight from a man's mouth. I know there are all types out there and I know that there are men that support women't causes but...feminism is so much of an anti-man cause that I would think that no man would want to support it. I know I wouldn't want anything to do with it if I was a man and yet...a man said something that was so disturbing to me that I am once again writing about feminism, not because I really want to but because my mind simply has a hard time understanding how anyone out there can think this way, much less how men can think this way.

Doesn't feminism directly disregard men?

Aren't feminists of a mindset that women are somehow victimized because they are women and that all men are the reason for all their woes simply because they are men?

And yet...there was this man saying what I wish I could quote word for word but what amounted to:

Women are so brainwashed by a fake sense of needing to conform and to have security that they willing enter into the 'marriage tradition', possibly the most horrid example of enslaving one person to another in all of history. People take their kids to church were they are taught that women can never reach the heights that men can. There are feminists that still want their dad to walk them down the aisle and 'give' them away. Homosexuals didn't fight for equality in all things they fought to be allowed to marry. Social pressure toward marriage is so strong that they actually fought to be included in this 'disgusting ritual' that is the base of enslaving women. Women will never be equal until we get rid of such enslaving traditions.

Oh...my. I don't even know how to respond to that. My first thought...that was written by a MAN. Um, what man is so for women usurping them that they would think such a thing much less give voice to it?

I know someone that claims that women aren't treated fairly because they make less money than men do. Maybe I'm super sheltered, I've only held a handful of jobs in my life. I've never tried to climb a career ladder, never desired to gain ground in a job. But...isn't minimum wage the same for women as it is for men? Do men make more money as a whole? I have no idea. I know when I was in high school I had a teacher encourage all the girls to go into construction work because federal laws require equality in the workplace and that means construction companies must hire women to meet a quota of female to male workers. Trouble is there are very few, at least at that time, women that want to do construction work. And so...said our teacher...women in construction can pretty much set their own pay rate because the construction companies have to hire a certain number of women to keep out of trouble with the government.

My high school years were a long time ago and so much has changed since then that we may as well be living in a different world but I'm sure there are jobs where women are paid exactly the same as men and that there are jobs that women actually make more money than men do. It's just the nature of any game. Lawyers make more money than store managers, doctors make more than taxidermists. And I have no doubt that there are some jobs out there where women make more money than men do. I know from experience that child care is a profession that is proliferated with female workers and male workers are rarely encouraged to work in that field. Having worked in several child care facilities many years ago, and knowing many parents now, that is mostly the result of the parents feelings about having men caring for their children. There is simply a safety issue involved with men looking after children that most parents don't consider to be a concern when the caretaker is female. And so...men aren't very prevalent in the childcare workers. Or at least they didn't used to be.

But whether or not women are paid equally to men...why would a man encourage this...dare I say, craziness of feminism? It seems to me that feminism is in direct opposition to men.

My faith gives me guidelines for what men and women are to be. Men are to be the providers, the protectors. Women are to be the home keepers, the nurturers. But even if a person didn't believe in the Lord...is it really all that hard to see that men and women are different? That that difference is a good thing? And even if they can't see that, can they not see that feminists are about as against men as they can get?

I've had little experience with feminists but here lately I've had a few more encounters with the feminist movement than I'd like. I've said it before, and will no doubt say it again, I believe feminists ruined life for women that truly want to be...women. They took a country that saw women as weaker vessels, a country where men held doors for women, lifted heavy items, and generally, as a whole, looked out for women and turned it into a country where women are seen as the same as men. More or less.

I've had people tell me I should put my children in daycare and go to work. Why? Not because they had anything at stake in the way I was living but because that is the mindset of our country now. Men work. Women work. This is desired.

I recently ran into a cousin that I haven't seen in years. She works full time and both her children are in public school. Over the Christmas holiday she had the same time off work that her children had off from school. This cousin actually told me, while standing in front of her daughter, that she would much rather work than be at home with her kids.

What is wrong with this thought process?

Years ago I was babysitting for a woman that was working when I started keeping her child but then wound up unemployed. This woman paid me to watch her child, day after day, while she sat home collecting unemployment.Why? Because she couldn't handle her own toddler.

This is what feminism has brought us to. This is the mindset of America today. Children are institutionalized almost from the moment they're born so that women can work.

And now I hear something so degrading to marriage that I can't even think of a proper way to describe it. I'll admit that the modern American marriage isn't what it should be. I've seen married couples stand in their yard and scream at each other. I've seen husband's abuse their wives. Seen wives chase their husband with a baseball bat. I've heard a wife speak all kinds of horrific things about her husband while said husband was home caring for their children.

Marriage today isn't what it should be. But it isn't enslavement, not by a long shot. Not in America. And it isn't just some ritual or tradition that we keep to the detriment of women.

How can anyone feel that marriage is an enslavement to women? I know there are countries where arranged marriages are the norm. I know there are cultures where women truly are treated as less than human. And I know that the very cultures and religions that practice those things also exist in America, and that they practice those things inside America despite laws that do not allow such things, but as a whole American women freely choose to marry and they choose who they will marry.

Some women chose to be stay at home wives, some chose to raise their own children rather than pass them off to others to do the job the Lord gave them to do. But with very few exceptions these are women that willingly chose to do this. They want to be a stay at home wife. They want to be a stay at home mom. They want to be there when their husband comes home from work. They want to care for their children.

These women aren't enslaved. They aren't oppressed. They aren't mistreated. I know because I am one of these women. My sister is one of these women. My friend is one of these women. We don't feel enslaved. We feel blessed. Our husbands love us. They care for us. They look after us.

My husband works long hours, often dealing with physical exhaustion and pain, working in the cold and rain, giving up his time, effort, and energy to make a living for our family. And he does it all for us. I'm not enslaved. I'm not mistreated. I'm not oppressed in any way. And no, I'm not brainwashed into thinking these things. I am loved. I am cared for. I am taken care of. I am protected from the harsher side of life. I am protected from the physical and mental demands of holding down a job. And...I am blessed.

I am not, and never have been, a slave because I am married.

I have to wonder if the man that made that statement has ever been married. Does he even truly know what marriage is like? Has he experienced it? And if he did...was he an enslaving kind of husband? If so...than maybe he should look at himself and not at marriage in general. Did he mistreat his wife? Was his dad an abusive husband? Did he feel like his mother was a slave to his dad?

What would prompt a man to speak against marriage? What would prompt him to hold such contempt of marriage, under the guise of giving women equality, that he would go so far as to say homosexuals should not have wanted the right to marry (I happen to agree with him but not for the reasons he feels that way). Do the homosexuals know something that this man doesn't? Maybe they see that marriage is a good thing. Maybe they see the give and take, the support, the security in simply knowing someone is there for you, someone to share your life with, and they wanted to be a part of that.

Now...I am NOT for a single second advocating homosexual marriage. Such a thing goes against Scripture. And it goes against the very nature of what marriage is. A union created by the Lord between one man and one woman to represent the relationship between Christ and His people. It is a holy union that cannot be attained by people committing what Scripture refers to as sodomy and is an abomination to the Lord. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, homosexuals somehow sense the importance of marriage and that despite the sin that holds them hostage in their thoughts and deeds, that maybe they see that there is something special in marriage. And maybe they understand something that the man that spoke against marriage, on behalf of freedom for women, does not understand.

Marriage is not enslavement. Marriage is an honor.

Refugees are God's judgement on America

There's been a whole lot of talk, news stories, articles, and general upheaval over immigrants into America lately. Some people are all for keeping America's borders wide open and allowing anyone in that wants to be here, some are for allowing certain people in, and some are for not allowing anyone in. And I'm sure there are others that have other thoughts on the matter of which I know nothing about.

But I've seen and heard so much on this topic lately. President Trump put a temporary ban on people from a handful of countries coming into America and it seems like everything just sort of became a free for all of people talking, complaining and giving thanks both online and in real life.

I've seen many, many things that say that Christians should want to allow others into our country. I've seen online and even been told that if Jesus were alive today He would not be welcome in America, that He was in fact a refugee.

I haven't heard the reasoning behind that but I think it probably has something to do with either
his nationality or all the times he, or his parents, had to flee a certain area, making Him a 'refugee'. I have heard someone speak on that, quite a while before this whole refugee ban went into effect. I wish now I could remember what they said. It was something to the effect of Jesus was never a refugee because He never actually fled a land but moved from place to place staying in the same general area, much like moving from town to town within the same state.

I don't know how accurate it would be to say Christ was a refugee. He did flee from certain groups of people, moving from somewhere that did not embrace what He was teaching to a more welcoming place. I do know that it is believed that Christ never traveled very far in His entire life, and in fact we can trace His journeys, or a good part of them anyway, by reading the Gospels with a biblical map in hand.

Being told that Christ would not be welcome in America was both amazing and almost laughable at the same time. First of all, Christ was basically not welcomed in the world at the time He walked the earth. Sure, there were those that welcomed Him, wanted Him, followed Him, even chased after Him but there were many more that did not want Him and were against what He was teaching. If He had been welcome in the world...He would not have been crucified.

What land opened it's doors to Him? What people took Him in and kept Him safe from harm? Over His entire lifetime there were very few and in the end none that kept Him safe on earth.

And second, well, the issue at stake here isn't whether or not all people are welcome in America but whether or not Muslims are welcome in America. There are those that would have us welcome them and their beliefs with open arms despite the fact that American laws ban them from living in the United States. We have laws that say that anyone against the American government cannot be allowed to enter our country and yet our country has been allowing people that are against American's in by the thousands. That is the issue. Christ would not have been affected by the current presidential ban on refugees because 1) He wasn't a refugee, and 2) he wasn't Muslim.

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm simplifying things here. That's because I have a much broader topic for this post than whether or not Christ would have been welcome in America. But I cannot get to that topic before first addressing this one.

And so we are being bombarded with the issue of whether or not America should allow refugees into our country, and whether or not Muslims should be allowed in our country. And in the midst of that bombardment are the people that want to feel sorry for the Muslims and let them in because their country is at war, because there is bombing going on where they live, because they aren't safe for any number of reasons in their country, and because they are people and we should embrace them as such treating them exactly the same as every other person on earth and just as we would want to be treated.

I will admit that I'm sure many of them do not want to stay in their countries, that they don't feel safe there, that they want away from the wars and the violence. I can even see that at least some of them probably do need a safe country to go to. But I have to wonder why that country needs to be America? Why do they even want to come to America? We aren't a Muslim country and we don't, overall, welcome their faith and their beliefs. There are Muslim countries that aren't at war. Why aren't they seeking refuge there? Wouldn't they be happier in countries that share their faith, their beliefs, their lifestyles, their traditions?

Then there is the other side, the side that says don't let them in and send the ones that are already here back. And they have valid points for what they want. History has shown us that Muslims, as a whole, cannot be trusted. We're told we shouldn't have Islamaphobia or Muslimphobia or whatever name they want to put on it but the reality is that I've met very few people that actually have a phobia of Muslims or Islam. Most people simply have the good sense to look at history and at current events and to be able to deduce for themselves that Americans, especially Christians, should be leery of Muslims.

But even if people are afraid of Muslims...wouldn't it be for a good reason? Hasn't history shown us that they aren't a peaceable people? Aren't there Muslims killing other people for no better reason than the fact that they aren't Muslim, or they are Christian, in other countries?

And it's like this great big merry go round that never seems to come to a stop. People pushing and pulling, yelling and writing, arguing and crying over whether or not to let foreigners into America. But it's worse. Way, way worse. Because in the midst of that, on both sides, I guess, are the people that say that these are God's people and that Christians should welcome all people with open arms. They ask how any Christian can want to ban anyone from our country, how any Christian can want to leave people in danger in other countries.

But where is the reason in all that?

I get that there are people living in war torn countries that are not safe in their homes. People that have nowhere safe to go. Kids that are loosing their parents to war. Parents that are watching their children die from the effects of war. Newborn babies being born in violence.

But here's the thing...these are not, for the most part, a peaceful people. Those kids...I've seen video footage of their five year olds wielding guns and shouting death threats. Those are not innocent children that we should open our hearts and homes to. Do you really want a five year old that has been taught to hate (to the point of killing them)  white people or to hate Americans, or to hate Christians, or to hate any other group of people, to go to school with your five year old? Do you trust that child alone with your child? Is your child safe on the playground? Is your child safe in the far corner of the classroom, walking the halls, or in the cafeteria.

Those adults that grew up in that culture...they don't share your values, they don't share America's values. They don't share our culture. And yet they are moving into our country, putting their children in our schools, building their Mosques, buying up stores, hotels, and even becoming our doctors.

Do we want people that grew up in a culture that teaches them not only to hate but to kill everyone that doesn't share their beliefs to hold the key to the hotel room we sleep in? Do we want them administering medication to us? Do we want them operating on our children?

There's reason for you. There's only a small example of how the 'poor refugees' from the war torn country are moving into our country. But they don't just move here and become one of us. They keep their religion, keep their customs. Keep their ingrained beliefs and they bring them to America and they are like a virus that starts on the inside and slowly spreads until it overtakes everything in it's path.

Years ago, years and years ago, I watched a movie that I can't even recall the name of now. It was a movie I wouldn't sit through five minutes of today but back then I watched it. Once. In that movie aliens invaded earth. And they took over. Guess how? Not through the aliens that landed on earth but through reproducing. They used people on earth to...plant their babies, I guess. They somehow put their alien babies inside humans and those babies incubated there, growing and getting stronger, until they were ready to come into the world, then they clawed their way out of the person, killing the 'host' and going their own way to live their alien life. Soon there were more aliens on earth than there were people.

That's a movie and it's a gruesome example of the point I'm trying to make. I'm sorry for that. But think about it for just a moment. Think of what happens when any group of people moves into a land. If there are enough of them sooner or later they will have children, they will mingle and possibly mate with the native people, they will grow in population. How long before they must either become a part of the land they live in or...they overtake the land they live in?

I heard a man say that Muslims are now reproducing at a rate of eight to one in America. Eight Muslim babies are being born for every one white baby being born. I haven't seen any statistics on that, any proof that it's true, but what if it is? Or what if they are simply reproducing at a rate of one Muslim baby for every white baby? In what? 20 years they will equal or outweigh the younger generation of white people. And no, I'm not speaking of white people over any other ethnic American group, that just happens to be the race I heard the statement about.

And even if we take in all other American ethnicities...at eight to one, Muslim to White...that puts them at what? Four to one for all Americans? One to one? Any way you look at it they will soon outnumber all Americans except for the so-called Muslim Americans. Which, by the way, is like saying up is also down all at the same time. Muslims have their own way of life and that life is anti-American. How then can we have a Muslim American?

I am not racist. I do not have anything against any one group of people. I do, however, have the sense to see that American's cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate American's. I can also see that Christians cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate Christians. I can even see that the very people so desperately crying for Muslims to be allowed into our country are the same people so desperately crying for homosexuals to be given equal status to everyone else, to be affirmed and accepted in their lifestyle...and I can see that Muslims kill homosexuals. It is part of their beliefs, part of their culture, part of what makes them who they are.

They do not have to be radical to hold to those beliefs just as someone does not have to be reformed to believe in Christ.

And yet we have people, even self professing 'Christians' that are crying out to allow Muslims into our country by the boat and plane load. They want to give them a safe place to go. They want to embrace them and 'love' them and let them know they are equal here. They claim that all people are God's people.

That's not what Scripture says. Scripture says that God loves some and hates some. It says that only a select set of people are God's people. What does that make the others?

I'm not saying there can't be Christians in Muslim countries. I'm sure there are. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more real Christians in those countries than there are in America. Why? Because in a country where you are persecuted, even to the point of death, you are way less likely to try to claim to be something you aren't, you're less likely to profess something because it sounds good, whether to you or to others. You're less likely to claim to be a part of something for the status it gives you or the connections you can make. When your life is at stake...how likely are you to fake it or even to feel it in a superficial way?

But in America we have scores and scores of 'Christians' that do not live or act in any way close to what the Scriptures say a Christian is. They profess to be 'Christians' because it's easy and because in most cases it's a status symbol. They are just as much a fan of this, or a member of that. Their faith is, in many cases, all for show. Because that's an American 'Christian'.

Have these self professing 'Christians' never read any of their Bible? Have they not seen how the Lord punished a land, or a people, by sending in a group of other people? Have they not seen that judgement was passed on one land, and carried out, through another lands people infiltrating their land and wiping them out? Those infiltrating people either killed everyone or they killed the men and took the women and children as their own.

This is judgement on a nation.

Can the self professing 'Christians' that want so much to do the 'Christian' thing, to be the good 'Christian', to do 'what God would want them to do', not see that they are helping the judgement arrive on their doorsteps?

If the Lord decides to send judgement our way, and why wouldn't He, America wallows in sin and flaunts it like this is the devils own playground, which it is, but if the Lord sends judgment on our nation, and I believe He already has, then we can do nothing to stop it. But shouldn't anyone claiming to be a 'Christian' be able to see how things worked in their Bible and understand the dangers of welcoming those from a foreign land?

The people that they claim are God's people aren't God's people if they're living against the Lord. The people that are seen as innocents in need of help aren't so innocent when they grew up in a culture that teaches to kill and destroy any people that aren't of their beliefs.

There was a time when all people were the same, at least in language. What happened to that time? The people tried to build a tower to heaven. Remember? It's known as the tower of Babel and its when and where God scattered people, confusing their speech so that they no longer all spoke the same language. He separated them into their own groups, placing them in different lands, seeing to it that they could no longer speak to people of other lands.

If he separated them...there must have been a reason.

Then throughout Scripture we see that He used one group of people to destroy another. He used these people to carry out His judgement on those people. They entered a foreign land, brought with them their beliefs and their traditions, they maimed and killed, raped and pilfered, until they controlled the land.

I saw something today, a news article, that I cannot vouch for the validity of and I cannot tell you what the story said but I can tell you about the headline. That headline spoke of how Muslims move into a country not to assimilate but to control. They may settle in, may seem to be a part of the new country but they hang onto their beliefs and their traditions and their culture, they teach their children in their ways even as they learn the ways of the country they are in until one day they have grown in number and until they reach whatever point they are awaiting and then they take over the country. It is their way. It is their faith. It is their belief.

There was another news article that supposedly showed a Muslim man warning America of the agenda behind the Muslims moving to our country. I didn't watch the video and if there was a written article I didn't read it. I just saw the headline. I don't know if it was from a reliable source or not.

But...I don't need a news article to tell me what Scripture shows me. I don't need to hear it straight from a Muslim to know what the Lord has told me in His word. Being infiltrated and overrun by people of another land has been used repeatedly in Scripture to judge and overthrow a nation. Anyone that's ever read their Bible, or even part of it, cannot deny that simple fact.

And American's are wanting to embrace those from another nation. To throw our doors wide and welcome them like long lost family members. To believe that they have every right to practice their beliefs in America because after all, 'America isn't a Christian country' and to hear some tell it, it never was.

Oh, but it was. When Indians lived here without any foreigners, maybe it wasn't but once the settlers started coming, whether they came from Spain, Mexico, England, or wherever, they were Christians. They may have come from different denominational beliefs but they were Christians. I've heard that Christopher Columbus was Reformed. Those from Mexico were often Catholic. The Pilgrims were reformed. I'm sure there were other denomination beliefs but they all believed in Christ.

America was never a melting pot of religions. And really, if we want to think back to when America was settled...Christians moved into America and overtook the Indians. I'm not saying it was right or what happened to them was good but...in came the foreigners and out went the natives ability to rule and govern themselves. White men married, kidnapped, raped and murdered the natives. Sure, many of them did the same to the white settlers but look who won, look who conquered. It wasn't those native to this land. It was the foreigners that settled here.

And America stayed a predominantly Christian country until sometime in the mid 1900s. And now here we are, with our own people having a fit to let foreigners into our country. How long before they fill our land and overtake our people. How long before America becomes a Muslim country?

How long before God uses the ungodly to overthrow what has stopped being a Christian country?

How long before God sends full judgement on America?

The females they were created to be

Yesterday I came across something that I kind of wish I hadn't seen, something that had me confused about what it was at first and then, later, skimming past it and wanting to just put it out of my mind. I'm not sure what to call it, a poster...a flyer...a headline, I don't even know if it was a headline for an article or if what I saw was all their was to it but either way, hours after reading it I wanted to find it again. What I had seen was some kind of...I'll just call it a poster...for feminism.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have no idea what the feminists claim their movement is about. I don't know their goals or agendas. And I don't want to know. What I know about feminism is all I need to know. I know that feminism stands against what Scripture says a woman should be and I know that feminists in the past have ruined what I consider to be a good thing for women. Because of feminists and whatever agenda they were pushing women, as a whole, are not expected to be, nor can they be in a lot of cases, anywhere close to what Scripture says a woman should be.

All my life I wanted to be a wife and a mother. In typical childish fashion there were times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a wife and times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a mother but somewhere deep inside I always wanted to be both of those things. Trouble was I grew up in a time when it was encouraged for women to be more than a wife or a mother. When I was 19 I met a woman that was very motherly toward me. Our acquaintance was short but she was one of those women that just naturally mothered younger people, I suppose. I recall very well a conversation I had with her. I don't remember how it started or even who started it but at the time I had someone pushing me to go to college and I did not want to go. This person was very insistent that I should go and was willing to pay for me to go.

It was over that situation in my life that I had that conversation with the woman that kind of mothered me for the short time I knew her. I told her that I did not want to go to college, that I wanted only to be a wife and mother. Her answer was to tell me that I should go to college, that I could do both, college/career and be a wife and mother. Looking back, it seems to me that this woman may have been a struggling single mother, or at least had been at some point in her life, but I can't remember for sure. I do know that was why she encouraged me to go to college while it was being offered, because even if I became a wife the marriage may not last and I might wind up on my own, possibly with kids to raise, and a college education would help a whole lot.

She had a point, I suppose, but she missed the point I was trying to make. I wanted nothing but to be a wife and a mother. That was all. I didn't want to have a career while I was a wife and a mother. I didn't want to be in college and be a wife. I didn't want a JOB. I wanted to be a WIFE and a MOTHER. I wanted to be a stay at home wife. That was all I wanted. Nothing else held interest for me, at least not in the college/career lifestyle.

And somewhere along the way, in years long gone, women had ideas, ideas that may or may not have been labeled as feminism at the time, that women should be equal to men. They had the not-so-bright idea that women would be better off working than being a wife and a mother.

Those are my opinions but Titus 2 3-5 states very clearly what women should be and what they should do and nowhere in there does it say that a woman should work in the workplace, go to college, or be equal to men. Although at 19 I didn't know that, all I knew was that something inside me did not want to go the college/career route, even though I had been working off and on since I was 12 and pretty steady since I was 17. I was working but it wasn't what I wanted for my life and it wasn't because I didn't like working. As with everyone I had some jobs I liked and some I didn't. My reasoning went far deeper than a dislike of work, which I did not have, it was like something inside me longed for the chance to be a wife and a mother.

And that was in direct opposition to what feminists have worked for for who knows how many years.

When I was a teenager I had no idea there even was such a thing as a feminist but somewhere along the way I discovered that women in history had a fit over women not being allowed to work and ruined life for women for all time. Today people ask little girls what they want to be when they grow up and expect and answer like doctor, lawyer, or teacher. I'm pretty sure that I have told strangers not to ask my children that very question. Why can't kids be kids and little girls have dreams of being a wife and a mother and nothing else?

Because somewhere along the way someone got ideas about what women should be and those ideas are not what Scripture says they should be and now here we are with all these expectations for women based off 'women's rights' and feminism that directly oppose Scripture.

Which is what I came across yesterday. This poster that I saw was a list of things women do not have to be, I suppose but it simply said, 'women do not have to' followed by this list, in this order:

be thin
give birth
cook for you
have long hair
wear makeup
have sex with you
be feminine
be graceful
shave
diet
be fashionable
wear pink
love men
be the media's idea of perfection

Whew! That's some list and when I first saw it I couldn't figure out what in the world it was even about. So much of what that list says women don't have to do is the very essence of what women are. It wasn't until I saw that it was made by feminists that I began to understand what it was about. At that point I just wanted it out of my sight and I went on with my business but as the hours passed I began to think of that list and to wish I could see it again. I wanted to look with more attention to the things it said 'women don't' and I wanted to write about it. I really wanted to point out the problems with that list to the person who inadvertently brought it to my attention. Instead I found the list again and I'm writing about it. I will probably never say a word about it to the person who is responsible for me seeing that list. Because that person could not be swayed by anything I say on this topic. Not that I'm trying to sway anyone to my way of thinking but to point out the differences between what this poster said 'women don't' and what Scripture says women are.

And so, for my own piece of mind, I'm going to take this list, one 'women don't' at a time...

be thin...Women don't have to be thin. No, I suppose they don't. Women can and are many sizes for many reasons but Proverbs 23:20-21 speaks against being a glutton. I personally know women that have gained weight for medical reasons, as a result of medication they take, and for some reason simply cannot keep from gaining weight no matter how hard they try.

give birth... Women weren't specifically created to have children, although they were created for that reason too. Women were created first to be a wife, a help meet to her husband, and a side 'job', if you want to call it that, is to be a mother. I don't suppose women have to give birth but it is a huge part of being a woman. There are women in Scripture for whom being childless was an awful thing in their own eyes, women for whom barrenness is something akin to a curse, and in fact their are places in Scripture where the Lord does curse a person or nation by making the woman/women barren.

So, no, I don't suppose a woman must give birth to be a woman, not by any definition of the word, but part of being a woman is to have children, and most women, no matter what their beliefs are, want to have babies. There's just something inside women, something that can be seen in most little girls that go all soft at the sight of a baby, that just makes them want to have babies. I have a one year old niece and a one year old granddaughter both of whom get all happy and excited over seeing a baby in any form, even a doll that bears little resemblance to a real live baby. It's just built into females to like babies and most females begin to want a baby somewhere around the time they go through puberty. It is an inborn, or God given, trait of being a girl.

So what happens to make feminists say giving birth is something you don't have to do to be a woman. I don't imagine they are speaking of women who are infertile, and by the way speaking with infertile women, even women who can have babies but their husband cannot, would be eye opening for some. The desire to have a baby and be unable to do so for any reason is a horrible pain to bear and makes women go to great length and spend unending amounts of money to have a child. But I don't think that's what feminists are talking about, they don't seem to be affirming a woman's womanhood in cases where the woman is unable to have a baby, they seem to be saying that women can chose not to have a child and that is fine.

I'm going to hazard a guess here...I also think they are saying that if a woman has an abortion...which by the way, is giving birth...in order to not 'give birth' or have a child then that is perfectly fine and she is still a woman. I am, however, assuming that based on the fact that feminists seem to support murdering babies before birth all in support of women having the 'freedom' to chose to be what they want to be, to chose to experience what they want to experience, and to chose freedom from parenthood over the sanctity of life. And so they say a woman doesn't have to give birth to be a woman.

Well, yes. A woman isn't a woman based on the fact that she has had a child. She is a woman based on the fact that she was created female and she has grown through the childhood years into the adult years and is now a woman and not a little girl. In the beginning He created them male and female...(Matthew 19:4, Genesis 5:2). Women are women because they were created female and not for any other reason.

But Scripture does say that we are to be fruitful and multiply. Now I know that that is taken out of context a lot, when the Lord said that, he said it to a particular people not to all people throughout all of time, but we can look at that and see that it was His intention for babies to be born and we can see in His creation of people and animals that it was his intention for females to have the babies. He also said...children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psalm 127:3).

If children are a heritage and a reward, and if the Lord used barreness as a punishment in Scripture (which we know he did) than what does it say for women who are going around eagerly flaunting the fact that women (presumably the one's that can have babies) don't have to give birth to be a woman?

cook for you...Presumably this means that a woman doesn't have to cook for a man to be a woman.

Umm...I would guess that that would go without saying. Again, a woman isn't a woman because of something she does, she is a woman because she was CREATED as a female. There is no other reason why she is a woman.

She does, however, have certain roles as a woman whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in the Lord, believes in Scripture, or not. Women don't have to cook for men to be women but as a whole, not just among Christians, women tend to be more hands on with household chores and child raising than men. That is the nature of our society, although it is a society that has already changed to almost beyond recognition and one that will continue to change far more than it already has.

But, that being said, the very nature of this statement and of this entire list of what women aren't is in direct defiance to what the Lord says a woman is. I don't know if the person that made this list, someone that presumably is a woman, realizes that just about everything in this list of what women aren't is in direct opposition of what their, most likely unacknowledged, Creator made them to be.

Titus 2 tells us what women should be, more specifically Titus 2:3-5 tells us what women should be...

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled,pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

THAT is what a woman is, what she should be. If we take that, or rather if we start with Genesis 5:2, they were created FEMALE and add to it Titus 2:3-5...women (female) are to be reverent, not slanderers, not drunks. They are to teach what is good to younger women, to love their husbands and children, be self controlled, pure, working at home (or in the home) kind, and submissive to their husband...we see what women should be. And well, that all seems to be the direct opposite of what this list of what women aren't is. 

And in keeping with that direct opposition to Scripture...if a woman to to work at home, which should naturally take in cooking, than the opposite is that she doesn't have to cook.

have long hair...There's only one way to respond to this...

but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?  1 Corinthians 11:15

Again, direct opposition to Scripture. Now, I know there are many reasons why a woman might not have long hair. I have personally known two girls, they were kids, that simply could not get their hair to grow past their shoulders no matter how hard they tried. I have also known women that had no hair due to medication for illness, usually cancer. I understand their is a disease that causes hair to simply fall out. I have also known women who have had to cut their hair due to having headaches fromt he weight of their hair. I know their are extenuating reasons why a woman might have short hair or even no hair, but I also know the majority of women that have short hair do it for their own personal reasons which have nothing to do with health. 

And I highly doubt the objection to long hair in this list is speaking of medical reasons why a woman might have short hair. This list is speaking purely of a woman's CHOICE to have short hair or even to shave their heads. 

A while back I read something that said you can often tell feminist women by simply looking at the way their hair is cut and styled. After that I began to kind of notice women's hair. And I did notice that there are some hair cuts that women wear that if you spend any time around that woman, even in a passing way in the grocery store, it's not hard to notice that they do have a way about them that defies what womanhood should be.

wear makeup...Honestly, I can't recall ever seeing anything that says that a woman has to wear makeup to be a woman. In a strictly secular way, makeup is not required to be considered a woman. I have never been able to tell a difference in the way people treat me from the times I wear makeup and the times I do not. Most people don't really seem to care.

It's kind of like our shoes, unless someone happens to like our shoes and takes the time to comment, or if they really don't like our shoes and either comment or think those comments to themselves, no one really cares what shoes we wear.

In the same manner, no one really cares if a woman wears makup or not. As a woman you aren't treated differently based on whether or not you wear makeup. Now, I have noticed that certain groups of people tend to wear more makeup, or wear it in a certain way and I guess among those circles they might get treated a certain way based off their makeup, but since I have never run in those circles I really can't say for sure.

I do think the point behind this particular item being on this list is the fact that men, as a whole, tend to favor the look of women wearing makeup. And since feminists seem to be very anti-man I would assume that this was added to the list to be in defiance of men that like to see women in makeup.

As for Scripture...As far as I know there is nothing in it that specifically says a woman should not wear makeup. There are many verses that speak against adorning ourselves in gold, pearls, costly array , of putting on of apparel, or of loving the things of the world, all of which I would assume could take in makeup. There are, however some verses that do speak of makeup in a less than favorable light...

And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Jeremiah 4:30 KJV

2 Kings 9:30 speaks of Jezebel painting her face and well, Jezebel wasn't exactly a woman that is to be looked up to.

But again, It would seem that putting women not having to wear makeup on this list seems to be more of a defiance thing than anything else. In our society makeup has been traditionally seen as a woman thing and men have been known to appreciate that thing in a woman. It's more about the role of women, as in women wear makeup because they are women, than anything else. Or so it seems to me.

have sex with you... Oh, boy. Do I even want to touch on this one. The answer is No, I do not want to touch this but since it's on the list...here goes.

Let's start with...Women should not be having sex with 'you', whoever 'you' happens to be. Here is another perfect example of how feminists have ruined womanhood for everyone. Gone are the days when purity was prized. Gone are the days when men expected, and demanded, to marry women that were virgins, when they prized having a woman that was untouched by any man but them.

Today men are happy to have a woman that will have sex with them and they are more than happy to get what, in many cases, amounts to an unpaid prostitute. When I was in high school I went to school with a girl that at 16 or 17 announced to the entire class that she had already had sex with 8 different boys. There was no shame in her announcement, no disgust in those that heard her announce it. It was simply accepted as matter of fact, as normal, and nothing was said against it.

There was a time when purity was prized, valued, and women that were chaste were considered to be upstanding women while women that were not virgins at the time of marriage were fallen women, ruined. If a woman lost, through any means, her virginity before marriage than most men did not want her. In some cases she would have no choice but to resort to prostitution to support herself because she was not seen as a woman of morals, a woman of value.

Today, there almost seems to be some kind of pride in women jumping from man to man, having sex with all of them. And the men, for the most part, see nothing wrong with having a woman that has been with innumerable men before them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption that the 'you' in this statement could also refer to other women, since it seems that most feminists support and even encourage homosexuality, although, due to the feminist anti-man agenda, I would guess it applies more to men than to women. But even that...how many men or women put a value on the 'innocence' of their partner? And even for those that do value that...do they value it to the exclusion of women that have been with multiple partners (of either sex)?

All that said...Scripture says that women are to be chaste, to be pure. It does not specifically say that that refers to sex but generally speaking those two words are applied to virgins. We do know from Scripture, though, that being pure of heart is a sign of the elect. Still...could a woman that jumps from man to man, or, from woman to woman for that matter, possibly be pure in any sense of the word?

Does a woman have to have sex with anyone? No, Paul says that it is good for the unmarried to remain that way so long as they can do so without sexually desiring anyone but because most people are unable to do that he says that people should marry. Why? To avoid sexual immorality. So that they don't sin in their desire.

Sex is a beautiful thing. A wonderful thing. And I doubt even the feminists can deny that it has it's place in the continuation of the human population. But...it is only beautiful, only wonderful, when it is between one man and one woman inside the bonds of marriage.

Sex was created by the Lord to be used among a certain people, married couples consisting of one man and one woman. It fulfills certain physical needs, placed in us by the Lord, and is the means through which the Lord brings a new person into the earth.

So no, women do not have to have sex with 'you' and they should not have sex with 'you'. Not unless the 'you' spoken of is a woman's husband in which case 1 Corinthians 7 says that a woman's body is not her own and that she should have sex with her husband.

be feminine...This is another one of those that makes me almost want to cringe as I look at it and attempt to counter it. No, we don't HAVE to be feminine. Scripture does not say a woman should be feminine. But the Lord made us as females and as females we already are feminine unless a woman is trying to be something other than what she was created to be. There are certain traits that make women more feminine. A woman in a modest dress or skirt is much more feminine than a woman in pants or shorts. A woman with long hair is more feminine than a woman with short hair. A woman with a clean vocabulary is much more feminine than a woman with vulgar speech.

Just the other day my husband was commenting on the recent so-called women's march in Washington. He spoke of the conversation that President Trump had, a private conversation, in which he spoke in very vulgar terms about women. That conversation sparked much outraged among the so-called women that took to the streets to protest the statements, and the man that made them, that spoke of women with such vulgarity. The thing is that those women were just as vulgar, and in fact, to me, more so, than President Trump ever was. I'm not saying what Trump said was right, not by a long shot, but a man, in what was a private conversation, saying something is not nearly as bad as thousands of women taking to the streets to scream out the same vulgarities while wearing costumes depicting female genitalia.

Is that what it means to not be femine?

My husband's final comments on that so-called women's march was to say that he'd heard many women speak just as vulgar as Trump did in his private conversation. That they aren't any better in their thoughts or their speech than the men are. And yet the women protest something that one man said, something that is no different that things most men say every day, if possibly in slightly different context.

And the same women that took to the streets dressed as women's genitals, the same women that screamed vulgar words, the same women that waved signs with vulgar sayings ont them and claimed to be 'nasty' women...those very same women say that women don't have to be feminine. And the women that supported those vulgar women being about as nasty as a woman can get say the same thing from their computers at home.

If that's what it means to be not feminine...why would any decent, self respecting woman not want to be feminine. And what Christian woman would not want to be feminine?

I honestly don't know how feminists define feminine. I don't know what they consider to be feminine and what they don't but I do know their are some things that are classically seen as being feminine. I enjoy my long hair. I like to wear long skirts, there's just something...fun about feeling them swirl against my legs. I like flowers. I like pretty things. I like not having vulgar words coming from my mouth or vulgar gestures from my hands. I like dainty things.

And...

I like being the weaker vessel to my husband. I like being held in his arms. I like feeling safe and protected when he hugs me. I like hearing him say sweet things to me, things only a girl would appreciate. I like being the feminine to his masculine.

be graceful...I know there was a time when being graceful was a part of being a woman. Actually, it was part of being a lady because there was, and still is, a big difference in being a lady and being a woman. There are very few ladies left in America. They are endangered to the point of being extinct. And being graceful is just a small part of being a lady.

I don't know in what context the feminists consider being graceful. When I was a kid I took ballet for a number of years. We were taught to be graceful in those classes. Being graceful in ballet means moving your body in a certain kind of slow deliberate way, even when you're twirling across the floor so fast the world around you is a blur. But that is a certain kind of gracefullness that isn't easily applied to life outside the dance of ballet.

In times past girls were taught how to be ladies. There were even schools to teach them the art of being a lady. Believe it or not their were also classes that taught 'the art of courting'. They were taught things like how to glide into a room, how to hold a tea cup, and how to bat their eyes at a man.

We no longer learn things like how to walk, how to glide, or how to bat our eyes. We don't even teach our little girls to sit like a lady anymore, something I can remember being told numerous times buy numerous people when I was a kid. Back then little girls, and women, did not turn a chair backwards and straddle it to sit, that was only for boys. Girls were expected to sit with their legs folded under them a certain way when they wore a dress. I can even remember when a female sitting with her knees apart was considered and invitation to men. Yes, I was actually taught that as a kid. And no, I'm not an elderly woman.

So, what exactly does it mean to be graceful? I can't combat a statement that I don't fully understand the meaning of the person making it. I do believe that any female not living in defiance of what she was created to be has a certain gracefulness about her, especially once she leaves childhood behind. There is just a way about females that males to not have, and there is a way about males that females to not have. It's the way it should be. Women act and move a certain way...or maybe I should say ladies move and act a certain way because the kind of adult female I am referring to cannot be compared with the kind of women that marched in that protest in Washington or write lists like the one that prompted this post. So...Ladies have a natural way about them that has a gracefullness to it that men simply cannot imulate.

We are graceful because we were created female. And it takes some work to get that gracefullness out of a female. Girls walk different than boys. Women walk different than men. If a woman doesn't want to walk as a woman she must work hard to remove the gracefullness of being a female from her walk. Women move differently than men do. To move like a man a woman must try hard to remove the female from her movements.

There is a television show that used to come on t.v. when I was in my teens. One episode, that I have seen in the last year, has the woman trying to enter a horse race that is for men only. To be in the race she must pretend to be a man. There is a scene in that movie where the woman's adopted son's and her husband-to-be are trying to help her act more like a man. They instruct her on everything from how to walk to how to hold her head and hide her hands. The woman not only had to change from her clothes to men's clothes, she had to have a shadow of a 'beard' painted on her face, chew tobacco, learn to spit like a man, hold her body a certain way, tilt her head a certain way, and to change the very way she walked because women just walk differently than men.

That woman had to go to extreme lengths to not be feminine. It is simply built into who and what a female is. We can no more remove the gracefulness of being female from who we are than we can remove the more delicate features of our bodies that girls tend to naturally have.

shave...um, okay. Scripture doesn't say that we should shave so there is no Scriptural response to this one. In fact, I believe their is no more Scriptural responses to most of the rest of this list beyond the simple fact of what it appears the list stands for and that it defies Scripture.

Shaving hasn't always been something women did. As I understand it women started shaving their legs in the 1920's when shorter dresses came into fashion. It was more of a fashion statement than anything else. And...I'm just guessing here but I believe that this particular fashion statement came in more under the so-called enlightened women, possibly the feminists, that wanted to dress and act in a more risky way than most women of the time did. As I understand it, all through word of mouth from older generations, the flapper style dresses, the short skirts, and whatever else went along with the wome of that time dressing and acting in the manner that they did wasn't a popularly accepted thing of the time. I don't know for certain, and I can't find out even with an internet search, but I would guess that the feminists of the 1910-1920s era encouraged women to shave. It would seem to fit with the general agenda of the way feminists have acted throughout history. Which is to basically protest whatever is natural about womanhood and to encourage living in defiance of that nature.

I did find it odd that when trying to research women shaving and the feminist movement, or beliefs, at any given time all I could find was what the feminists are doing now. Granted, I did not try too hard to find this information, just a quick internet search which brought up only current feminist trends.

But I did find something interesting on shaving...

As far as armpits are concerned, we can pinpoint it almost to the day. In May of 1915, the upscale magazine Harper’s Bazaar ran an ad featuring a young model in a sleeveless, slip-like dress posing with both arms over her head.

You may be thinking, “So what?” Well, up until that time, fashion – and propriety – dictated that women were covered to the wrist and to the ankle. A dress that exposed the underarms was nothing short of revolutionary. In fact, just the utterance of the word “underarm” out loud was enough to call for the smelling salts mere weeks earlier. Now, it was becoming perfectly acceptable. It also meant since underarms were body parts that had always been covered, whether or not they needed shaving had been a moot point and little discussed. If it didn’t show, why bother? And yet, here was an ad cajoling women that it was necessary to remove “objectionable” hair. To think just days earlier women had no idea such a problem even existed!...

The leg shaving phenomenon was a lot slower to catch on. It’s true that during the 1920s the flappers brought with them a decade of much shorter dresses coming into vogue, but by the 1930s hemlines became much longer again. There were some fashion and beauty writers loudly proclaiming that leg hair was on a par with leprosy, boldly referring to it as a “curse”. Regardless, it seemed that the majority of women were content to leave well enough alone and not worry about shaving their legs. The fashion mavens just couldn’t stir up the same frenzy this time around as they had with armpit hair.   It seems that most women were a tad more hesitant when it came to shaving and therefore drawing attention to their legs, as opposed to their underarms. After all, the leg’s closest neighbors are the “private” bits. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you were that kind of girl, or give men any kind of wrong impression.

Then World War II erupted, and that iconic pin-up picture of Betty Grable became part of popular culture almost overnight. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the women of America have been shaving their legs ever since. Why, you ask? Because Betty’s legs looked amazing, and to emulate that look, you had to wear a short skirt and sheer stockings. You also had to shave your legs, as nothing killed the effect you were trying to create more than leg hair poking through your silky stockings. (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/04/the-history-of-shaving/)

So it would seem that the very notion of women shaving wasn't always embraced by the more reserved, and it might be said, upstanding women of their time. Women shaving was something that had to be pushed and encouraged, much as the ideals of the feminists today. I don't know where the feminists stood on the matter during those years when women shaving was scandalous and not for the 'good' women but the very act of women shaving does appear to have come about through less than upstanding means and wasn't embraced by the majority of women at the time.

And today we have women, under the guise of feminists, trying to tell women that they shouldn't shave. I can only ask...why?

Presumably because men appreciate a clean shaven leg and armpit. In fact, those very things, it would seem, have always been considered sexy to men. Something that appears to have been both desirable and undesirable when women shaving first took hold.

diet...Again, I have no Scripture to refute this. We can look to the same verses about gluttony to support the concept of dieting but then again...dieting isn't something that would have always been needed, for women or men either one.

It's our modern food and our modern sedentary lifestyles that have created the biggest need to diet. And from having watched my grandmother spend the better part of her life dieting...I can tell you that no diet truly works. Those that diet may loose a few pounds but as soon as they come off, or more often, fall off of their diet...back on go the pounds.

But...why would feminists be opposed to women dieting? Or are they opposed? Maybe they're just saying a woman doesn't have to diet and I've never heard of anyone thinking all women should diet. Women themselves have put the idea into people's minds that dieting is a woman thing and that most, if not all, do it. I, for one, have never been on a diet.

So, is dieting another one of the anti-men movement...er, belief, that is femism where these women that don't really want to be women think in their made up worlds that all men believe that all women should diet?

be fashionable...I simply have to ask, who is it that is pushing so-called fashion on women? My husband could care less about fashion and would probably object if I started trying to dress in what modern America is calling fashion for women. I have a sister that has always valued 'in-style' clothing but as far as I can tell her husband could care less. I don't know exactly what his feelings on her clothing choices are but I do know that he valued sensible clothes when she was expecting their first child over current trendy maternity clothes. He told her it would be better to buy clothes that she could wear after the baby arrived than clothes that were only usable for a few months.

I know there are men, young and old, that appreciate women wearing 'fashionable' clothes but I also know that there are men that could care less and from what I've seen it's usually the women desiring the 'fashionable' clothes to impress the men.

wear pink...Again, who said women have to do this? I get that pink is, in America, a traditionally female color. Pink is for girls, blue is for boys. I tell my husband often that boys should not wear pink because it's a girl color. But I don't know of any rule, written or unwritten, that says girls of any age have to wear pink.

I do know, through seeing news headlines, that the color pink was somehow used in that so-called women's march in Washington. I do not know in what context they used the color, and I don't want to know any more about that sickening display of 'women' so I'm not going to research it to find out, but I do know that women that were against that march said that because of it they would never wear pink again.

So somehow, those that line up on the feminist side, must have supported the color pink in some way during that march.

It does amaze me that the feminists are against certain things one day and promote them another. Much like that so-called women's march...they marched for women, I guess for the right to be women and to be treated...what....better...equal, I don't know because I deliberately tried not to know what took place in that disgrace of a march. But those same women that wanted women to have whatever it was they were protesting are the same women that want men who think they are women to be treated as equal to men. And yet those women promoted female genitals in their protest, something men, no matter how much they may dress, act, or even mutilate their bodies, can never have except in the most superficial, unnatural way.

love men...I get this one...

 sort of.

Well, maybe not.

I understand that feminists are anti-men and therefore they stand in objection to everything that is for men in any way. They are saying here that women don't have to love men. But...what does that mean? Are they saying women can live out their lives single? Ever talked to a woman that has done just that? 99% of them will tell you it's a lonely life. Are they saying that women can be in relationships, even marriages, without loving the man they are with? Society is showing us that a good portion of women are doing just that. They use and discard men like fast food to-go cups. Or are they saying that women can skip men altogether and have sexual relationships with women?

I suspect they are saying, or implying, all of the above. And I suspect that they are saying that a woman shouldn't be 'tied' to a marriage with a man.

Scripture says otherwise to all of that and more. So much more. Women were CREATED...made...designed...to be wives. Their sole reason for being put on this earth is because 'it is not good that man should be alone'. But the feminists don't want to hear that. Because they live in defiance of God. They abhor Scripture. And they do not want to be corrected in any way.

The women that marched in that disgusting example of what they want womanhood to be refused to allow pro-life women to join them. Why? Because being pro-life defies what those women stand for. They are for the rights of each individual woman to the exclusion of all else...even the life of a tiny, unborn baby.

Women were put on this earth for the purpose of being wives. They are here to help men. Scripture says that a woman is to marry, or rather to remarry, if she's widowed under the age of 60. It says that she is to be subject to her husband.

That same television show I saw where the woman was entering a men's race had a scene in it where a man asked that woman if she was married. When she said she was not the man told her that was what her problem was and to 'get a husband'.

That was a fictional t.v. show set in the 1800's when society was different. When men were different. When women were different. But there is so much truth in what that man told that woman. And much to understand in the scene where the woman tried to turn herself into what would pass for a man.

Scripture tells us that women were created to be wives. It is our number one reason for existance. We are on this earth because it wasn't good for men to be alone and so that we can be a helper for him. Now we should take note that God did not create even 2 men when he made Eve. He had made only one man at the time that he said man should not be alone and made Eve to aleviate that aloneness in Adam. Eve was created EXCLUSIVELY for Adam. She was his wife and his alone. She was there to help him, to be his best friend, his help, his everything on earth. It was to Eve that he was to cling to and it was with Eve that he was to go through life with.

That was a specific man and woman in Scripture but they are the original example of marriage. They are what marriage is. Eve was made for Adam. A wife was made for her husband. We were put on earth for a reason. We are not to love men but to love a man, our husband.

I can tell you from experience that a woman is a different kind of person in this world when she is alone than when she has a husband. Women without husband's must face everything alone. And yes, they are alone. No amount of friends or family can give a woman what a husband can.

A couple of years ago a married friend of mine told me that there is lots of security in having a husband. She then kind of stumbled over her explination but I understood what she was saying. This friend is a Christian. She believes that women should have husbands, that girls were born to become women who should become wives. She believes that a family is incomplete without a husband and a dad in the home. And when she said there is much security in having a husband she said so much.

And before anyone things I'm speaking of financial security...I'm not, although that does factor in also. I don't recall the exact numbers but statistics on divorce say that divorced women become much poorer after divorce and divorced men actually rise in income level. There is a financial security in being married. At least there is in a Christian marriage. Scripture lays out the responsibilities of a husband and a wife. I have already given the summary of a wife in Titus 2 and 1 Corinthians 7 but husband's also have a role and a good part of that role is to provide for and protect his family, that would include his wife.

In fact Ephesians 5 says that a husbands role is to love his wife and to sacrifice for her. There is much security in having a man that follows Scripture and tries to be what a man, what a husband, should be. But it goes so far beyond finances that money is just a drop in the bucket of that security.

But an unmarried woman, particularly an unmarried feminist, could never understand that.

You see, they live in defiance of the Lord and do not embrace Scripture. Therefore they would laugh at anyone woman that tried to tell them their is security in marriage. Or that they should not love men...only one man. Their man. Their husband.

Years ago I saw an online conversation between several women where they were discussing something about how the married stay-at-home wives did not understand why the married (or not) working women could not just take off for a day out with their friends, shopping and dining, or even to go on girls only vacations the way the stay at home wives could. I remember quite well that one of the working women made the statement that the stay at home wives didn't mind taking those shopping trips or vacations because they were spending someone else's money, meaning the someone else was their husband.

I have had a relative tell me that my husband's money is not my money. I guess that relative was correct in some ways but the thing is they were wrong in other ways. My husband is the one that earns the income in our family. He is the one that works and makes the money that provides for us. It is, by virtue of him earning it, his money. However he does not consider it to be such. He never says 'my' money, he always says 'our' money.

I am a stay at home wife. I am what those women in that online conversation all those years ago would have spoken against because the money I spend comes to me through my husband. I have also seen some women refer to wives like me as prostitutes because we accept money from our husbands.

They all miss the point.

A man and woman are not individuals once they are married. Marriage makes them one body, two people that go through life together. And Scripture says that women are to stay home and men are to provide for and protect the family.

A woman becomes her husband's responsibility the moment they marry. She is his to care for, his to look after, his to provide for, his to love, his to enjoy. She was CREATED for him.

I belong to my husband.

I can hear the feminists gasping now. The idea of a woman belonging to a man is in direct opposition of everything they stand for. But it is in direct obedience of everything Scripture says.

I do not love men. I love my husband. I understand that men have a role in life and women have a role in life. I happily live in the role I was appointed to by the Lord. And I have great security in my husband. Not because he provides for me financially but because there is security in simply being his wife.

I belong to my husband.

My identity is swallowed up in his. I have a place in this life. I have a role as his wife. I know my husband will do his best to take care of me in all ways but even that isn't all of the security that I have in being married. And that is where my friend stumbled in her explanation and where I understood what she was trying to say even though it's very hard to put into words.

You see...

There is, quite simply, a security in being what I was created to be. There is security in being...

Wife.

And no feminist would ever embrace that. They cannot embrace anything that is light, or of the Lord. They live in darkness. Wallowing in it. Wrapping themselves in it. Grabbing hold of it and flaunting it before all. And to say that women do not have to love men...is in direct opposition to what Scripture tells us women are.

be the media's idea of perfection...and here's the last of what the feminists say a woman doesn't have to be. Which, to me, is another example of something they imagine someone is telling them they should be. For as long as we have had an entertainment industry there has been this idea that perfection, in male or female, in family, in jobs, in homes and possessions, in everything.

I once wrote fictional books and understand well that when you're creating something for entertainment purposes you must give people the ideal of what they wish their lives were. Romance books must make the male character out to be the kind of man their intended audience wants to marry. Bad guys in a book, or movie, must seem like bad guys, they shouldn't come across as the kind of man a woman wants for a husband or the dependable man next door. There is a perfection to be achieved to create the 'dream' world that the audience wants to escape into.

And I'm guessing it's this made up world that the feminists say women don't have to be like.

But overall, this entire list is an anti-man list that the women behind it probably think is what they are against. They want to be whatever it is that men say they can't be. If men want pretty skinny women, with shaved legs in flowing dresses then they want to be ugly women, covered in body hair, wearing men's clothes. But beneath all of that the feminists are living in direct opposition to their Creator. They do not want to be the females they were created to be.