Women are not only given different capacities for grasping and interpreting various aspects of life but are often strongly gifted in other ways as well, men stand to benefit significantly when they are willing to receive counsel from the women in their lives. The tricky part is that it must remain counsel, not command. Few women know how to give this with no strings attached, especially when they see their wisdom ignored and the consequences prove to be less than pleasant.

Not long ago, the “What is a woman?” question backed some otherwise intelligent people into an unexpected corner. With the removal of biology as the most obvious basis for a response, they were left with the strange possibility that womanhood doesn’t really exist at all. But long before people made it all the way into that corner, there have been many other vagaries in our cultural thinking that have converged to deprive us of what is arguably God’s crowning creation: manhood and womanhood.
On a positive note, this phenomenon could easily be understood as a fatal blow to naturalistic evolution, as there is clearly nothing to be gained concerning human flourishing if our sexual natures are obscured or obliterated. On the other hand, it adds strong confirmation to the biblical perspective that human history is the outworking of a cosmic battle wherein the enemy is intentionally conspiring to demolish everything God created—and especially that which he declared to be “very good.”
Therefore, for those of us who have come to the assurance that what God has created is eternally valid and secure, there is even more reason in our day to seek out all he had in mind when he first presented Eve to Adam—and then, by his grace and empowerment, to live as fully as possible within that perfect design.
What Has Been Lost
We don’t actually know much about pre-Fall womanhood. The primary descriptor we are given is that Eve was created to be a “suitable helper” for Adam. This implies that her very nature was to function in close relationship with another person, specifically a man, and of course eventually with their children as well. It also carries the understanding that there was a designated calling given to Adam that would benefit from what she contributed.
Perhaps we learn more from considering what the Fall inverted in her nature. Her impulse to dominate suggests that the original submissive and cooperative character of womanhood was most directly corrupted. But another residue of the Fall evident in all women still today is their deep sense of insecurity. Thus for them, the desire to control isn’t so much driven by pride (as is true for fallen men) as it is by fear. They no longer trust men, and by extension, they no longer trust God.
Womanhood Obscured
While the presentation and roles of womanhood over the centuries have been notably varied, we now live in an era where these seem almost entirely hidden from view. Through the efforts of feminism, which morphed from mild to militant, women have been drawn into an illusion that they are most fully human to the extent that they live out the characteristics and callings of men.
Strangely complicit in this process have been men themselves, for a few possible reasons. First, the fallen nature of manhood includes a strong pull toward laziness (thus the specific sting of Adam’s curse), and ceding their responsibilities to women was easy enough to do. But even for those who would endeavor to retain their position of leadership, a growing swell of cultural pressure to give women what they were demanding (along with the winless prospect of competing with women) has proven to shape the dominant patterns in modern society.
One of the greatest challenges to restoring womanhood in its true expression is the reality that the women who are most visible and influential are often the ones most ensnared in the deceptions. Young girls are taught, both directly and by example, that they must take and retain control of their lives in every way possible. From one angle, this includes the necessity for a profitable career that can ensure their independence. More subtly, they are encouraged to use their physical and mental female capacities to manipulate and dominate the men in their lives.
Read More
Related Posts:

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer’s sexual orientation. Smith said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.

The Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.
In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer’s sexual orientation.
Smith said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.
The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, drew national attention as it featured competing interests of the First Amendment right to free speech and non-discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
The law, known as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), prohibits businesses providing sales or services to the publics from denying services to someone based on their identity. Supporters of CADA claim that the law is necessary to keep businesses from discriminating.
Smith has maintained throughout the case that she has no problem working with the LGBTQ community, just not for gay weddings.
Read More
Related Posts:

How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.—variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, etc.
Much ink has been spilt—or, perhaps, many keys have been struck—over the recent release of emails from the National Partnership going back almost a decade. In usual internet fashion, there has been as much clutching at pearls as there has been gentle (or not so gentle) nudges to move along because there is nothing here to see. I suppose with these emails having been leaked, anyone curious is able to decide for themselves.
My concern in this particular article is not so much if the emails contain nefarious plots, but rather the oft repeated rejoinder that these emails are confidential, and that the real nefarious deed was their illicit release to the public. This is not a small accusation—keeping confidence is a serious matter.
It is not very far into the emails that a header is added indicating the desire of the moderator of the email group that all those who receive the email keep it confidential. Not long after that, the moderator emails the group in response to a leak of emails to a presbyter outside the group. In that email, he declares his understanding of the confidential nature of the group. In particular, he asserts that confidentiality exists because of the private (i.e., non-public) nature of the conversation the emails contain.
This assertion (both specifically in that particular response and more generally as the claim is being bandied about) raises a number of questions. How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? If the leader of a group indicates that it was his intention for the group to have a layer of confidentiality, does that declared intention, by itself, establish confidentiality? Would that confidentiality be retroactive according to the originator’s desire, or would it only establish confidentiality on an ongoing basis? What if members of that thing remain after the leader has indicated his intention? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?
Much in line with caveat emptor, I would say “let the one who seeks to establish confidentiality beware.” Confidentiality requires the consent of both—indeed, all—parties. Without that consent, statements of confidentiality are both hollow and unsupported—regardless of what statements are made in the actual emails.
It does not appear that the apparent initiator and the primary communicator did have consent from all parties that this was, in fact, a confidential group. Take the repeated reminders of the authors desire for confidentiality. If membership in the email group was conditioned upon confidentiality—that is, if a prospective member had to explicitly agree to confidentiality to be part of the group—then the emails would not indicate the authors desire for the group to be confidential. Rather, the emails would remind the members of what they had agreed to in joining the group.
Read More