In Genesis 3, Eve is told: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you". Notice that the word used here is "rule" – not "oppress", "beat into submission", or "boss around".
Does it mean her husband gets the better deal? No. Ruling means the husband is responsible for the wife, her well-being and their family. The one who rules is supposed to be wise, responsible, to take care of those who submit to him. I'll say more – with his kind and loving guidance, he is a servant of those who are under his rule. He is a protector.
Recently, I had a discussion on this subject and more, with a young man who came across my blog.
"Women against feminism?" – He sneered. – "Isn't this like… black people against Martin Luther King?"
Oh, I certainly won't start explaining right now all the reasons why I'm opposed to feminism. But isn't it amazing how deeply ingrained is the thought that feminism is good for women? Say you're against feminism, and it will be concluded you're against women's rights, enlightenment and progress. Say a family should submit to an authority, and you're an oppressed slave, stuck somewhere in the Middle Ages. Say anything that rips a hole in the smooth structure of egalitarianism, and you're the enemy.
One thing feminism deprived us of is masculine leadership.
Here's a comment I received from an anonymous commenter:
What I've noticed over the years is that the men I've known have embraced the idea that they don't have to be solely responsible for breadwinning and rather like it. Some I've known didn't want to marry a woman who expected them to provide all the financial support. I just wonder whether this is a trend in male thinking that needs to be taken into account in your deliberations on the future. Men seem to want to be liberated from traditional roles too.
Unfortunately, there's a grain of truth in this statement – there are many men who are not willing anymore to embrace their God-given role of providers and protectors of their families. Make no mistake, however. Men are called to take responsibility, lead, and provide for their wives. This is the duty of men – just as it's the duty of women to be helpmeets. Thinking the husband should provide and protect is not some off-the-rocker expectation. Why does it happen, then, that some men declare they just aren't up to this task anymore?
Indeed, why should men take seriously their role of being providers and protectors of their families, if the feminist movement did everything possible to convince men that this role is outdated and isn't needed anymore?
By rejecting masculine authority, women also gave up on protection of men. What did this give us? A society of women who try very hard to show they can be masculine and men who are not ready to take up the responsibility of leadership – or if they were, they'd be labeled as 'patriarchal' and 'sexist'.
Women are afraid to trust men. "But what if my husband is wrong?" – We ask. – "What if I know for sure my decision is better?!" … I'd like to stress that right now I'm not discussing a situation when a husband asks his wife to go against God's word. I'm talking about financial decisions and family matters.
Ultimately, it all boils down to whether you believe in God's word or not. Women were created to be helpmeets and obey their husbands without any conditions. God didn't say, "Obey your husband if he's smarter than you" or "obey your husband if that's what works for you at the moment".
'Obedience' is not a curse. Neither is 'submission' or 'authority'. These are gifts from God, part of His beautiful plan for both sexes. Why forsake it in the name of egalitarianism? Why not dare to trust Him and live according to His instruction?