Quoting Quiverfull: Return to Biblical Doctrine

Quoting Quiverfull: Return to Biblical Doctrine February 18, 2013

by R.J. Rushdooney at Ladies Against Feminism

The tragedy of the women’s rights movement was that, although it had serious wrongs to correct, it added to the problem, and here the resistance of man was in as large a measure responsible. Instead of restoring women to their rightful place of authority beside man, women’s rights became feminism: it put women in competition with men. It led to the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, to the unhappiness of both. Not surprisingly, in March 1969, Paris couturier Pierre Cardin took a logical step in his menswear collection show: “the first garment displayed was a sleeveless jumper designed to be worn over high vinyl boots. In other words, a dress.” [6]

Thus, the Age of Reason brought in an irrational supremacy for men and has led to the war of the sexes. As a result, the laws today work, not to establish godly order, but to favor one sex or another. The laws of Texas reflect the older discrimination against women; the laws of some states (such as California) show a discrimination in favor of women.

To return to the Biblical doctrine, a wife is her husband’s help-meet. Since Eve was created from Adam and is Adam’s reflected image of God, she was of Adam and an image of Adam as well, his “counterpart….” The Biblical doctrine shows us the wife as the competent manager who is able to take over all business affairs if needed, so that her husband can assume public office as a civil magistrate; in the words of Proverbs 31:10-31, he can sit “in the gates,” that is, preside as a ruler or judge.

Comments open below

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • HRyan

    What nonsense. Rushdooney wouldn’t know the Age of Reason if it came up and bit him.

  • Persephone

    True, but he has a point. Prior to that period, women were considered somewhat equal in the a counterpart/somewhat complementarian way. Women were expected to manage the home, and often worked in family businesses. Women were considered to have skills of their own, different from men’s, but also some of them the same. The general goal was that of the preservation and advancement of the family, and women were an intrinsic part. Also, the Catholic church had absorbed and ignored much of the Pagan religions it encountered, and allowed a certain freedom to its members, as long as they showed up for mass, confessed, and contributed money. The confessional allowed the absolution of sins, with the person confessing having gained some safety from the condemnation of their neighbors.

    The rise of Protestanism changed the general view of women. This view shifted them from intrinsic part of life to necessary evil. Martin Luther and other leaders railed against women and blamed them for all ills, as women were the cause of the fall of man. There was no room for any sin. Extremism arose, and it was under Protestantism that witchcraft trials expanded exponentially, and the hanging and burning of witches became commonplace in Protestant countries. There was no confessional to provide proof of the forgiveness of sins, so worshippers had to continuously pray and hope that they had been forgiven, and their every action was reviewed.

    That said, the rest of the quote is ridiculous. I can verify that the laws of California do not favor women over men.

  • Saraquill

    I’m not sure how a sleeveless dress over boots has anything to do with the rest of the quote.

  • Sal

    Because MEN are being FEMINIZED by DRESSES, y’know? And that’s BAD.

    Yeah. For it to work you sort of have to subscribe to some very gender-essentialist beliefs, and worry about “the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, to the unhappiness of both”. Which is, of course, silly. Some men are happier to be ‘feminized’, while some prefer to be manly men doing manly things manfully. Similarly, some women are traditionally feminine, and some are traditionally masculine. What if we just dropped all the restricting gender-labeling and went with whatever we’re good at?

  • Tori

    I don’t know you, but just for the record, I like you! 😉