Quoting Quiverfull: The Weaker Sex?

Quoting Quiverfull: The Weaker Sex? March 4, 2013

by Wesley Strackbein of Vision Forum “Dead Women in Combat: Does Anyone Care? A Call For Americans to Cherish the Weaker Sex” – February 18, 2013

Our nation’s abandonment of biblical principles has led women to be devalued rather than cherished. As opposed to reacting with shame and outrage at the prospect of women facing the horrors of frontline combat, as Adomnán did 1,300 years ago, the majority of Americans are celebrating the placement of our sisters and daughters in the heat of battle as a triumph of women’s rights. Far from being “enlightened” concerning warfare, twentieth-first century America has become a nation of barbarians.

President Obama’s words — made on the day his administration announced that hundreds of thousands of combat roles would be opened for women — reflect the attitude of much of our nation’s populous: “Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.”[7]

In last week’s State of the Union address, the President took the occasion to trumpet this policy change to an estimated 33.5 million viewers, stating that “our sisters and daughters . . . are ready for combat.”[8]

What should be sounding instead is a lament. The weeping prophet Jeremiah offers mournful words fit for the occasion: “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water for the destruction of the daughter of my people. Mine eye trickleth down, and ceaseth not, without any intermission . . .” (Lamentations 3:48-49).

While all life is precious in God’s sight, we have erred in concluding that the death of G.I. Jane in combat is no more terrible than the death of G.I. Joe. Women should not be placed in harm’s way to defend our nation, and rather than celebrate what should be mourned, we should cry out to God to humble our hearts in repentance.

Only then will the scales be lifted from our eyes and our hearts be made tender to protect the weaker sex.

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.

  • Saraquill

    Considering how many QFers believe that pushing out many children through a narrow passage of the body is a virtue, especially when done with minimal medical attention, I really want to know why this writer believes women are weak.

  • Betty Crux

    As a skilled and experience marksman, this made me chuckle a little. It’s so sad it’s not worth getting upset or offended over.

  • Tori

    Hmmm, let me think.. weaker… would that be my firearms training, 15 years of martial arts study, or long history of beating the living crap out of men who threaten me (or my female friends) making me “weaker”?

  • Sarah Morehouse

    I may not have the upper body strength of a man, but unless combat consists of sword fighting and wrestling, that shouldn’t be too much of an issue. And we are nowhere near the population bottleneck where we’d need to worry about the loss of potential child-bearers. A woman’s life is not more valuable than a man’s! Not that they actually believe it is. They just don’t want women thinking they can leave the home and fill any role other than obedient daughter and wife, martyred mother.

  • What she seems to have failed to understand is that this didn’t actually change anything, Women have been in the front lines of combat since we’ve invaded Afghanistan– except there was no military funding to effectively protect these women. Unlike men, who were given body armor and combat training, women were in combat situations without either of these things– unless they bought their own body armor with their own money and pursued combat training– on their own time. The only thing that changed is that suddenly these women will be protected.

    They are also completely ignoring that the women who serve in the armed forces are volunteering for service, just like men. There’s no draft. These women are in the military because they *want* to be. It’s their choice, and freedom and equality mean that women should be allowed to pursue every avenue that men can, including the ability to fight for their country, if that’s what they want to do.

  • Jenny Islander

    Women have always fought and died in wars. We just didn’t get the parades and the songs and the respect. We were the footnotes, the collateral damage of the city wall being breached, the reason for the men to be angry and go to war again.

    If officially acknowledging women soldiers on the front lines makes war seem less noble . . . good.

  • Betty Crux

    Boom. Well-said. +1

  • Persephone

    And women were the last line of defense. The men were off on the actual battlelines, so women had to defend their homes, children, themselves.