The Big Lie

The Feminists build their case on the Big Lie. The Big Lie says that throughout history men were always the oppressive slobs who daily beat their wives and children. The Big Lie says men were the walking “fearful,” afraid to be kind to their wives and afraid to let go of power.

The Feminists are only partly right! That’s right, partly right! In all ungodly cultures, women were treated like cattle. Many pagan religions teach women have no souls. And in many instances, brutish men in Christendom also mistreated their wives. Notice, I said “Christendom”! That’s not genuine biblical Christianity! “Where sin abounds, children and wives are harmed!”

But the Feminists are masters at rewriting history. Yet they are far more ignorant of true history than they would dare like to admit. Volume after volume of objective history (even that which is not written from a Christian perspective) shows a different world.

In the late Middle Ages women were far better cared for than cited by the Feminists. For example, the secular book Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages, Frances, Joseph Gies, (Harper, New York, 1987) reads:

Widows were given half or full provisions of their husband’s estate after his death. (The children were sometimes given the other half.) This includes monies, land and houses. Children were also explicitly cared for in the father’s wills, with guardianship entrusted to the widow, p. 246.

Men were not encouraged to have mistresses, though promiscuity is especially a male sin.^[1] The saying was “it is better for a man to attach himself to a definite woman than to fly from one to another like a bee among the flowers,” p. 183.

In the case of adultery, men were charged equally with women, p. 172

Paintings coming down from the Middle Ages show housewives chasing their husbands with brooms. Apparently, a woman felt “safe” to “let him have it” and were not afraid of getting a beating. It may not have been such a cruel society on women as we were told by the Feminists. Maybe the cruelty was really against men!

1.) That is a debatable and illogical assumption, although it is not surprising that many spout that false impression created by feminists. After all, it provided the motivation to study primarily only promiscuity by men. First of all, common sense tells us that for any man who is promiscuous with a woman, there is also that woman who is promiscuous or adulterous with that man. The advent of DNA analysis threw an entirely different light on the assumption. In general and on average, in ostensibly stable monogamous marriages in all developed nations, one out of every five children is not the the biological offspring of the putative father. (See paternity)

The frequency of multiple paternity is higher for unmarried mothers. Single mothers often have a different father for each of their children.

Of course, the proportion of different genetic paternal origin of their children only identifies the lower limit of the range of female promiscuity.