It was one year ago this
month, I sat in a hotel room in Denver before a major book seller's convention.
I was preparing for a series of interviews slated that day for the pre-release
of MuscleHead Revolution. As I was getting ready Fox News Channel's Gretchen
Carlson came on the screen to explain how science had developed the possibility
of a world without men. She promised that after the break Dr. Manny Alvarez
would explain how researchers had discovered a way to create sperm like cells
from another female that would successfully eliminate the need for male
participation in the conception of children. She ended her tease, "imagine a
world without men!"
U.S. actress Jane Fonda (R)
waits to speak at a campaign rally for the Feminist Initiative party, as
party spokesperson Gurdrun Schyman addresses supporters in Stockholm
September 15, 2006. Sweden's general election will take place on Sunday.
REUTERS/Bob Strong (SWEDEN)
I fell into a chair
nearby and verbally asked, "Why would we want to?"
God intended fathers to
play a particularly important role in the lives of their families. It is the
traditional understanding of that role that modern feminists are fearful of.
God intended a father to
perform two primary functions in his responsibilities for his family: provision
and protection.
It is a truly manly
attribute to go out and toil, to work, to provide for the sustaining means that
a family is dependent upon to survive. This is not a reflection upon mothers who
also have skills and who choose to work. It is no reflection upon their
abilities to contribute to the prosperity of the home in general. But it is
incumbent for clarity's sake to understand that the father was designed to do
this. God made men physically stronger - and for many generations the need for
stronger bodies with larger muscles, and thicker bones was for the express
purpose of hard labor. Because men can not become pregnant and were not designed
by their maker to carry unborn children within them it also seems logical that
God intended them to be the steady partner of the home to work the non-stop
calendar. As technology has changed the means by which provision is earned has
also changed, but the designed intention of fathers has not.
It is a moral and right
thing for a man in his truest essence to commit himself to being the
breadwinning provider for his home. Any man who seeks the hand of a woman in
marriage who is not prepared for this responsibility should not be granted that
honor. Because he is not yet truly a man. And women do themselves a tremendous
disservice when they are willing to tie themselves down to such a slacker.
God also designed that
same physical strength in a man for the purpose of protecting one's family. In
more crude times such protection was very physical and the threats were very
real. Beastly predators both man and animal caused the father to take on the
necessary skepticism, awareness, and wisdom that would serve as a bulwark,
literally shielding his family from the horrors that awaited. With today's
technology protecting one's family is easier, but no less important. Fathers can
and should take all precaution necessary to know who their children are spending
time with - online and in person, what curriculum the local school board is
planning on teaching, and even as a general rule of thumb - something as simple
as being the one to answer the door at night when an unannounced guests rings
the bell.
There was a time when
etiquette was actually developed from the idea of serving as one's shield. For
instance it is always proper for the man to walk on the side of the woman where
the greatest possibility of danger may approach. Thus when parading down a
street-side walk the man should walk closest to traffic - in the event that a
car was to jump the curb the man would thus absorb the blow and possibly save
the woman's life.
Opening doors, allowing
women to proceed in front of them, assisting a woman up a flight of stairs,
across a busy street, or escorting them to their side of an automobile are also
simple symbolic gestures of manly protection.
Feminists will argue that
all of this shows a sign of inequality and lack of respect for mothers and
daughters. They couldn't be more wrong. Such actions show a deeply humble
respect and an expression of sacrifice for someone deeply loved and appreciated.
But there is another
reason modern feminists reject a strong father today. It is rebellion against
God - the ultimate father.
The God who made us was
the first to model these aspects of provision and protection. He created this
planet with the resources to keep us alive, sustained, and joyous. He created us
with minds, free will, and the ability to choose in order to make wise
decisions. And just like a father who loves his daughter - even when she rebels
and rejects him - and sometimes returns later to apologize; God provides what we
have needed - even if we reject Him.
He has also gone to great
lengths to protect us from things that will harm us. In all the history of the
world His wisdom and instruction still stands as the greatest protection of all.
So impacting it has been in fact that every legal system on the planet has
accepted his basic ideas - the Ten Commandments - as the basis for their moral,
legal, and ethical codes.
Feminists wish to subvert
God's plan, order, and instruction in order to create a world that they see as
the ultimate reality. A reality that is made in their own image. Scripture
refers to that as idolatry.
Thusly feminists have
gone to great lengths to show fathers as bumbling idiot boobs in pop culture.
Some have gone to great lengths to insist that fathers are completely
unnecessary to the future of this world. Some scientists have gone so far as to
now attempt to eliminate the need for men all together.
Which is too bad!
Because good men, strong
fathers especially - want to protect and provide those they love.
And who in their right
mind would argue for anything less?
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The
MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is
now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He
blogs at
www.muscleheadrevolution.com.