Hank MartinThe other evening while at dinner, thanks to boisterous voices, I could not help but overhear the adjacent table full of twenty-something women, bemoaning how difficult it is today to find good men. As they shared their terrible experiences, I could not help but to remember the Bonnie Tyler song from the mid-eighties, lamenting the need for a hero. Where ever those good men went, it is doubtless that every young woman at the table, can probably thank their mothers and grand-mothers for their conspicuous absence. For the women of previous generations failed to remember one very important lesson taught in Science 101: to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

These young women, though they likely were unaware of its name, we lamenting the void of chivalry in men today. Like it or not, fair or not, the simple fact is chivalry and feminism are mutually exclusive. For most men, the attractiveness of chivalry requires a silent  understanding, a silent pact.  Men are chivalrous to those women they observe through their actions, speech and behavior, to be worthy of the act of chivalrous sacrifice. Chivalry is a knighthood concept conceived by Europeans during the Middle Ages, and sustained onward through the rest of western civilization until relatively recently, when the advent of the Feminist Movement was energized in the late 60’s. Classically, men have judged worthy, those women who were quite chaste, pure of reputation, monogamously loyal and delicate of manners. That is the complete antithesis of the manner of comportment and displayed attitudes of the majority of today’s American female population—think “Girls Gone Wild” or the Kardashians.  The die has been cast, now all women are seemingly taking their cues from the herd. Inherent in chivalry, is a subconscious awareness that women, in regards to the propagation of humanity,  are more important than men. Think Titanic—women and children first.  There was an unspoken accord that both sides will hold up their own end of the bargain. When a man holds open a door for a woman, or carries her heavy bags, he does so under the guise of an unspoken agreement between himself and all of womankind. He undertakes her relative weakness, modesty and compliance, and she accepts his strength and leadership. Absent the existence of these basic assumptions, the motivation for chivalry or a desire to grant it, becomes, as we now witness daily, totally absent.

So where did it all go wrong? Where everything else did regarding sin and the fall of man. The first recorded act of disobedience: in the garden. The conflict that we see ripping apart our nation, indeed, most of the rest of the world, stems from Eve, and that first act of disobedience.

God’s perfect plan for man, was to live in harmony, total harmony. Mankind with the animals, the flora and the fauna, all the things today’s liberals get all warm and gushy over. Paramount to all, the relationship between a man and his wife. However, there was that small issue of the forbidden tree and the fruit not to be consumed. Now, here we are, some six millenniums later, still tackling and contending with the consequences of that bite. In her sin Eve appropriated the lead. She proceeded individually. She rejected her husband’s authority. She was departing to go out on her own and act on her own behalf. She seized the lead and thereby piloted the man into sin, usurping his role, acting independently of him in the temptation, overturning the divine order. She should have submitted to him, sought his counsel, let him be the leader. Through that action of taking control, she forever forfeited it, just as by seeking the delight of the forbidden fruit, she lost delight. She wanted to take the lead and she lost it for good. The legacy of this is conflict with her husband commenced there, and the battle between the sexes has continued ever more.

The subordination of women was always God’s plan but in a lovely and enjoyable harmony of perfect fulfillment of mutual wills delighting in God and in each other. This has been taken away and the gracious subordination that was there, the wonderful ruling partnership that was there was displaced, removed. That chasm was suddenly opened, and we see displayed throughout all history, women having been degraded. That was true in Jewish society. The Pharisees used to get up every morning and pray, “I thank God that I’m not a Gentile or a woman.” So there is no denying it, men have been very active in degrading women, and this comes from the curse. Therefore women have known all kinds of misery throughout human history. As much as she resisted by virtue of being the weaker vessel, she is subject to the man. It became sadly obvious, he was no longer a perfect loving man. Suddenly, fallen Adam is no longer the spiritually pure and kind man as unfallen Adam was. No doubt, if Eve had been fully informed by the serpent, and made aware of what she was going to have to deal with from Adam, she never would have taken that fruit in the first place. Man is now changed, transformed by sin, into a selfish and dominating monarch. One of the many deaths induced by Satan’s tempting lies, bringing the chaos we now have.

Feminism is, at its core, a representation of an ideology of will to power, constructed with chains forged in the fires of hell. It’s primary purpose deals less with the idea of equality, and more with the embellishment of women at the expenditure of men, achieved, as all evil is, by whatever means may be necessary. Upon the act of disobedience, God issued a curse. He said it plainly, “Your desire shall be for your husband.” Despite the immediate thought that this was in a sexual sense, it is simply not in keeping with the punishments of a curse. Adam and Eve were already enjoying a physical union, so in no manner of reasoning, could this be considered a punishment. No. This is not God cursing them by having the woman desire a physical relationship with her husband. She has always desired that in a perfectly loving way. No, now her desire is going to be something destructive, something that exposes estrangement and alienation. Enmity was put between the serpent and the woman. Enmity was put between the man and the ground. Consequently, enmity was put between the wife and her husband. She can no longer do what she wishes. She is not going to live her own life totally independent, as the Feminist Movement demands, because her husband rules over her. Whatever she wishes, whatever she desires is subject to his will. She will not always get what she wants. She won’t always have what she desires. She’s going to have to bear the sorrow of unfulfillment. Is this not the resounding chorus from most in the Feminist Movement? “I am woman, hear me roar!” Well, that’s what they’re roaring about. Now we see why.

The specificity of the language is important, and summarizes the conflict. “Your desire shall be for your husband.” Desire comes from an Arabic root word, meaning to seek control. Therefore the passage could be read as, “You shall seek control over your husband, you will desire to exert your will,” that is a sign of the curse, “you will desire to take charge, to be in control, to master.” That desire shows up in various women in various ways. In some of them it’s a quiet, silent desire that smolders, with others it is a shouting desire that isn’t much of a secret to anybody. It is also easily observed that the more godless women are, most likely, the more openly hostile they are toward men. Sometimes that hostility takes the attitude of coldness, indifference and plain apathy. The inability to achieve what she wants, eventually causes her to become totally indifferent and apathetic toward the man.

From this maelstrom comes the origins that supply the animating force of the Feminist Movement. The continual desire of seeking to have one’s own way, to seize control. This is nothing new. There have always been, throughout history, Feminist Movements. The Apostle Paul was no doubt a spectator to the same kind of insanity we have today. Women were shaving their heads and going around bare chested with spears in their hands and trying to prove that they could do everything men did. There has continuously been that kind of movement in history. Why? Because of the curse. Man has to recognize and be aware of the fact, that his wife wants to control him, and there lies the crux of the issue. As long as feminism continues to serve as an active force in modern society, continuing to sabotage the minds of significant numbers of young women, (and by collateral damage, young men), chivalry will remain an elusive characteristic among most young men. Not only do the two ideologies possess no commonality, they are conspicuously antagonistic, and the collateral damage is now abundantly self-evident all about us.

With the advent of social media and the continual texting, tweeting, etc., that today’s generation is so profoundly fond of, (too much work if you ask me), we see movements away from typical dating, romance, and courtship. The act of instantaneous transmission from male to male, regarding what girl does what, etc., also contributes mightily to the death of chivalry, (but fertilizes and waters the garden of the “hook up” mentality). Such shared information successfully reveals a woman’s true nature, in all of its glorious grit and gristle. No man in his right mind is going to concern himself with such pleasantries as to open doors for a woman he now knows will divorce him in a hot New York minute, stripping him of his dignity (and finances), so as to have the opportunity for a fling with some loser who cannot hold down a job, but looks so amazingly attractive. Nor is it reasonable to anticipate him carrying bags for a woman who changes men as often as she does shoes, or that he will remotely consider holding a cab for a random girl who is highly likely to be the type who blogs personal details about her love life on the internet. Many men are cognizant of the fact that far too many women are sexually enticed by an abundance of those seemingly appropriate chronological males, who are, unfortunately inhabited by adolescent boys, forever stunted in development; or simply by thick wallets, and this is more than enough to convince a normally kind and generous man, that pulling out chairs, carrying bags, and holding doors is a waste of his time and energy.

Yet another unintended consequence of the Feminist Movement finds many men currently unmotivated and single. Having no family to support, a man of modest appetites does not need a high-powered career, and now we see men becoming socially reclusive, happily living with an income near the poverty level, pretending to be a hero on X-Box and having chosen to fulfill his physical needs with realistically unobtainable sexual fantasies, as he relentlessly pursues pornography. Thereby reducing an already small pool of available men.

Another significant element that the Feminist Movement totally ignores is the necessity for a man to hold down a job. Sure, men work because they must, if they want to eat, and if they like having money. And yes, there is a certain amount of recognized prestige that accompanies a job. However, what has typically and historically been the primary motivation for men, throughout time, to voluntarily put in the long hours of labor that most all jobs have required? All married men, or soon to be married men, worked hard to establish a foundation, a future, in order that they may provide for their wives and anticipated children. Where does that leave the man who chooses more and more, to not have a family? Statistics show this is a growing trend and is contributing to the lack of replacement populations in many western countries. If a man who does not have a family, and is not in pursuit of all of the technological toys and vehicles and such, if he simply does not need or desire nice things; is he going to pursue a high stress career just because he can? Probably not. While women are exercising their supposed freedom, including within the workplace, many men are dropping back or dropping out. They’ve long learned the lesson that many of today’s women certainly will at some point. That the career is a means to an end, and not the end in itself. The most significant blind spot in the Feminist Movement, is the failure to remember the aforementioned scientific rule regarding every action.

Feminism has wrongly made the assumption that women alone are changing the game. They forget that men have far more experience at improvising, adapting, and overcoming. Many of today’s women have believed a lie similar to the one told to Eve in the beginning, that she could have it all. The expectation being fed to today’s women is that they may  be sexually promiscuous during their 20s simultaneously  commencing  and establishing their power career, find and marry the perfect man in their mid -30s, and lastly, set about the business of establishing a family. Sadly, the statistical abstracts repeatedly fail to support that fairy tale, indeed, they are resplendent with a tragically different story. One that is exacting a price from all of us and growing an ever larger government in the process.

This chaos and rebellion against the design of God contains other factors presenting far reaching implications, ones that on the surface may appear to be unconnected, but exist nonetheless. Drug advertisements in the media are telling. While they often times appear almost as a skit from SNL, they do tell a story. Take for instance the wide spread promotion of testosterone, Viagra and Cialis. Since when did men need all of this additional chemical assistance? It was either the best kept secret in our fathers’ and grand-fathers’ day, or, it was simply not an issue. Presently, we now observe in our culture, the need for chemical supplements, to bolster maleness. Why? Environmental and food impurities could possibly play a role, but there is another consideration as well. Research now shows that leadership and success create higher levels of testosterone in men and higher levels of testosterone create more assertive behavior, which also increases male stamina and sexuality. Researchers have recorded, that when a man is honored by his wife as the head of the home, his testosterone levels will increase, his confidence and leadership abilities will be enhanced, and his romantic desire for his submitted wife increases. According to the Preventative Medicine Clinic of Monterey in California:

“Testosterone may be the most important health factor in the male body. Testosterone really separates the men from the boys. When naturally abundant, testosterone is at the core of energy, stamina and sexuality. When it is deficient it is at the core of fatigue, aging and disease.”

Problems caused by testosterone deficiencies are many, but it begs the consideration of the basic inquiry; does the need for chemicals stem from the result from the psychogenic aspects of low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and lack of emotional fulfillment associated with poor partner communication and conflict in relationships? Normal levels of hormones, especially testosterone are directly affected by a wife’s treatment of her husband. It is merely the element of design, and affected by the curse. A woman was created to be a help mate for her husband and to cheerfully accept his leadership. Despite all of the rhetoric claiming otherwise, women long for loving men. They long for romance, yet it continues to elude them. This is readily apparent in the conversation I overheard and is demonstrated by the female population’s strong desire for romance novels, soap operas, and movies like “Fifty-Shades of Grey”. Could the “liberated” female be contributing to the destruction of the very thing she seeks? One cannot help but to wonder.

In the mythical quest for alleged equality, we’ve feminized and softened male spaces, by literally, through government funded programs, forcing women to invade them and insisting that men behave more like women to accommodate them. Not one place has been allowed to escape the politically correct carnage. Sports and schools such as VMI—whose history and heritage was built upon the exclusivity of male scholars—have been compromised, Organizations like the Boys Scouts, and now, the last bastion that allowed men to simply be men, our military, have befallen to the same sword. Those places where it was safe for a man to be masculine have effectively been eradicated. This principle is predicated upon the concept that this promotes equality. The element lost in all of the emotionally satisfying warm fuzziness is that this notion of equality originates from a fallacious reasoning. Why? Due simply to the fact that equality is an inherently feminine value, the totality of the idea of this kind of equality between men and women is a fantasy and a myth. Why? Because healthy men rarely value equality, healthy men, by design, require aggressive competition for power and status. The feminine concepts of “equality” have only the practical effect of subordinating men. Our culture today has clearly privileged female values over male values, and the result is that men are increasingly showing signs of becoming effeminate, or they are holed up in their man caves with beer, games and porn. As stated prior, this too serves as a detriment to women.

Feminism has succeeded remarkably in its quest to make men feel denigrated, unnecessary, and basically a waste of space. As our economy continues to spiral downward, the opportunities for men to  find jobs and successfully fulfill their God-ordained role as protector and provider diminish. And while simultaneously being frowned upon for the sin of being male, men have sadly begun to believe the rhetoric. They have been made to believe that there is no longer any point to having a high powered career, or to even work. In yet another equal and opposite reaction, the workplace will continue to do as it has done since 2008. It will seek to continue to replace men with women in those careers, as there is now a shortage of men to pursue those positions.

By removing a man’s connection and feelings of obligation to society—given him through the God-ordained patriarchy of family—and by failing to meet the basic God given need for respect, priority and the esteem issues of being both desired and needed, men in large numbers have struck upon the idea that they too have been freed. Freed from the desire to fulfill careers. Freed from the need to protect, to sacrifice for a wife and family, thus propelling society forward.  Freed to be forever trapped in adolescence; and we see this today.

One day soon perhaps, women will awaken from the siren song of the Feminist Movement, and become cognizant of the tremendous trade-off, as they continue struggle with the burden that once belonged to men. God alone knows how many generations it will take to appreciate this lesson, and He alone knows the multitude of lives that will be decimated in the process, as we tragically learn the fate of all the good men and where they have gone. Thanks to the lies of feminism, they were all neutered.

Previous articleAnd the children shall lead (or destroy): How we’ve fostered our own demise
Next articleThe Blue Spade Sings: The Prius Patrol
HANK MARTIN is an Albemarle native, a graduate of Albemarle High School and PVCC majoring in Business Management. He has an extensive history of participating in the local Cub and Boy Scout Programs, both as a Scout and later as Scout Master, as well as having been a member of the Monticello Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol. He has also served as a leader in church youth character building programs, such as AWANA's and the Royal Ambassadors. He is an avid student of both Biblical and world history as well as Biblical prophecy. He participated in the adoption of the school anti-bullying legislation sponsored by delegate Rob Bell. In 2006, in response to proposed ordinances by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors regarding property rights, he founded and chaired Forever Albemarle, a personal property rights group. He resides in Albemarle County with his wife, and one of their two sons, the other now a resident out of state.


  1. Apparently strong women are to blame for weak men.

    Inherent in chivalry, is a subconscious awareness that women, in regards to the propagation of humanity, are more important than men.

    Actually it still takes one male and one female.

    When a man holds open a door for a woman, or carries her heavy bags, he does so under the guise of an unspoken agreement between himself and all of womankind. He undertakes her relative weakness, modesty and compliance, and she accepts his strength and leadership. Absent the existence of these basic assumptions, the motivation for chivalry or a desire to grant it, becomes, as we now witness daily, totally absent.

    “But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8. God loves everyone, saint or sinner. He loves us because his nature is love, not because we ‘re loveable. In the same way, because we are all (male and female) called to be imitators of Christ (Ephesians 5:1), the truly masculine way is to open doors for a woman not out of chivalry (i.e. because she has shown herself worthy of special honor), but out of simple courtesy (because we recognize her inherent worth before God, which does not depend on how she acts).

    Women aren’t too weak to open doors for themselves. Nor do they need to be led by men. Good leadership is wisely applied intelligence. To say that women need male leadership is to say they’re inherently less intelligent and less wise than men. A prejudice is a presumption easily disproved by a simple acquaintance with the facts. Your particular prejudice is rightly referred to as sexism.

    She seized the lead and thereby piloted the man into sin

    You make it sound like she seized his will. It’s not possible to lead someone unless they’re willing to be led. That makes Adam and Eve equally culpable.

    Feminism is, at its core, a representation of an ideology of will to power, constructed with chains forged in the fires of hell.

    The hell-forged wish, for example, to not literally be a man’s property her entire life long.

    Upon the act of disobedience, God issued a curse. He said it plainly, “Your desire shall be for your husband.”

    This is the lynchpin of your argument for male presominance, but it isn’t supported by the plain sense of the words themselves. God said “shall be,” not “should be” or “you must.” In other words, he didn’t issue a curse, he made a prediction. He told them what would happen as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin.

    You might spend some time thinking about your need to be superior rather than equal. That’s what’s really weak.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here