Feminists cower in fear at the picture, the symbol, and the meaning of a strong father today. Actually atheists, Marxists, leftists, and liberals all do as well but with feminists it’s a particularly pronounced phenomenon. What a strong father represents to this time, life, and world has never been more underestimated and modern feminists have taken it upon themselves to attempt to eliminate the need for them all together.
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!"
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?