A Vote Against Order: Why Women Were Not Meant to Govern, Or Vote


“As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
Isaiah 3:12

The ballot box has become an altar of modern idolatry. At it, masses gather not to enthrone Christ, but to legitimize rebellion. Democracy, untethered from righteousness, becomes mob rule. And when the mob is led by emotions rather than eternal truth, when the passions of women, ungoverned by male headship, flood the halls of power, we should not be surprised when order collapses and nations descend into chaos.

This is not a minor matter. This is not political theory. This is about authority, order, and the covenantal structure of God’s creation.

I. Biblical Authority and the Principle of Headship

From the beginning, God established a chain of command. Man was made first, then woman (1 Timothy 2:13). Adam was created to lead, govern, and guard. Eve was created as a helper, under his direction. She was not tasked with dominion directly—but with assisting her husband in his calling.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man…”
1 Corinthians 11:3

Voting is not neutral. It is not merely a civic act, it is an act of dominion. To vote is to rule, to select leaders, to set policy, to shape the future. This is inherently a masculine duty. In Scripture, all dominion tasks are given to men, eldership, kingship, priesthood, judgment, warfare, governance.

No woman in the Bible was ever called to rule over men. Even Deborah’s brief presence in the Book of Judges is a condemnation, not a commendation. Her leadership came because the men had failed—not because God desired it.

“I arose a mother in Israel.” — Judges 5:7

Deborah did not glory in her authority. She lamented the state of the nation and functioned more as a prophetess than a governor. Her very presence in that role was a judgment upon Israel’s disorder.

II. Voting as an Exercise of Rule

Voting, especially in modern republics, is the mechanism by which the public exercises civil authority. But under God’s order, women were never given this authority, not in the family, not in the church, not in the state.

We are not left to guess what God thinks of women ruling.

“As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them…”
Isaiah 3:12

This is not a blessing. It is a curse.

Let it be stated plainly: the vote is a symbol of rule. And rule belongs to men. A woman casting a vote apart from her husband’s covering, direction, and headship is a rebellion against this order.

Just as a wife must not usurp authority in the home or church (1 Timothy 2:12), she must not be given political power independent of her husband’s rule.

III. The Historical Witness: Women’s Suffrage and Social Collapse

Let us be clear: the call for women’s suffrage was not birthed in holiness, but in humanism and rebellion.

The 19th and 20th century feminist movements, including the push for the vote, were spearheaded by God-hating, authority-rejecting women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Margaret Sanger, who not only rejected biblical womanhood, but also mocked Scripture, promoted sexual libertinism, and sought the destruction of the family as it had stood for millennia.

They knew what they were doing. The vote was not the end goal, it was the first tool. Once women gained the vote, they did not use it to uphold order. They used it to elect leaders who promised security over responsibility, emotion over justice, and entitlement over duty. The welfare state, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, and the explosion of anti-family policies were all hastened by the female vote.

Statistically, it is well-documented that women, on average, vote more liberally than men. Women are more likely to vote for bigger government, for social programs that reward dependency, and for candidates that appeal to emotion rather than law.

This is not because women are stupid. It is because they are designed to be nurturers, not rulers. Women are created to serve in the private sphere of the household, not the public arena of governance. When they are placed in the realm of policy, war, and judgment—realms that require justice and finality—they are out of place. And the whole nation suffers for it.

IV. What Was Lost: The Era Before Feminist Democracy

Before women’s suffrage, the Western world flourished under Christian civilization. Families were large. Nations were strong. Churches had power. The household was productive. And the woman’s glory was her home, not her ballot.

In Colonial America, Christian commonwealths like Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay upheld God’s law as supreme. Women could not vote, not because they were degraded, but because their role was sacred and protected. They governed their homes under their husbands’ rule. Men bore the weight of lawmaking and nation-building, and women focused on raising future rulers.

This pattern held true across centuries of Christendom. In Geneva under Calvin, in Puritan England, in early America—the vote was a burden of responsibility borne by men who were expected to rule their households well and represent them publicly.

Even in the Roman Republic, voting and office-holding were strictly male responsibilities. It was understood, even by pagans, that a nation could not endure when governed by emotion, sentiment, or soft rule.

V. Practical Application in a Decayed Democracy

We are no longer living in Christendom. The Christian man finds himself now in Babylon, a decaying empire where Jezebel sits in the halls of power and votes are offered to Molech.

In this context, some Christian husbands may ask: Should I allow my wife to vote?

The answer must begin with this: she must not vote as an autonomous individual. If she votes, it must be under your direction, according to your conscience, as your delegate, not as a free agent.

This is not ideal. But we are not in an ideal system. We are in exile.

If a godly husband decides that it is strategically wise for his wife to cast a ballot under his authority, as an extension of his household’s voice in a corrupted system, this is not a violation of headship. This is wartime logistics.

But let no Christian wife imagine that her right to vote is derived from the Constitution rather than the covenant. Her suffrage is not personal, it is patriarchal. And if she votes apart from her husband’s explicit direction and permission, she sins.

Just as Eve should not have dialogued with the serpent without Adam, no Christian wife should engage in political decision-making without her husband’s covering.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”
Ephesians 5:22

VI. Restoring the Household as the Political Unit

Under Biblical law, the household is the basic unit of dominion—not the individual. This is why ancient Israel was organized by tribes and households. Men represented their families at the city gates.

“Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.”
Proverbs 31:23

God’s pattern has always been covenantal and familial, not democratic and individualistic. The father, as the head of his house, bears the responsibility to speak, act, and rule on behalf of his wife and children. This includes religious life, economic life, and civil engagement.

The modern individualistic vote atomizes the household, fractures unity, and empowers children and wives to act in rebellion against the father’s leadership. A daughter may vote against her father’s values. A wife may cancel her husband’s vote at the polls. A household becomes a civil war.

This is not the way of the Lord.

In the Great Order, the household speaks with one voice, under one head. Whether in private worship or public witness, the patriarch governs, and the family follows.

VII. Let the Women Return to Strength

To say a woman should not vote is not to say she is weak. Quite the opposite. It is to return her to her proper sphere of dominion: the home. Scripture does not silence women—it dignifies them by placing them where their gifts bear fruit.

“The wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.”
Proverbs 14:1

Let her build. Let her nurture. Let her train the next generation of rulers. This is real dominion—not illusionary political participation.

The modern woman may boast of her vote, but her home lies in ruins. Her womb is barren. Her children are strangers. Her marriage is shattered. What has the vote gained her? A louder voice in a collapsing civilization.

Christian woman, you are not called to vote, you are called to obey. You are not called to campaign, you are called to build. You are not called to legislate, you are called to labor in love.

Return to your first ministry: the home. Rejoice in your place. Your crown is not political power—it is children, submission, and faithfulness.

“Not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”
1 Timothy 2:9–10

VIII. The Way Forward: Order in Exile

The Christian man today must walk wisely. He must navigate a hostile culture with clarity and conviction. Though the world has made voting a right, he must remember that his household operates under heaven’s laws, not man’s.

So:

  • If your wife desires to vote, teach her. Lead her. If permitted, let her vote only in submission to your headship, and according to righteousness.
  • If you abstain from voting altogether, so be it, but ensure your abstention is principled, not passive.
  • Train your sons to rule. Teach them that voting is not a birthright but a duty of headship. One day, they will carry the weight of representing your house.
  • Teach your daughters that their strength is not in influence over men, but in obedience to God and service to their homes.

And above all—build. Build households that defy feminism by their very existence. Build homes where ballots are irrelevant, because God’s Word rules.

IX. Conclusion: Votes Fade—But Order Remains

The vote is a flicker. A civilization may be won or lost at the ballot box, but it is built or destroyed at the dinner table. The true power is in the household. And the household thrives only under God’s order.

Let the feminists rage. Let the statists mock. Let the weak men surrender. We will not!

We are not interested in permission from Washington. We have a mandate from the Word.

Women were not created to rule, but to reflect the glory of their husbands, to nurture life, and to model godly submission.

Let the households of God stand tall once more, with fathers who rule, mothers who build, and children who obey.

Let the Great Order rise again!

“He that ruleth his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity… For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”
1 Timothy 3:4–5

Soli Deo Gloria.

20 Comments on "A Vote Against Order: Why Women Were Not Meant to Govern, Or Vote"

  • No bitch need to be voting.

  • 1) If women can’t vote, stop taking our tax dollars. We make up for half of the workforce, yet we’re expected to pay taxes without voting? 2) Your authority ends with your household, it doesn’t extend to all women. And what about the men who want their wives to vote? You’re essentially taking away their options to rule their households as they are fit. This is why scripture never says random men rule over every woman. If that were the case then other men would have the same authority over your wife. I doubt you’d be ok with that but here you are feeling entitled to do that to others.

    • Thank you for your comment. Let me respond point by point, with clarity and conviction.

      Taxation and Voting: You are correct that taxation without representation is unjust, but the solution is not to hand over the vote, it’s to return to the Biblical structure where households, not individuals, are represented. God’s Word never envisioned a society of atomized individuals, but of patriarchal households. In a rightly ordered nation, the husband is the head, and the household is taxed and governed through him, not through disintegrated, competing voices within the same home. The real injustice began when the state undermined male headship, taxed women directly, and separated them from the household economy. The answer is not to give more power to a broken system, but to restore household dominion and eliminate the tyranny of divided governance.

      Authority and Scope: You’re right, my authority ends with my household. But when I speak about God’s design for society, I speak as a man under His authority, applying His Word, not mine. This is not about personal dominance over strangers’ wives, but about calling men back to their ordained duty. Scripture is clear that women are not to rule (Isaiah 3:12), are to be “obedient to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5), and are to remain silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34). Voting is inherently a governing act, it is an exercise of civic authority. God did not design women to wield that authority, just as He did not design them to pastor or judge. This isn’t about micromanaging every household, but about building a society where the standard is righteousness, not relativism.

      If a man allows his wife to vote autonomously, he has already abdicated headship and embraced disorder. Love does not mean giving free rein, it means leading well. And leadership sometimes requires correcting not just the actions of a home, but the philosophies that erode godly order across society.

      I don’t seek control over others, I seek order under God.

      • Suggesting that only the head of the household should be allowed to vote is also overreaching when it comes to those who are unmarried. What if other men are single? Now they’re not allowed to vote? What if multiple men live in a household together and contribute equally and happen to disagree with one another politically? We’re taking their votes now as well?

        Scripture never commands a civil structure where only men vote. That isn’t biblical law. If you want to invoke God’s law, you need clear commands. Your headship and other men’s headship ends at your own household for a reason. Even heavenly Father allows freedom of conscience. Civil enforcement of non-commands is all you’re attempting to do.

        Also, Isaiah, Titus and Corinthians address church and household roles, not civic participation… you’re confusing spiritual roles with state authority. Isaiah is a judgment passage, not a voting policy. Titus and Corinthians speak to church order and marriage, not to voting booths. You’re making similar assumptions that you made in your post regarding how all women must have a covering/headship.

        Anyone who knows the word will see that your position isn’t a command, it’s an opinion and a preference. You’d fair a lot better presenting it as such.

        You say this is not about control, and maybe that’s true (I don’t know you well enough to know your intent) but the implications of your view require a level of control, that is not even in God’s order. Let each husband decide for their households, that’s actually biblical. You’re enforcing personal convictions as law.

        • Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate that you took the time to engage deeply, and I’ll respond point by point for clarity and truth’s sake.

          1. On Single Men and Voting Rights
          You asked: “What if other men are single? Now they’re not allowed to vote?”

          Biblical governance is not built on theoretical exceptions but on the foundational design of God’s order. Scripture consistently affirms the household as the basic unit of dominion, economy, worship, and responsibility (Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 6:6–9; Joshua 24:15; 1 Timothy 3:4–5). A single man, by biblical definition, is a man in preparation to establish a household, not one given equal standing with the patriarch of an existing one. The authority and representation in Scripture is granted not merely to individual males, but to household heads, those who bear the covenant responsibility before God.

          This doesn’t “take away” a single man’s voice, it recognizes that civil representation flows from covenant stewardship. A man who is not ruling anything (wife, children, servants, land, etc.) is not qualified to represent anything. This is not about worth, but jurisdiction.

          As for “multiple men living together and disagreeing politically,” the fact that such a hypothetical would even arise proves the chaos that occurs when we disconnect civil authority from headship. God’s design is not communal bachelor pads, it is ordered households ruled by men who answer to Him.

          2. On Biblical Command and Civil Structure
          You said: “Scripture never commands a civil structure where only men vote. That isn’t biblical law.”

          Indeed, you are correct that there is no verse that says, “only men shall vote.” But that is not the argument being made. The argument is not from silence, but from structure. God’s law operates on patterns and jurisdictions, not modern democratic frameworks. You will not find “voting” in Scripture as we know it today, but you will find elders in the gates (Deuteronomy 21:19, Ruth 4:1–2), male heads of tribes (Numbers 1, Deuteronomy 1:13), and fathers deciding for households (Exodus 12:3). These are not optional cultural notes—they are revelatory structures.

          To argue that unless God gives a verbatim civil code on voting, we can substitute egalitarian democratic preferences, is to invite disorder by omission. Biblical law is not silent on structure. It just doesn’t speak in 21st-century terminology.

          3. On Church and State Roles
          You mention that Isaiah, Titus, and Corinthians speak to church and household roles, not to civic matters.

          This is a false division. There is no artificial separation between spiritual order and civil responsibility in Scripture. Titus 1 tells us that a man must first rule his house well before being entrusted with oversight in the church. How then could he be entrusted with national governance or civic influence if he is not even head of a home?

          Isaiah’s condemnation of women ruling over men (Isaiah 3:12) is not just a church rebuke, it is a national indictment. God brings judgment on entire peoples for disorder, not just for misplaced pulpit roles. Household headship is the test of leadership capacity across all spheres. A man who cannot lead a home should not be leading a city, and a woman is never given either jurisdiction.

          4. On Freedom of Conscience and Civil Enforcement
          You wrote: “Even the Heavenly Father allows freedom of conscience. Civil enforcement of non-commands is all you’re attempting to do.”

          God absolutely allows freedom of conscience—within the bounds of His law and order. Liberty is not license. We are free to obey God, not to create our own structures that contradict Him. Civil governments are tasked with upholding justice as defined by His law (Romans 13:1–4). That includes upholding proper jurisdictions, family, church, and state, without confusion or usurpation.

          This is not about enforcing a “personal conviction,” but rather restoring the God-given structure that has been dismantled by feminism, statism, and egalitarianism. When voting is open to women or to men not under headship, we abandon God’s framework and invite disorder, division, and perversion.

          5. On Control and Headship
          Finally, you said: “You say this is not about control… but the implications require a level of control not even in God’s order.”

          You misunderstand the nature of authority. Biblical headship is not control—it is covenantal responsibility. It is the bearing of burdens, the answering to God for what happens under one’s domain. To suggest that each husband should decide “for his household” is exactly the point—but civil representation should reflect that structure. That is why a head votes as a head, not as a lone individual. No biblical precedent supports atomized democracy.

          Conclusion
          Yes, my position is not one outlined in the American Constitution, but it is grounded in God’s constitution: the Scriptures. If we are to reform society and restore Christian order, we cannot lean on modern pluralism. We must return to biblical patriarchal governance, where only household heads, righteous men, proven by fruit, represent their domain in civic decisions. Anything else invites rebellion and confusion.

          This is not mere opinion. It is a principled extrapolation of God’s consistent and revealed pattern of household-based authority, which applies across every sphere: home, church, and nation.

          Let the heads rise again.

          —Lord Redbeard

  • It’s the bus all over again!

    • Actually, it’s not the bus; it’s the garden all over again.

      This isn’t about seats or segregation. It’s about roles, responsibility, and the rejection of God’s design. Just as Eve reached for the fruit to gain what was not hers to take, modern society encourages women to grasp at authority rather than receive covering. That rebellion led to the Fall, not freedom.

      True liberty is not found in imitation of men, but in obedience to the order God has ordained.

  • Vote these racist, misogynistic fools out while you still can!

  • VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! V

  • If women did not vote people like you would be in charge and we would all be back in the dark ages.

  • Another Trump psycho.

  • I want my wife to vote!!, she can speak for herself.

  • Certainly no female in her right mind actually thinks Women voting is a good idea, Right?

  • As long as my vote cancelles your evey time, I have won!

  • IS there somewhere we can vote lord redbeard off the internet?

  • Yep, right there in II opinions verse 30, No Women Voting!

  • Well, of course you don’t want women voting, most NAZIS Don’t’

  • While I do agree that voting is a headship role, in today’s society as broken as it is, those of us that are devoted biblical households should be able to vote based on what our husbands tell us to vote. If a wife’s vote basically cancels out her husbands vote, that is not okay. But in today’s society we need as many conservative votes as we can get to restore our country.

    • I understand your concern, and your heart for restoring this nation through righteous action is commendable. You’re right that voting is a headship function, and that’s precisely why it must remain under the man’s authority.

      In a properly ordered household, a wife can vote, but only at the direction of her husband, as his representative and extension, not as an autonomous actor. Her vote must reflect his will, not her own opinion. Anything else introduces division, confusion, or duplication.

      “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

      This means a wife is not to vote unless her husband has instructed her to do so, and only how he directs. Her vote is not her voice, it is her obedience.

      But even in this, we must remember: political reform is not the end goal. Order is. And order begins in the home, not the ballot box.

      If we truly want to see our nation restored, we must first restore headship, hierarchy, and holiness in the household. That will bear far more lasting fruit than a few extra votes ever will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *