Category Archives: History

History, Politics, Social Topics

Why a Woman Must Always Be Under Headship: The Unbreakable Design of God

16 Comments

Modern Christianity has adopted many lies, but none more destructive than the idea that a woman can, and should, be autonomous. The culture prizes the “independent woman.” The church parrots the same mantra in softer tones. But Scripture knows nothing of this. God never created women to stand alone. She was made for order, and she flourishes under headship.

A woman is required by God to be under male authority at all times, from her father’s house, to her husband’s house, and in some cases under the governance of church elders. This is not optional. It is not conditional. It is not a matter of preference. It is a covenantal design, etched into creation and enforced by divine command.

“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

This structure is not cultural, it is creational. It is not bondage, it is blessing. And when it is violated, chaos, heartbreak, and destruction follow.

I. Headship in Creation: Woman Was Made for the Man

We must begin where God begins: in Genesis. Adam was made first, formed from the dust by the breath of God. He was given a mission—to take dominion. But God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

The woman was not made as a co-leader. She was not designed as an independent entity to explore her identity. She was made for the man, from the man, and to the man.

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:8–9

This is the creation order, and it never changes. A woman, by nature and design, must be under the loving rule of godly headship. When she is, she is protected, fruitful, and secure. When she is not, she is vulnerable, unstable, and easy prey for deception.

This is not conjecture. This is exactly what happened in Eden.

II. The Fall: What Happens When Headship Is Abandoned

In Genesis 3, the serpent bypassed the man and went to the woman. He inverted God’s order. And Adam, instead of protecting and ruling, abdicated his role. Eve was deceived. Adam was derelict. And humanity fell.

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
— 1 Timothy 2:14

This is not an insult to women, it is a divine warning. When a woman steps outside of headship, she is in danger. When a man steps away from authority, he invites judgment.

Headship is not a human construct. It is a spiritual defense system, and when it is removed, the home collapses, the culture deteriorates, and the church weakens.

III. A Woman’s Three Primary Headships

Biblically, a woman is to be under male authority throughout the entire course of her life:

1. The Father

“And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house…”
— Deuteronomy 11:19

From birth, a girl is under the governance of her father. He is to train her, protect her, and guard her purity. He is responsible to keep her from danger—whether moral, spiritual, or relational.

In Numbers 30, God gives laws governing the vows of women. If a daughter makes a vow and her father hears it and disallows it, the vow is nullified. Why? Because she is under his jurisdiction.

“If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond… being in her father’s house… and her father disallow her… then shall the Lord forgive her.”
— Numbers 30:3–5

This is legal headship. Fathers are not optional. They are God’s appointed guardians for daughters.

2. The Husband

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…”
— Ephesians 5:22–23

When a woman marries, headship passes from father to husband. She is no longer her father’s responsibility. She becomes her husband’s charge, and she is to obey him as the church obeys Christ.

“Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”
— 1 Peter 3:6

This is not poetic, it is prescriptive. A woman does not lose value under authority; she gains security, direction, and honor.

3. The Eldership (in cases of widowhood, orphanhood, etc.)

When a woman has no husband and no father, she is not to drift alone. She comes under the elders of the church, the patriarchs of the community.

“Honour widows that are widows indeed… Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man…”
— 1 Timothy 5:3–9

The early church had rules and order for widows, indicating that even in their singleness, they were not to function independently. They were under the governance of the patriarchal church, and the younger widows were exhorted to remarry (1 Timothy 5:14).

IV. The Dangers of Female Autonomy

When women are not under headship, the results are devastating:

  • Sexual sin abounds. Young women without oversight are easy prey for seduction and fornication.
  • Feminism takes root. Women begin to believe they are their own authority.
  • Children are raised fatherless. Single mothers often reject correction and multiply generational disorder.
  • Churches are disrupted. Uncovered women bring emotional chaos and spiritual confusion.

“Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!”
— Isaiah 5:21

Headship is not oppression. It is protection. It keeps a woman from the deceit of Satan and the judgment of God.

V. What About Special Cases?

1. The Divorced Woman

Divorce does not grant a woman independence. It places her in a vulnerable state, one that Scripture addresses soberly. If the divorce was lawful (on grounds of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever, Matthew 5:32, 1 Corinthians 7:15), she may remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. But she is not now a “free agent.”

She should:

  • Come under patriarchal church leadership for spiritual covering.
  • Pursue re-marriage if it is biblically permitted.
  • Raise children in submission to godly counsel.

She is not the head of her house. If she has sons, they must be trained under male discipleship. If she has daughters, they must be shielded from repeating her mistakes.

2. The Widow: Still in Need of Covering

Widowhood is not an exception to God’s established order. Though the husband has passed, the woman’s need for headship remains. Scripture makes it clear: no woman, regardless of age or circumstance, is ever meant to live without covering.

Young Widows: Called to Remarry

Paul gives direct instruction in 1 Timothy 5:14:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

Young widows are not to remain alone, idle, or without direction. Paul warns that widows who remain uncovered are easily drawn into gossip, idleness, and temptation (v. 13). Remarriage is a divinely appointed path back into structure, protection, and fruitful labor within a man’s household. Headship is not optional for young widows, it is necessary for their holiness and the Church’s honor.

Older Widows: Honored, Not Autonomous

Older widows, those proven in faith and good works, are to be honored by the Church (1 Timothy 5:3, 9–10), yet they are still not independent. They remain under the spiritual covering of the church body and its male leadership. Their new role becomes one of discipleship, as Paul outlines in Titus 2:3–5:

“The aged women… that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children… obedient to their own husbands.”

They are not liberated from order; rather, they become defenders and instructors of it.

Temporary Submission to Godly Headship

In cases where remarriage is delayed or not immediately possible, a widow may willingly submit herself to the oversight of a godly male relative, elder, or spiritual father. This kind of voluntary submission reflects the principle of headship and preserves her covering until a new marriage is rightly formed. Just as Ruth submitted herself to Boaz’s authority and provision before becoming his wife (Ruth 2:8–12), so too may a widow dwell under the shadow of a righteous man’s protection, so long as it is done in purity and order.

Never Without a Head

The Church is also called to care for and govern widows, not simply offer charity but oversight (James 1:27). A woman without a husband must not drift into spiritual autonomy. She must remain accountable and under the rule of godly men, either through remarriage or temporary oversight by the elders or righteous male leadership in her life.

The death of a husband is not the death of God’s design. Headship is not a marriage feature, it is a feminine necessity. Widowhood is a shift in placement, not a suspension of submission.

No woman, including the widow, is ever meant to be her own authority. God’s pattern does not break in crisis, it stands unshaken.

3. The Orphaned or Unmarried Daughter of a Non-Christian Home

A young woman raised outside of the faith must not interpret her background as justification for independence. If her father is unbelieving, she must:

  • Submit under spiritual fathers, church elders, pastors, or godly men in the community.
  • Pursue biblical courtship under spiritual authority, not casual dating or autonomy.
  • Be adopted into the household of God, where she is no longer a lone sheep but part of a covenant flock.

Even in pagan cultures, daughters were understood to belong to their fathers until given in marriage. The modern Western idea that a woman is “on her own” at 18 is rebellion disguised as liberty.

VI. Historical Witness

Throughout Church history, the principle of continuous female headship was unquestioned:

  • In early Israel, a daughter’s virginity was the father’s responsibility (Deuteronomy 22:13–21).
  • In medieval Christendom, daughters could not marry without paternal approval, and widows were overseen by church authorities.
  • Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther emphasized the father’s authority in arranging godly marriages and condemned female independence as prideful and disorderly.
  • Puritan families in early America treated daughters as part of the household government until they were transferred in marriage.

It is only in recent history, with the rise of Enlightenment individualism and second-wave feminism, that we see the normalization of female autonomy, a disaster for faith, family, and civilization.

VII. The Blessing of Headship

When a woman is properly covered by male headship, the result is fruitfulness, peace, and joy.

  • She does not carry the burden of spiritual leadership.
  • She is defended from predators and wolves.
  • She is directed in righteousness.
  • She is shielded from emotional instability and deception.
  • She glorifies God by knowing her place and delighting in it.

This is not humiliation, it is holy order. It is not shameful, it is sacred.

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
— 1 Timothy 2:11

This kind of subjection brings honor, protection, and praise. A woman who abides under headship is a builder of nations, a nurturer of kings, and a daughter of Sarah.

Conclusion: Always Covered, Always Blessed

The lie of female autonomy has destroyed generations. It has produced bitterness, barrenness, fatherlessness, and faithlessness. But the Lord calls women back, not to self-rule, but to submission.

Whether a daughter, a wife, a widow, or a woman rescued from the ruins of rebellion, every godly woman must be under righteous headship at all times.

Fathers, cover your daughters.
Husbands, lead your wives.
Elders, shepherd the uncovered.
And women, rejoice to be ruled.

You were not made to be alone. You were made to be covered.
And under that covering, you will be blessed, fruitful, protected, and glorified.Let the feminists rage.
Let the church grow bold.
Let the Great Order be restored, one household at a time.

History, Politics, Religion, Social Topics

Cats Instead of Children: The Consequences of Careerism

12 Comments

In the modern West, a striking symbol of cultural inversion is the image of the single, professional woman cradling a cat rather than a child. It’s not merely a humorous meme—it’s a sociological reality that reflects a deep shift in values, priorities, and understanding of womanhood.

The Career as a New Identity

For much of human history, a woman’s primary domain was the household—a place of immense dignity, productivity, and influence. She nurtured life, shaped souls, and stewarded the future of her lineage. But with the rise of feminism and the industrial-technocratic model of life, women were told that their value could only be found outside the home. They were sold the idea that true fulfillment comes through career advancement, salary increases, and corporate achievements.

In this paradigm, children—especially young ones—are seen not as blessings, but as burdens. They are interruptions to productivity, threats to “freedom,” and liabilities to a woman’s upward mobility. The result? Delayed marriage, widespread infertility, and plummeting birthrates. Instead of lullabies, the halls of modern apartments echo with the meows of feline companions.

Cats Require No Sacrifice

A child requires immense sacrifice. Sleepless nights, constant attention, financial commitment, and the long, slow work of shaping another soul. It demands laying down one’s life daily. But a cat is convenient. Feed it, give it a litter box, and carry on with your life. It offers companionship without the demand of legacy. It scratches the emotional itch without requiring covenant or continuity.

This trade—life for lifestyle—is perhaps the clearest indictment of modern womanhood. In choosing cats over children, many have traded motherhood for momentary comfort. But cats don’t carry on a name. They don’t build households. They don’t honor their mother in old age or bear grandchildren.

The Feminist Promise Was a Lie

Feminism promised women “choice”—but in practice, it shamed traditional motherhood and elevated careerism as the only path to worth. The woman who chooses to bear many children, keep a home, and support her husband is often mocked as “wasting her potential.” Meanwhile, the woman who climbs the corporate ladder, drinks wine alone, and has a cat to come home to is celebrated by media as empowered.

But empowerment has come at a steep cost. Millions of women now find themselves in their 30s and 40s—lonely, childless, and deeply unfulfilled. Their fertility has faded, their relationships have withered, and their youth has been spent chasing the approval of bosses who replaced them with younger workers without a second thought.

A Culture Without Children Is a Dying Culture

When women stop having children, a nation stops having a future. The cat-as-child phenomenon is not just a personal tragedy—it’s a civilizational crisis. No generation can continue if its women reject the role of life-bearer. The womb, once seen as sacred, is now suppressed through pills, surgeries, and ideologies. But biology doesn’t bend to ideology. A woman’s body longs to nurture life, and when that drive is denied, it finds twisted replacements—whether through animals, activism, or artificial distractions.

The Path Back: Restoring the Dignity of Womanhood

The answer is not to shame women, but to call them back to glory. True femininity is not found in boardrooms or cubicles—it is found in the embrace of a newborn, the aroma of bread in the oven, the warmth of a family shaped by a wise and joyful mother. Careers can be replaced; children cannot. Promotions are temporary; legacy is eternal.

A godly woman does not need to prove herself by mimicking men. She flourishes in her God-given role as life-giver, nurturer, and queen of the home. This is not oppression. It is sacred dominion.

History, Irish, Social Topics

Irish Slave Trade

10 Comments

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

In 1641, Ireland’s population was 1,466,000 and in 1652, 616,000. According to Sir William Petty, 850,000 were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, hardship and banishment during the Confederation War 1641-1652. At the end of the war, vast numbers of Irish men, women and children were forcibly transported to the American colonies by the English government.(7) These people were rounded up like cattle, and, as Prendergast reports on Thurloe’s State Papers(8) (Pub. London, 1742), “In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)… To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians … a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and the women and Irish girls… To solace them.”(9)

J. Williams provides additional evidence of the attitude of the English government towards the Irish in an English law of June 26, 1657: “Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught (Ireland’s Western Province) or (County) Clare within six months… Shall be attained of high treason… Are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas…”(10) Those thus banished who return are to “suffer the pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy.”(11)

The following are but a few of the numerous references to those Irish transported against their will between 1651 and 1660.

Emmet asserts that during this time, more that

“100,000 young children who were orphans or had been taken from their Catholic parents, were sent abroad into slavery in the West Indies, Virginia and New England, that they might lose their faith and all knowledge of their nationality, for in most instances even their names were changed… Moreover, the contemporary writers assert between 20,000 and 30,000 men and women who were taken prisoner were sold in the American colonie as slaves, with no respect to their former station in life.”(12)

Dunn claims in Barbados the Irish Catholics constituted the largest block of servants on the island.(13) Higham estimated that in 1652 Barbados had absorbed no less than 12,000 of these political prisoners.(14) E. Williams reports: “In 1656 Cromwell’s Council of State voted that 1,000 Irish girls and 1,000 Irish young men be sent to Jamaica.”(15) Smith declares: “it is impossible to say how many shiploads of unhappy Irish were dispatched to America by the English government,” and “no mention of such shipments would be very likely to appear in the State Papers… They must have been very considerable in number.”(16)

Estimates vary between 80,000 and 130,000 regarding the amount of Irish sent into slavery in America and the West Indies during the years of 1651 – 1660: Prendergast says 80,000(17); Boudin 100,000(18); Emmet 120,000 to 130,000(19); Lingard 60,000 up until 1656(20); and Condon estimates “the number of Irish transported to the British colonies in America from 1651 – 1660 exceeded the total number of their inhabitants at that period, a fact which ought not to be lost sight of by those who undertake to estimate the strength of the Celtic element in this nation…”(21)

It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of those unfortunate victims of English injustice during this period, but we do know the amount was massive. Even though the figures given above are but estimates, they are estimates from eminent historians.

The flow of the Irish to the American colonies throughout the remainder of the 17th century was large and continuous, but not nearly as massive as between 1651 and 1660. Some of the many statements by historians give evidence of this Irish tide. Higham reports that in 1664 the Irish took the place of the French on St. Bartholomew’s.(22) Smith claims that during the four years leading up to 1675, already 500 Irish servants were brought to Jamaica by ships from Bristol, England that stopped in Ireland for provisions.(23) During 1680 on the Leeward Islands, Dunn posits: “with so many Irish Catholic servants and farmers… The English planters became obsessed with the fear of popery.”(24) Dunn also states that in Jamaica in 1685 the 2nd Duke of Aberlmarle, after his appointment by James II, a Catholic, mustered his chief support from the Irish Catholic small planters and servants and that the indentured servants who constituted the island militia were mainly Irish Catholic.(25) In reporting on Father Garganel’s statements, Lenihan claims: “in 1699 Father Garganel, S.J., Superior of the island of Martinique, asked for one or two Irish Fathers for that and the neighboring isles which were ‘fill of Irish’ for every year shiploads of men, boys and girls, partly crimped, partly carried off by main force for the purposes of slave trade, are conveyed by the English from Ireland.”(26)

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves has a higher intelligence level than that of African slaves, brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean because the crew was low on food.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery much more in the 17th Century than the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded this particular chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, researching and not erasing from our memories.

But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

Extensive content and references for this post provided by www.globalresearch.ca

1 … 5 6 7