| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
October 6, 2025 |
| Restricted Women | ||
During a recent trip to a Middle Eastern country, after observing how the women were dressed, I began asking questions. There had to have been a time when they didn't wear those. So how did they make that change, and what was the driving force?
As I thought about it more, I realized there were other restrictions on women in other cultures. How did those happen?
The historical accounts of how these happened are lost to time. Usually some cultural memory survives because the people themselves ask the same question. What accounts are available are so devoid of detail that it seems like the truth was hidden and lost.
Because all of these share the quality of being restrictions on women, it seems like there should be a common cause. Yet the restrictions are completely different, as though there was a common cause, but the people came up with different solutions.
The English language has adopted two of the Arabic names for Muslim female headgear: the Hijab and Burka. In the picture above, it isn't clear that the Burka has a sparse mesh cloth covering the eyes.
Despite adopting the names, all Western cultures despise the notion of such headgear. It has even been outlawed in some countries, although the intent there has likely been to outlaw Islam, without specifically saying those words and incurring Muslim revolts.
The strangest question here is: who has an interest in having women wear these? They are directly against the nature of a woman. Of course, I'm talking about human nature, not the Godly nature we should have. The Apostle Paul talks about this.
Does not even nature teach you that […] 15 whenever a woman grows her hair, it is a glory to her, because her hair is given to her in place of a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14,15)
Paul is on a similar topic, but he comes to the opposite conclusion from Islam. He says a woman needs a head covering, but her hair, if it is grown out, is the covering she needs.
Paul speaks directly to head coverings, saying, "Are you blind? Haven't you seen that a woman's hair is her glory?" By her nature, she desires that which she needs and glorifies herself in it. What woman ever said, "I want to cover my hair so no one can see it. I also want to cover my face and eyes." This nightmare of the cosmetics industry will never happen if women have a say in the matter. At the core of every woman is the need to present herself in a way that makes her attractive and appealing to potential mates.
This would lead us to think that it must have been men who wanted these head coverings, but that is against the very nature of men. What man ever said: I don't want to see her flowing hair, her pretty face, and her alluring eyes? No man, never. So, if it is directly opposed to the natures of both women and men, how did such a thing come about?
While head coverings appear in other cultures, Islam is best known for them. Despite what people might expect, the Quran doesn't require head coverings for women. That is an extension of a general idea in the Quran.
The obligation is derived from a verse in the Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:59), which instructs believing women to draw their outer garments (jilbabs) over their bodies to be recognized as respectable and to avoid harassment. (AI quoting Islamic sources)
The sources we have that talk about the reasons for the change say that:
The hijab is seen as an act of modesty and dignity that Allah loves, extending beyond the gaze of others to a personal relationship with God. (AI quoting Islamic sources)
This sounds like "spin" and not the real reason. We may get a little more insight from this quote.
[This] aligns with the protection of women in a manner corresponding to the attention they naturally draw. (AI quoting Islamic sources)
How is a woman's dignity protected by keeping men from seeing her hair, face, or eyes? Or how is it lost? It's an odd idea. Most people would say that a person's dignity is kept or lost by the things the person does or by things that happen to them.
Prior to Islam in the Arab world, head and face coverings were only worn regularly by elite, wealthy women, apparently to keep common people from looking at them. My searches found nothing about how the transition was made to these coverings becoming a requirement.
In countries where head coverings are worn, it becomes necessary to arrange marriages. If attraction-based mate selection is blocked, there must be another way. But arranged marriages appear, even in countries that do not have such headgear.
Even in our own country, the lesser form of Approved Marriages was once the way, and vestiges of it remain, such as asking the girl's father for permission.
If you ask, you will get the answers that this was done to reduce unwanted pregnancies or to maintain class boundaries. Do those goals justify such interference in the natures of people? The effort alone of trying to enforce these rules would be an uphill battle.
This might not seem like a restriction on women, but it is. As much as the female nature wants to display herself, there is a natural boundary. Women do not desire to run around topless or naked. Required toplessness is a restriction of that nature.
Even displaying too much skin is against that nature. Young women are uncomfortable wearing skimpy bathing suits at first, but they are told by a decayed society to ignore those feelings, that it is perfectly acceptable to wear such clothing, and so their consciences are seared. A look at the history of bathing suits shows a progression toward the display of more skin. That's for women of course. Men always dress more modestly.
There is certainly a tension between these two natures. We see this in the result of the development of Spandex. Women can now wear clothing that is skin-tight, more to display without crossing over the too-much-skin limitation. This is also seen in the far less common use of paint instead of clothing.
It's easy to see how men would be the ones to push such a restriction. The nature of men is toward the display of more skin. There is a limit there though, not a natural limit but a consequential limit, which we will talk about later.
Still how did toplessness come about? If all the men said, "We've decided that women will be topless from now on," it's easy to imagine all the women saying, "We've decided that your lives will be sexless from now on." How does a society make a change that is against the natures of men, or women, or both?
If there is anything in the Old Testament that offends liberal women in the church more than multiple marriages, I don't know what it would be. For them, multiple marriages contend against the equality of women. If a man can have multiple wives, then multiple women are equal to one man. It's a silly view on life and marriage, but I've heard this idea expressed by just such people.
As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul (and wife of David) watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart. 20 When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!" 21 David said to Michal, "It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord's people Israel - I will celebrate before the Lord. 23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:16)
The problem here is that King Saul was a very different king from David. Saul was the elitist, classist king who ranked people according to that standard. David was a king of the people. Michal was raised in the court of her father, Saul, so she thinks in the way that he did. The frequent repetition of "daughter of Saul" in these verses pounds this fact home.
She charges him with showing off to attract attention to himself. In the world of her father, there could not be another reason. No one of high status would act out like that, except to attract attention. In the world of her father, God was an afterthought. David's response to her says two things:
Her response is to cut him off. She tries to use sex as a weapon to effect change. She was his favorite wife, but she was still one of many wives, so the impact of that decision is muted. Even so, she has come to despise him, and she sticks to it for the rest of her life.
Through this story, we see that multiple marriages can have a purpose. They are a restriction on the use of sex as a weapon by women. They mute the effect of such efforts, and the possibility of their use discourages such efforts.
I considered Female Genital Mutilation, but it doesn't fit the pattern of the others. It doesn't contend against or restrict the natures of men or women. Its only purpose seems to be the reduction of the enjoyment of sex.
Psychiatrists say this is grandmothers acting on their jealousy of their granddaughter's youth and virility.
Therefore this seems to be something completely different.
Throughout this study, we've been asking how these things came into effect. Especially in the cases where both the natures of men and women are stifled, it's hard to imagine a scenario.
We also know that some of these changes had to come by majority agreement, or they would fail. If one man forces his wife to wear a head covering and the other men do not, then the other men mock him as a fool for covering the beauty of his wife.
Multiple marriages are a little different that way. They can be effective at the individual level. They require, however, that the majority of a society agrees to accept them. Either way, a majority is required.
These changes had to come as a solution to a problem in a society that was serious enough that the majority would agree that an action needed to be taken. Because the solutions, while completely different, are all directed at women, the first thought would be that the common cause is something the women are doing.
Eve's goal in Genesis 3 is to move from 3rd position to 2nd position by becoming "like God." I've talked about this in many other studies. She wants to rule over Adam. Unfortunately that desire has been passed down to her daughters, to greater or lesser extents.
I've seen enough videos of women who have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they have a right to hit men with sticks or other things. They learn the lesson that builds all societies. The ones with the strength are the ones who rule. This isn't only physical strength but also the strength of numbers and unity of purpose.
Colleges teach that Matriarchal societies have existed, and they point to African tribes as examples. These are not Matriarchal societies. They are only societies where women have a greater role in governing than in other societies.
What feminists want is a true Matriarchal society where women hold all the power.
Jordan Peterson, a popular psychiatrist, describes a Matriarchal society. This is my paraphrase of his words. Such a society is one where women would rule by the use of sex. Their focus would be on beauty, sex, and safety. The best of the men would be chosen as mates. The other men would become celibate or homosexual. Society would stagnate and soon be unable to feed or house people.
As women become the leaders, the society begins to fail. Society becomes focused on things that are unimportant. The difference is easily seen in our time. The Biden administration was entirely focused on the woke agenda and was doing none of the things that are necessary for a society to continue.
As a society crumbles this way, there would be a growing number of people, mostly men, who begin saying there needs to be a course change. This can come too late though. There are examples in the Bible.
Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. (Jeremiah 7:17-18)
The women have reordered their families into manufacturing facilities for gifts to a false goddess. The men and the children now serve this function she has chosen. While they are doing this, their society falls away from God and crumbles, and will be unable to fight against the coming Babylonians
But am I the one they are provoking? declares the Lord. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame? (Jeremiah 7:19)
Much later (37 chapters), Judah and Jerusalem have been conquered and destroyed. A small remnant of the people has escaped capture and is deciding what to do. Jeremiah explains to them how they caused this to happen.
It is rare for women to be held to account in the Bible. Usually the responsibility falls on the men for failing to manage their households. In this case, though, Jeremiah calls the women out for what they have done. The women refuse to be accountable and respond by passing the blame to their husbands, whom they had cowed into going along with the idolatry.
The women added, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes impressed with her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?" (Jeremiah 44:19)
All of them, men and women, are deluded about the cause. When the Babylonians surrounded Jerusalem, the people were no longer allowed to throw away food and drink in offerings. The siege would go on for a long time, and all food and drink would be needed. This remnant believes they were conquered because they stopped giving those offerings to the Queen of Heaven. But they were under siege before they stopped.
In two places, Paul talks about women taking control of the church gathering.
Let women learn in silence with all submission, 12 For I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to usurp over a man, but she should be quiet; 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and violated the commandment; (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
He uses the word "usurp", among others, which means to take authority that has not been given. He says he does not allow this, and he links his reasoning back to Eve in the garden.
How did these changes come into being? We can't say with any precision. We've already established the following:
I think it is fair to say that, in times past, women have sometimes begun to take over the societies in which they lived. This was probably done in different ways in each society. As this began to cause the society to collapse, eventually a majority of people determined that it needed to be addressed. Since the way the takeover was done was probably different and certainly the societies were different, each majority came up with a different solution.
Given that, and the example from Jeremiah, it is likely that some societies never reached the point where there was a majority that recognized the problem, were willing to take action, and could agree on a solution. These societies would have collapsed and disintegrated or been conquered, absorbed, and little, if anything, would remain of them.
In democratic societies, it is easier to make such a change. The majority only need to choose a leader who does not support what's going on. The power to effect change can be removed, and it dies on the vine (after much screaming). There is no need to put in place a restriction on women.
God didn't arbitrarily choose men to have the lead role. He made that decision because that would produce societies that functioned well and remained cohesive.
That doesn't mean that men have always done a good job in that role. It only means that it would have been worse the other way around.