It seems as though young conservative men are increasingly displaying a distaste for women. In an age where young men are following the likes of Andrew Tate, Pearl Davis, and Nicholas Fuentes, it seems as though what was once a general disdain for the modern “girl boss” has become a hatred for half of the species.
The young conservative man has become intellectually numb to criticisms they make of women for such crimes as supporting themselves, gaining a pound over the ideal BMI, or (the worst crime of all) wanting a man strong enough to lead them. After all, why should any charity be given in response to insults from beings who are only “one rib” (to quote an actual exchange I’ve had) compared to us?
This joke, of course, stems from the biblical misconception that Eve was created from a mere one of Adam’s ribs. The Hebrew word which literally means “rib” is ala (al-ah’), whereas the word used to describe the part of Adam which God made Eve is tsela (tsay-law’). Now, tsela does mean “rib,” but unlike its more literal counterpart, it also possesses the metaphorical definition of “side” (in the sense of a thing divided).
There are those biblical literalists who would contest me, claiming that the more literal definition should, biblically, always be used. This criticism, however, overlooks that the Book of Genesis – at least the creation story – was written in the form of poetry, and therefore should be examined in a poetic context.
Having established this distinction, in every other instance that the Bible speaks of a rib, the word ala is used (spare one use in 1 Kings when tsela is used to describe a cedar rib framing a temple wall). The word tsela is instead used to describe the side of several (notably holy) objects: side chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:5), two leaves of a door in the palace of Solomon (1 Kings 6:34), one side of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:12), one side of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:20), and half of an altar (Exodus 27:7). The one notable exception to this rule of being used to describe holy things is in 2 Samuel 16:13, when it is used to describe the side of a hill (though, who knows what mountain Shimei could have been walking on). All biblical evidence considered, it seems much more likely that God, in fact, created Eve from a half of Adam, not just his rib.
Eve was Adam’s equal and, though Adam was put in charge of Eve, women are still men’s equals in this manner. This equality is why the sacrament of marriage (and the phrase “other half”) makes sense. Two humans, joined together by God in holy matrimony, become one flesh, because they originally were.
This argument withstanding, many men use scripture, still, to degrade the modern woman as “originally evil” (as has occurred all throughout pagan history). This belief could be in reference to the myth of Lilith, although it is more likely that these men blame Eve for original sin, as many Christians commonly do. This conclusion, however, is another popular biblical misconception. In order for Eve to have committed the first sin, her actions would have had to have been classified as such at the time she executed them
Sin is willful and knowing disobedience of God’s law which spiritually separates man from God (although, in this case that original separation became physical as well). And, as we should know, Eve was not created when God gave the original commandment not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. In Genesis 3:2, Eve misquotes that original commandment, stating (after the eating part) that she would surely die if she merely touched the tree.
This suggests that Adam, when recounting the commandment to Eve, did so inaccurately, or at least with hyperbole (as we men are so prone to do). This possible faulty conversation between the two opened Eve up to deception from the serpent, who denied that Eve would die for the crime of touching the tree — a statement which is in no way a lie. Many Torah scholars believe that the Serpent’s words broke Eve’s trust in Adam (some suggesting that the Serpent made her touch the tree after his statement) and opened her up to desiring the gifts which the tree could give her.
It becomes abundantly clear that Eve’s disobedience toward her husband was not, in fact, the original sin during the subsequent events. The eyes of Adam and Eve are not said to be opened until she had given the fruit to Adam and he took a bite. Furthermore, when God visits the garden, he calls upon Adam first to explain what had happened. Granted God is all knowing, this implies he holds Adam responsible, further evidenced when God disperses the punishments (other than death) for this action.
God goes as far as to punish even the host which Satan used to tempt Eve far more than either human, reducing its dignity to that of the dirt and engaging it in conflict with humanity for all time. Adam is cursed to toil all of his years, hungering and working the ground, stuck in a vicious cycle suffering until he shall die. However, Eve is the only involved party to whom God never says the word “cursed.” Instead, he says her sorrows in child-rearing are to be multiplied, tells her to keep her desires to her husband and stay obedient to Adam, and (most importantly) prophesies that her offspring shall be the one to crush the head of the serpent; after all, redemption hardly ever comes free of suffering. Given this evidence, I find it more compelling that the first sin belonged to Adam rather than to Eve. Further, Adam blamed Eve for his shortcoming, and we, as men, continue to do so to this day.
Adam’s shirking of responsibility is what many young, conservative men do to women today. It was the male desire for war that forced women into the workforce, male greed that forced them to stay there afterward, and male cowardice that fuels the epidemic of single-motherhood that keeps them there today. In this same way, absent and abusive fathers spark the fire of female rage against the patriarchy. Why should they trust men if we’ve only ever let them down?
It was Gregory Pincus and Min Chueh Chang that invented the birth control pill and Louis Réard who invented the bikini (a ploy to get women to publicly wear lingerie). Thus, it is men who are responsible for the working woman, for the sexually promiscuous, twenty-something female whom we so despise. And men who have let down women, who have not fulfilled their end of the “he shall rule over you” bargain, and thus, men who are the true committers of the modern sin we ascribe to the fairer sex.
This callousness is especially problematic when, in search for answers, men turn to Islam, where their will is simply forced upon their wife instead of lovingly obeyed, or “go their own way” when women reject them instead of striving for virtue (virtus, the feminine noun for manliness) and becoming someone no fitting woman could reject.
Ultimately, like all sin, our insouciance of duty seems to be a problem of pride. Regrettably, we men would often rather run into the belly of a whale, declaring we know better than God, than simply take responsibility for what is asked of us.
