Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere

December 9, 2013

20% of Broken Roads

I’m currently about 20% through Broken Roads (hat tip to DMJ) and I’m minded to write something.

Let me say this first of all.

Any ass-hole can find fault, being a critic is easy, lot easier than being a writer, and writers often of necessity have to employ things like artistic licence as a vehicle, if they strive for pin point accuracy it can kill the story stone dead before they start.

Star wars and just about everything else fucking piss me off because you have spacecraft performing AERODYNAMIC maneouvers in a vacuum, that shit is unforgivable, the writers need to be taken out back and fucked and dried.

Broken Roads you can tell, even 20% in, that the writer has fired a weapon, and been around what the yanks call a wrench / mechanic.

So I’m wondering, is it mere artistic licence and a vehicle for the story, or is it exactly what Rexx is talking about, that gives rise to the things I think when I read it, please bear in mind the following….

My father before me was an Engineer, like me, but a hundred times better than me, his era, he had a steam and electric ticket, otto diesel was still around, but dad’s first truck was a steam truck, made by Dennis.

95% of what I learned, I learned from my dad, so I learned how things were when HE was a boy apprentice, and later how the did things during the war, and in the jungles of the far east shortly thereafter….

Now, you can make acetylene easy enough, that’s just chemistry, but compressing and getting it into a bottle (not an empty one, but a bottle filled with a porous solid like a sponge) at high pressure is a completely new ball game, y’all try feeding a three stage diving compressor with acetylene and not air sometime, I’ll be the guy watching from 2,000 yards away through the fucking telescope…. but post apocalyptic Rexx grabbing a gas axe? (oxy acetylene torch) 40+ years after the breakdown…

The protagonist riding around on a motorcycle? Grease in a sealed tub might last 40 years, lube oil won’t, and that shit is harder to make than gasoline, many a time my old man told me the two great advances since he was a boy were pneumatic tyre technology and lube technology, the metals and engineering they had, but those two, no way.

Something no fucker talks about now, Brake Mean Effective Pressure, back in dad’s day they’d run a tuned side-valve engine at maybe 6:1 compression ratio, often 2/3rd of that, they had 100 octane gas and sub thou engineering and great steels, but no lube good enough.. if they had lube good enough, no way to get that power down as the tyres weren’t good enough.. this shit is hard limit stuff.

Gasifiers and steam power and sidevalve shit, the main protagonist might have been able to get a Model J Harley running, it was appropriate tech, the US Army used them to try and chase down Pancho Villa in real life, but what sounds like a 4 cyl jap bike with 12mm spark plugs?

Like I said, any asshole can be a critic, maybe DMJ knew all this but needed to write it his way to make the story work, and tell the story he wanted to tell, and not the story of the incredible technical challenges the real protagonists would face 40 years after the apocalypse.

So, this isn’t an appraisal of DMJ as an author, or Broken Roads as a book, rather it is about something that reading the book made me think, something that is in-line with what I have read so far.

That is that if you found yourself in that world, in reality, you would find that the reality as described in the book is a fucking fairy tale land of plenty and abundance and ease, from a purely engineering / technical POV.

I have seen with my own eyes a hand made arc welder, made in the 1990’s in africa, I have a picture somewhere, you can smelt copper and hammer it flat, but insulating it…. if you have high quality industrial weaving kit and cotton you can weave an insulator, I can remember this as a child, if you don’t, as these african’s didn’t, you hammered thin wall copper pipe flat, used hammered iron bed frame and leaf spring for the cores, and wrapped the hammered copper around the cores, using fucking paper from magazines for an insulator, an old set of jump leads worked both as the high current side and as the torch, and THEY STILL NEEDED INDUSTRIAL MADE AND COATED WELDING RODS.

This shit is orders of magnitude harder to do than anyone realises, this sounds easy, but it depends on that, and that depends on the other, and the other depends on something else, and you need all that shit in an unbroken line before you can do this

I used to run a single cylinder static lister diesel generator, it would run on diesel, or lube oil, or ATF, and this 1.4 litre displacement single cylinder engine would produce a whopping 6 bhp @ 650 rpm, each of the twin external flywheels weighed around 300 lbs….. I personally wouldn’t even consider anything more technologically advanced or high tech or with a greater power to weight ratio for a Broken Roads scenario, we are literally talking steam power.

Similarly, 40 years after the apocalypse, my money is on the only kind of rifle the main protagonist would be able to run would be a muzzle loading flintlock, flint, black powder and lead you can do, and again, with low barrel pressures you can cast or wrap a barrel, there is a huge correlation between being able to make an engine barrel that will handle 200 psi peak pressures and a gun barrel that will do the same, to scale…. hell, the logo of BSA motorcycles until they folded was crossed rifles, Birmingham Small Arms

But making brass, smokeless powder, and especially percussion caps… fucking hard stuff to do… so is making a rifled barrel

First you need a lathe….

But you couldn’t make that shit unless you have access to a fucking good blacksmith, and a metalsmith, and a gear cutter, all separate trades and skills, and they in turn depend on miners and smelters, brickies to make the kiln, it goes on and on, maybe when your community gets to 50,000 inhabitants you’ll have enough supporting trades and such to start making crude rifle barrels and steam engines and early internal combustion engines, Harley J stuff, assuming you have the fucking plans, and the measuring tools, and so on.

In a sense, though I am only 20% of the way into Broken Roads, I sense that this is at least one thread of the narrative that DMJ is telling a story about, our ignorance of our dependence on technology.

If he is, I find myself wondering, in 1978 the BBC did an excellent 10 part documentary series, narrated by James Burke, it was called Connections, and delved into this very subject, back in the days before TV was dumbed down into x-fuckedher I’m a celebutard.

Maybe you should all watch it.

Maybe you should download it, while you still can, in a post apocalyptic world a hand cranked charger would power a laptop and allow you to view it, and marvel at the moving pictures.

Here is episode 1

November 10, 2013

WIFE = Washing, Ironing, Fucking, etc

I have said to many people, and many wimminz, that a relationship is very, very, very much like a job.

There is an interview process, there is a trial period, and then there is the employment period, with benefits, but at no time can you just decide to goof off and get a free ride without getting your ass canned.

But the fact is that it cuts both ways, wimminz aren’t just shit at relationshits, they are shit as employees too…. but sadly, so are many men…

Today for my sins I took my car in for some new tyres, for one reason and another to do with leasing you have to go to certain suppliers for certain things, and you aren’t allowed to do anything yourself, not even change a blown bulb, but the flipside is “just do it” no matter what and no worries about the munnay…

So, a small tyres / brakes / service place, you could get 4 vehicles inside, and 5 employees, all guys, and frankly they were a shower of shit, wandering around, sat there chatting to each other (and I don’t mean chatting while working, I mean sat there with a pneumatic wrench in hand talking to another guy sat on one of my wheels) working at a speed like they have never done this before….. my car, 4 new tyres, another car, up on ramp, new track rod and bushes, third car, brake test and service….  I was there a fucking hour and a quarter.

Cunts *deserve* to go bust, and I know why the leasing company just moved over to this chain, they are fucking “cheap”, not cheap as in cheap, but cheap as in cheaper than the other fuckers that used to have the contract.

I’m sure a large part of that “cheap” is because the staff are all on sweet fuck all money per hour, but even so, you can do the job the way I do mine, get stuck in and do it properly and look like a professional, and then sit back and chill once the customer has pulled out…

Me, I’m a captive customer, I got no choice but to go there, but others…. while I am there cooling my heels (hey, fuck it, I’m on the clock so it’s not like it’s *my* time they are wasting) guy comes in and asks how much to do a clutch on his 6 year old Citroen

Oooh, sucks teeth, looks at book, book says 5 hours @ 50 quid an hour, checks clutch price, ok sir that will be 370 notes, eg 120 for the clutch kit, that ain’t including the tax of course, which is 20% on top of that… so they want to charge this cunt 370 + 74 = 444 quid to do a fucking clutch…  OK, it’s a Citroen and OK it is front wheel drive, but even so…. if you are a local municipal bus driver and do all the overtime available you can pull in 18k gross, 18,000 / 52 = 346, that’s before tax, so even if you are married and get mortgage relief and shit your take-home is going to be under 300, so these fuckers want 1.5 weeks take home for 5 hours work…

Check GSF car parts and the clutch kit is 64 notes…. RETAIL… not trade..

As for the 5 hours on the ramp in an equipped garage with 5 employees, I know a guy who did his on his fucking driveway by himself in 5 hours with nothing more than hand tools, a trolley jack and a couple of axle stands… and that included making a clutch centre tool out of some copper pipe…

These are the same cunts that took (30 minutes was phone calls and paperwork and authorisation) 45 minutes to swap out 4 tyres… with TWO of the cunts on the job, so 1.5 hours labour right there… ok, “free fitting” so the labour wasn’t technically charged, but 1.5 man hours were used and they were actually working faster than the cunt doing the track rod, because I was watching them…..

When I turned up the track rod car was up on the ramp with the wheel off, when I left it was still there, and they guy was still fucking around and talking and wandering away and back and hadn’t *quite* managed to drop the old bushes and track rod… I suspect that was his job for the entire day.

The main dealers who do all the rest of the work, well, they are fucking expensive, but at least they don’t fuck around and get on with shit, but again the spend a *lot*of time on bullshit CYA “quality control” everything countersigned off bullshit, or basically “hunting for work” e.g. going over the fucking bodywork with a UV lamp looking for paint and body defects… (a UV lamp will show shit you just won’t see with the naked eye in the average English weather day…) with the result that a service will set you back just under 300 notes…

Back when I was a lad, a “full service” was a full man-day on the car, it wasn’t just fluids and filters and a brake check, two guys would spend all morning or all afternoon going over the bitch and doing maintenance and touch up work.

When they finished you’d get billed for the bigger shit, like brake friction material, but nobody itemised shit like grease used greasing the doors or track rod ends, that was just consumables shit…. the tyre bill included itemised amounts for valves and balancing… which went on top of the tyre price…

Labour is “free” but the mechanic took a dump and had a cuppa so one teabag and 12 squares of toilet paper are itemised and added to the bill….  and the QA guy has to sign to say the mechanic wiped his ass properly and slurped his tea according to procedure.

Meanwhile they have to make a call to Mumbai and spend 20 minutes in a queue to get authorisation to issue the mechanic 3 ply bog roll and not the cheap 2 ply stuff that the leasing company specified in their 6,497 page procedure manual which you have to adhere to in order to be a “channel partner” or whatever this week’s buzzword is.

Wimminz of course *love* this shit, because no matter what you can just shrug your shoulders and say how awful it is, but it ain’t my fault y’see…..  and get back to the gossip… no ACTUAL FUCKING WORK being done.

In the same town there are a couple of old boys who run their own tyre place… I could have been in and out of there in 20 minutes, literally…. which is why with my own vehicle I patronise places like them, and my “pet” mechanic, who would have passed on the citroen clutch kit at cost and “call it 200 quid” for labour, and you can give me half now and half next week if you like, and he would have lined that fucking clutch up to better than a thou, and cleaned and dressed up ALL the threads and fasteners, and everything else, while he was in there….. every time I took a French front wheel drive car to him I always told him to fit a heavy duty clutch, parts were only 30% more but it would be the last one you ever fitted…

It’s the fucking work ethic, that’s what I am on about here, that is what we are missing.

I’m a procrastinating mother-fucker, but when I eventually get around to doing a job for myself, I do it fucking properly…. today I was on my hands and knees washing my fucking fake laminate kitchen flooring by hand, then I did the inside of the fridge and shelves, then I washed down the tops of all the skirting boards, wiped the tops of the internal doors and lintels, then I did the front door inside and out, and the window sills etc outside, and I don’t know ANY fucking wimminz who will do that.

Not even when moving out and wanting to keep the fucking deposit…

And no, I am not some OCD cleanliness freak mofo, I’ll only do this shit once every two or three months, but it WILL get done now and again.

The joke about WIFE = washing, ironing, fucking, etc… well, good luck to you with a modern wimminz…

Washing is something they will do under protest, once YOU have bought them a fucking washing machine and tumble dryer, and don’t get me started on that shit about men don’t know how to use a washing machine, in my lifetime I never met a man who had any issues with them, on the other hand every wimminz I ever met uses one of two programs, either mixed coloureds at 40 degrees for everything, or delicates for her own personal expensive clothes, that’s it.

Ironing, you must be fucking kidding, wimminz know better than men you take something out of the tuble dryer still warm and you can put it away without ironing it… I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of wimminz I know who know how to iron a shirt and a pair of pants, some of the rest of them can iron a hanky…. just about.

Fucking, well, no need to go into this… she’ll fuck anything except hubby

Etc, like make me a sammich bitch, rub my shoulders, feed me, make the fucking bed in the morning when you get up, you must be kidding me…

Basically if you want to know what it is like to live with a modern wife, just move into some student digs, take the door off *your* room so *you* have no privacy, and put them all as named persons on your bank account and plastic…. and stay there for life* and keep paying for life… (*even after they evict your sorry ass.)

Actually, it won’t be *that* good, at least students get to get shit-faced and laid now and again…

So there I am visiting one such unfortunate, and we are trying to have a conversation at the kitchen table, because the kids have taken over the lounge and telly and everything else he paid for, meanwhile the “wife” is complaining the Tassimo machine isn’t as good as her friends new AEG (which uses the same *fucking* expensive per cup pods) and then their little 4 year old daughter wanders in, sits on a vacant chair next to us, lifts her dress, spreads her legs, spreads her cunt with her fingers and starts exploring…. to which the wife says “leave your bottom alone darling

I laugh loudly and say to my mate/the father, “that ain’t her fucking bottom…” he just looks pained, one of those I know dude, but what the fuck can I do, looks…

To which the wife (who basically doesn’t like me, she has many reasons, some of them my be true, but mainly I suspect hubby just ain’t allowed visitors in prison) starts telling me off for swearing in front of children.

I look at her and say “You have a 4 year old daughter flashing her cunt to guys in the kitchen and you are concerned about the language one of the guys are using… that is an interesting set of priorities you have there.

I’m waiting for the “how dare you tell me how to raise my kids” tirade, I’m up for that one (some cunt needs to) but it doesn’t come, instead she decides that hubby needs to take some generic groceries to *her* mum and dad’s place, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, because without the milk and sugar in the package she is making up they will die, pronto….

I say “whatever dude, I’m out of here so I shall leave you to your weekend of domestic bliss….. cya

Every time I visit there, which ain’t that often, I have the same thought, I wonder what she would do if I wait till hubby is out the room and grab some tit and ass, not because she is hot, just to see what she would do, I suspect that is partly why she hates me, because she wouldn’t object and yet I don’t do it… but that thought always triggers the follow on thought, if he isn’t fucking her enough, why should I do his job for him.

See, he is a sometime co-worker, and when we are on site together I refuse ro do his work for him, but, I also make sure there is clear and documented demarcation between what he touches, and what I touch, because his work is frankly crap.

It’s a chicken / egg question as to whether his work is crap because he always has so much domestic shit on his mind, or because he has no work ethic he cannot manage his work or private life effectively.

I got no skin in that game, so I don’t care, I just keep certain boundaries enforced, while trying to be a bit of a mate, because despite it all he is basically a nice guy with little or no malice in him, who always *tries* to do the right thing.

The big difference between me and him, that moment with his (? lol) daughter playing with her “bottom”, he didn’t see what I saw, which was a slow burning fuse leading to an ammo dump hidden in the basement…. and a “wife” playing with a zippo ensuring that pretty little Barbie fuse sparkler stayed alight.


July 21, 2013


There are many, many, many things in life that you get a default answer to.

Paedophilia, yes, it is just wrong, end of discussion.

God help you if you want to discuss it intellectually,to wonder aloud why the label is applied, completely incorrectly, to 21 year olds having mutually consensual and loving sexual relationships with 15 years and 11 months olds.rideolsen

God help you if you wonder aloud that for much of English history the age of consent was 12 and there was no paedophilia to speak of, now it is 16/18 there is apparently loads of it…. just as there was no illegal homosexual sex before homosexual sex was made illegal.

God help you if you wonder aloud at the imposition of a law making something quite common suddenly arbitrarily illegal, if she is 5,843 days old I am a rapist and paedo, if she is 5,844 days old we can nip up to Gretna Green and get married.

Where does the State get off in passing laws that suddenly render apparently common enough behaviours illegal, surely this is against everything the state itself was founded to preserve.

What comes next, laws banning the wearing of primary colours?

The real point of this post, and, now that the stage is set, another default answer that must not be questioned or discussed, is Men and their abducted by the state / skank ho ex kids, specifically the boy children, because the girl children and just sluts in training… oh noes… we’re back to the paedo thing again..

But here we are, ask any deadbeat dad who does not have contact with his sons, and you’ll get the stock answer, I should be there for them, teaching them, guiding them, doing manly things with them.

But is it the fucking truth?

About now I am as popular with deadbeat dads as a “paedo” admiring the tits on a 14 year old chick in a topless beach…

Oh I know, there are all sorts of things I *could* be doing with and for my absent sons, all sorts of things I feel I *should* be doing with and for my absent sons, yadda yadda yadda

But the unspeakable question.

What’s in it for me?

Did you cringe reading that? Did it make you feel guilt, the same way looking at the pic above and thinking she is pretty…

Is me explaining how my life is easier, more money and free time and all that jazz, somehow reminiscent of “if they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to breed”, you cannot counter it directly, but it is just WROOOONNNG… MMKAYY.. so DROP IT…

However, no pubescent teen virgins were harmed by this discussion, just as no absent sons were harmed by this discussion, so the only thing this discussion is a threat to is the whole concept of the unspeakable.

Paedophilia is a good place to start, in your creation of an unspeakable, cannibalism is a better taboo, but, you cannot potentially link 75% of day to day activity for 99.999% of the population with potential cannibalism, it just doesn’t fly.

Of course you then have to set the boundaries in such a way that 99.9% of people are tempted, because you need that fucking guilt to get them to shut the fuck up when someone else is accused, so there is no good to be had from making the minimum age at which you can have sex 7, like cannibalism, 99.999% of the population wouldn’t be tempted anyway, so you have to set it at a ludicrously high level, biologically and historically speaking, see homosexuality, a young boy of 16/7 could join the army and get his ass blown off by flying lead and HE, but he couldn’t consent to a loving sexual encounter with another man unless he was 21.

Ok, now you have a universally reviled act, that you have simultaneously engineered to be something that, within the broadest terms of the definition, 99.999% of the population are biologically hard-wired to find “interesting” at the very least, so you have your guilt, which gives you your control… Neimoller anyone?

Next step?

Well, you mission creep that fucker.


Now I have been online since fidonet and the BBS days, long before there was an internet, last time I accidentally came across some paedo porn? Must have been about 1996… so this isn’t exactly a pandemic of filth that needs urgent attention, it’s just mission creep, making ever more people feel guilty.

Let’s be honest, who is going to stand up and say “Hang on a minute, do we actually need any more fucking useless laws on this subject?” nobody, you filthy paedolover and apologist you…

Want to marginalise some fucker, no worries, just label them a paedo, or a deadbeat dad. Job done.

Actual paedophilia is of course still going on, and it is a great tool for blackmail and political control, so it is not actual paedophilia, or active drug use, or active anything that is ever targeted, it is all about guilt, which is all about control.

So, you have systems in place that arguably both;

  1. do nothing whatsoever to combat the alleged problem
  2. just happen to be a very effective means of coercion and control for the 99.999% of the population who were never tempted by the alleged problem in the first place.

Pure coinckydink, of course, only a paedo or terr’rist would suggest that in fact the REAL goals and the actual outcomes were the only game in town, and the stated goals were just a methodology, social engineering.

Now tell me again, what is in it for me to become actively involved in raising my abducted by the skank ho ex and State sons…. they already have my fucking DNA

Being brutally honest with you, if they read and memorise this blog, that’s about all else I can give them.

My skills, well, bit like grandad teaching me how to make buggy whips, not relevant to life in 2013 innit.

If the remaining 99.99999% of me feeling bad about somehow letting my son’s down is just social engineering, then by definition it is alien to me, and I am better off rejecting it, and so are my sons, so if I have contact with them it will be BECAUSE of the social engineering, and as such I would be infected by it, and my proximity to them would infect them.

Hilariously. This is the exact argument the state uses WRT sexual abuse, that the abused go on to create more abusers.


Because it is a bell that cannot be un-rung in your mind.


January 21, 2013

Fucking Crazy

I was, last night, fucking a crazy that is… comes from the school of do as I say, not as I do, I guess, but anyway, there I was, fucking this self confessed crazy bitch who fried her brain’s biochemistry years ago on ganja.

OK, I wanted a fuck, but really the reason was this, when I started talking to her she reminded me of a crazy chick I knew and fucked in around 1980, bitch would go moo and maa and all that shit and smoke some grass and then take a handful of mogadon, and then we would get it on, crazy bitch but an interesting fuck.as

So I took it in my head to do some brideshead revisited and fuck a similar ish crazy bitch 30 years later in real time, but 20 years later in crazy bitch time, as this one was 40 and had been hitting the pills for 20 years.

Shit that amused me back then was frankly boring as fuck when it came out of this bitch’s mouth, heard one delusion / psychosis heard em all, heard on tale of infantile sexual abuse heard em all, heard one vile attempt at poetry heard em all, heard one the aliens mind control nazis po-lice and coming to get me heard em all…

… and so it was that at 11 pm when I had finished plundering all her holes and dumping my cum, I did the whole make me a coffe bitch thing and got dressed, and set my phone to do the Fake Call Me thing in five minutes, drink my coffee, phone goes off so I give her the whole Babe-I-gotta-go-the-mothership-is-calling-we-are-moving-the-invasion-date-up thing and get the fuck out.

And so it is that as midnight strikes I am sitting in my warm german mothership listening to the muted beat of the straight six diesel at 2500 RPM on roads largely deserted because of the ice and snow, reflecting on the passage of 20 years of self medication on crazy bitches, and brothers, there are a lot of them out there..

And I move on to the other bitches on the production line and realise I have done it again, I have reached that stage beyond asshole game and arrogant asshole game and extreme asshole game and gotten to “meh” game, that cycle where my desire for new cunt is sub-zero, and any amount of pleasure extracted from dumping my cum is always exceeded by my distaste for the bitch involved.

As the miles hum by I come to realise something, the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 has seen a startling shift in wimminz, and I was too close to the cunt to see the trees.

Bitches are starting to get desperate and scared… it’s the fucking swansong and they know it.

In the last six months bitches have NO money, stories I have seen and heard, interest only mortgage (by definition, NONE of the capital paid off) with a year to run and ZERO possibility of a re-mortgage, bitches have to choose between buying food or buying heating oil, bitches have to choose between buying food or putting fuel in the car to come see me and get fucked, bitches being told their jobs are at risk, and they realise they have no savings and debt falling out of their asses, bitches considering getting back with their ex’s, because the ex is still working and has money, bitches who are accumulating broken appliances around the house, because they have to money to repair or replace, and so, in short, bitches who are getting more desperate and ironically MORE demanding, they less they have to offer and the greater their need.

Take back the night and take back the streets, the bitches are getting scared, because they can walk through the city in the day time in a week day and see less people about, less shoppers, very few people carrying bags from shops, and they are starting to feel alone and vulnerable, not a part of the crowd.

The city I was in last night fucking crazy is known for being an an area that paradoxically lost most of the native industry and so is poor, but also had a shitload of development money thrown at it, so there are gleaming new city centres and white elephant buildings, and out in the burbs it is all mass unemployment and petty crime and drugs.

The younger wimminz, in their twenties, can trade cunt for drugs, the older wimminz hand over their cash cards to the dealers who go to the hole in the wall every week and draw out the monies paid in by the state for child benefit and then hand over the dope.

Wimminz who fuck up have cash bounties put on their heads for s severe beating, and even I raised my eyebrows at the prices, spoke to one chick living in fear, she knew who put the bounty on her, and she knew it was £100, but she can’t even earn that sort of money on her back, not even at £10 a time because it is all she can do to get one guy to pay £10 to fuck her, mark to market economics at its best…. fuck me back in 1980 it was 50 quid for a good beating, and 50 quid in 1980 is worth at least 500 today.

I drove into the place at around seven pm, and from the motorway exit to the bitch’s flat I did not see one single pub or shop open, most of what I did see was not merely shut, but boarded up…. times are hard when not even the paki’s will move in and open a corner shop, and not even the chinks will move in and open a takeaway…

…and this isn’t even a sinkhole estate, this was a *good* area of the city in question…

To be honest this was largely why I decided it was time to do some fucking crazy, she lived in a city I hadn’t been to for a while and it was an excuse to go there and drive through it, thinking when she opens the door I can always decide no way and walk away, but when she opened the door it wasn’t that bad so I stayed and fucked it and got distracted from my alternate purpose by her crazy.

I’m glad I did, because otherwise the local picture is the only one you see, and you can end up with confirmation bias.

I’m also glad I did because fucking crazy was enough to tip me over the edge and complete another cycle of fuck / don’t fuck.

I’m also glad I did because the serenity of cruising back along deserted highways in the mothership gave me time to think and realise that lately the wimminz have been getting desperate and nastier with it.

I’m glad I did because all these things are feedback loops, they all play a part in my losing interest in fucking bitches for a while, and my losing interest in fucking bitches for a while allows me to see all these things a little more clearly than when dumping some cum is on the agenda.

As an interesting anecdote, fucking crazy is also convinced that 2013 is when it starts to go bad for real.

Fucking crazy reminded me of an old story, allegedly true. (this is from before the days of mobile phones and breakdown cover)

Guy is driving along a road in the country, and THUMP, gets out and finds one wheel has fallen off his car, the wheel is easy enough to retrieve, but of course the 4 wheel nuts are all long gone.

Guy starts cursing and kicking the shit out of the wheel in question, when he hears giggling behind him.

Guy looks around and sees a brick wall “St Eustatic Mental Hospital” on a sign, and this fella leaning on the wall.

Fella leaning on the wall says “HI, I’m a patient here, got a cigarette

Guy thinks what the fuck, could do with a smoke myself to calm down, so pulls out the smokes, hands one to the fella and lights both up.

Fella says “Why don’t you take one wheel nut of each of the other three wheels, and use those three nuts to attach that wheel?

Guy is impressed at this, and says so.

Fella says “Listen mate, I’m fucking crazy, not stupid.


November 7, 2012

The planet of pork.

Muslims, as we all know, do not eat pork.

They also eat with the right hand and wipe their ass with the left hand.

For much of the 2,000 year history of Islam, this was nothing more than damn good practical advice, simple hygiene, in hot arid climates with limited water supplies and no refrigeration these rules saved millions of lives, no doubt about it.

I have a skanky friend who eats fish and white meat, but not red meat, so yesterday when I made some bacon sandwiches she passed, a Muslim would have passed too, not because my hygiene with hot and cold running water and detergent was lacking, nor because my refrigerated pork had gone off, but because APALT, All Pigs Are Like That.

Sure, some “westernised” Muslims will tuck in to a bacon sandwich, and use both hands to eat it, but even then you can’t accuse them of being NAPALT blue pillers, because their belief that my bacon sandwich is NOT a health risk is a scientific belief that is based upon laboratory verifiable fact.

Sure, in a purely religious sense they are not adherents, but then again none of us are, sex before marriage or outside of marriage anyone?

Now, unlike many readers, I have lived (as opposed to visited on a holiday) in Muslim countries, and I have some observations;

  1. In a hot climate with no refrigeration you can kill a pig and butcher it and 12 hours after the animal took it’s last breath large portions of what you butchered is a health hazard.
  2. In a hot climate where you have a gallon of water a day you can drink it and live, or wash your hands in it and die, shave your beard in it and die, etc

I will remind you that as recently as 150 years ago people were routinely dying right here in the UK because of lack of basic hygiene and cross infection between faeces and drinking water, and as recently as 165 years ago surgeons were offended at the idea that they should wash their hands between working on a cadaver and operating on a living person.

The Muslims were 1,700 years ahead of the curve here.

Even washing your hands isn’t as good as you think, if you join the St John’s ambulance on of the little things they do is give you a blindfold and some blue dye and tell you to wash your hands, then you take the blindfold off, and every bit of your hands not dyed blue wasn’t washed.

An interesting little anecdote, the lead trainer told me that the only exceptions he had ever had in thirty years who had blue from the wrist down and not one square mm of skin not dyed on either hand at the first attempt were marine engineers.. as it was a former trade of mine I laughed at him and said if you had ever been one you would know why…

But getting back to the Muslim’s and pork, it was a lot like us with our ten commandments, simple rules that any fucker could remember and obey, especially the peasant in the field.

The fact is, hot water from a tap, soap and refrigeration haven’t done a damn thing to change the nature of pork, it is still a “dirty” meat that goes off real quickly and nastily which is a health hazard long before it starts to smell or look bad.

Fish too, make no mistake, being able to salt pork and smoke fish were as big as steam power or electric power back in the day, literally civilisation changing technologies.

While there are certainly still plenty of Muslim’s living the peasant lifestyle, there are also plenty like me, living with constant access to hot water, soap and refrigeration, but the Muslim’s have not forgotten that the NATURE of pork is unchanged.

It is still and unclean meat.

Wimminz were also unclean meat, when I grew up wimminz were visited by the curse once a lunar month, God’s punishment for original sin, the bitches had to cover their hair in Church and were forbidden from going to Church if they were on the rag, because they were unclean.

Today both the Christian and Muslim faiths in the west have places of worship utterly empty of young people, and I talk to these people.

Talk you a young Christian or a young Muslim and yes, it is in a way a part of their identity, but it is always said as a 0.00001% of the whole part, and not something they were ever consulted about.

They will both be filled with ten thousand more times passion about the local football club or a Subaru Impreza.

The rest of society needs to full absorb and understand the fact that these kids KNOW all the girls have had threesomes at the very least, most have had a gangbang or two, most ride a different cock or two every weekend, without fail.

These kids are hip to the idea of marrying a good wimminz and having kids, hell they are as hip to that as they are to the idea of owning a McLaren F1, and as enthusiastic.

Trouble is, such wimminz are rarer and more out of reach than a fucking McLaren F1.

Talk to them about religion, and they are hip to the whole traditional marriage 1.0 thing, but it is a big FUCK YOU to the religious leaders who try to shame them into doing that thing, but who remain strangely quiet about the status of wimminz within church and society.

Talk to the young wimminz, as I do, and you are in for an even greater shock.

You know the old macho youth thing about if some asshole pulled a gun one me I would fuck him up, yeah, and then someone does that very thing, and you go very still and the first thing you realise is you haven’t breathed for 30 seconds, and the second thing you realise is your hands are already reaching for the sky, have been for 35 seconds, and are not fucking listening to yo, third thing you realise is your mouth is real dry, and fourth thing you realise is that you ain’t calling the shots, not any of em… you is fucking powerless.

The wimminz are starting to realise this first hand, they cried wolf so often, made so many false accusation, fucked everyone else over for short term personal gain so often, they are now living in a jungle of their own making… what’s worse, their so called wimminz friends are just as likely to be an oppressor as an evil male… in fact if it is more than one on one then it is pretty much guaranteed.

I had what was by any legal definition of the word a rape described to me last week by one of these young wimminz, one victim and three participants… nobody involved is denying anything about it, much less that in happened, and two of the three participants were wimminz, one of them a so called best friend of the victim… and the victim themselves, well, they ain’t going to the po-leece, no sir, because then the other three will open their mouths and a whole pile of true shit will come out…

In fact, instead of being a tale of one wimminz victim and the oppressors who raped her, this is actually a tale of four equally broken and fucked up people, and that particular moment in time it was this wimminz turn to be victim, everyone else has had their turn, and they will all have more turns in future.

… and we are straight back to the good Muslim girl who rides a minimum of one or two cocks every weekend, when she goes out drinking and clubbing, for this is her, and the stark reality that all the young people in this group are aware of, like a long line of dominoes, her current lifestyle is the INEVITABLE result of a series of bad choices, made because she was free and able to do anything with no apparent consequences, hear me fucking roar, and the consequences are when you act like a cum bucket you instantly lose all future respect, forever, and any hope whatsoever of anyone treating you as anything but a filthy lying whore.

I had no sympathy whatsoever for this victim, and said as much to her face, nor did she or the other three participants feel the slightest shred of shame, rather they felt anger, and the victim felt genuine fear, she felt fear because she realised for the first time just how little true strength or power she had when push came to shove, and the other three felt anger because what the fuck did she expect when she CHOSE to hang out with them and have regular group sex and get blind drunk every weekend for a year or two?

Yes, alcohol and drugs plays a big part in this lifestyle, but they are all quite self aware enough to state openly that when Friday night comes around they all press the self destruct button and go out and do shit to excess all weekend, then spend Monday to Friday hating themselves for last weekend’s antics, then rinse and repeat.

And from this our leaders expect to find the building blocks of society 2.0?

These little bastards know about me and my production line of skank ho’s, so the discussion turns to that, who’s your latest front runner AfOR?

So I tell em, 29, pretty fucking hot actually, a definite 9 on any scale, no kids and a claimed 25 cocks ridden to date.

No threesomes? I am asked.

Well, I reply, she says no, so maybe she is exceptional, or maybe she is just fucking lying.

She’s lying, say all the boys.

Bitch is DEFINITELY lying, say all the girls.

I’m going to fuck her, not marry her, so I don’t give a shit, I say.

They all laugh, amen to that.

The rape victim, she was out the next night, partying and drinking, give it a week until it happens again, what can you do when you live in a shoe?

Twenty years time when I am trying to balance in my zimmer frame, this is the people that will be middle aged and charged with running and maintaining “society”… brown-shirts just waiting for the recruitment poster… what could possibly go wrong.

August 3, 2012

Why skank ho’s be stupid

Filed under: Wimminz — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — wimminz @ 11:51 am

I am following on from some comments Hans made about me getting addicted to silky young cunt, but being saved by the bell by the herd intervening.

The herd intervening wasn’t a question of if, but when, and walking away from it unscathed is down to always having your cards on the table, and everything archived to the cloud, nobody is saying dick.

More on this later, but last night being the beginning of the months, I did go through my old contact list to do some filing (never delete, just file them in to “fucked em” and “skank ho” groups and archive) and check up on a couple, both of which I had talked to quite extensively in the past, both of whom only circumstances conspired to stop a meet and fuck, one was a no reply, the other one (deffo Cluster B, but hot.. lol) (yeah, I know) SMS me right back to say “don’t contact me again” shrugs, no problem bitch, your loss…. last time we spoke she was shining about her mother interfering in her life, so yeah, another herd save for the skank ho…

The thing is this, men are hard wired to really like fresh young cunt, and the one Hans was talking about, well, fact is she could have got me… almost certainly… IN THEORY.

I say in theory because all she would have had to do is put the effort in and put me/us first, like that is ever going to happen, the closest wimminz will come nowadays is parallel tracks going in the same direction while it suits them, so in practice getting anything worthwhile or lasting is a non starter.

But, Hans is right… “Danger Will Robinson!”.. the parallel tracks with a wimminz while it suits her is the guaranteed template for future heartache and troubles that all co-habiting and long term boyfriends run in to, only a question of time, because sooner or later those tracks will diverge, and it will be your fault for not following her lead, and if you do, well then you are a creepy stalker, get the fuck out.

Marriage strike, commitment phobe, all the other crap dumped on men, and indeed all the stuff the MRA guys hold up high as signs of victory, are in reality no more than wimminz work.

You cannot commit to, or be with, or marry some psycho skank ho who changes her wants and desires with the wind, and when the herd intervenes to make sure she does change her wants and desires, so the reality is it is not guys on a marriage strike or commitment strike, because lets face it, if the wimminz just picked one tune and stuck to it, they could all be married within a year, simple as….

The wimminz themselves aren’t on a marriage strike, that is way too intellectual for either the herd as a whole or individual members of the herd, temporarily isolated or not.

The wimminz and the herd are however on a quest, they are migrating in search of the lands of princes and yachts and fried snow, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, doesn’t matter what is on offer under their noses, the winds and the horizon are calling.

Men in the pack know there is nothing out there, we are already in the best bit of the valley/basin, sure there are new horizons, but they are successively more arid and desolate, but this little bit of harsh reality has been protected from the herd, who expect the pack to go out and irrigate and grow new savannah, just so the wimminz can turn their noses up at that too, because that is what they have become, fried snow seekers.

The pack is no more able to alter the nature of nature than the herd, if we could change the nature of nature, far easier to change the nature of wimminz (bit like the old joke about the guy who gets three wishes from God, uses two of them up on money and beer, and then asks for a 4 lane road bridge across the Atlantic, God says no fucking way, you any idea how fucking hard it is to do something like that, Guy says ok, give me a loyal woman, God says lets take a look at those bridge plans) but instead all we have done, at the herd request / demand, is isolate the herd from the consequences of their choices and actions.

If you talk to young wimminz in porn they will all without exception say exactly the same thing, the girl on the bed taking 25 cocks isn’t them, it is “Bambi” some sort of alter ego, and Bambi is a persona they put on by choice on shooting day, but it isn’t them, they didn’t really take 25 cocks… take away the lights camera action (eg evidence) and this sort of mentality is suddenly grooming and control and abuse by the nearest cock…. the rest of the herd will agree.

I just look at these young wimminz and think to myself, what a fucking waste, like giving someone a new merc and they never maintain it and smash it up and next thing you know its fit for the scrapheap, but they act like it is an appreciating classic worth more than the new list price, which they never paid anyway….

Sure they will all bang me if I want, but LTR, no, they are all way too good for an old man like me, even before the herd intervenes….. a couple have asked me straight up, what’s the real deal, so I tell them;

  1. By very definition of the fact you are doing this shit means you shouldn’t be allowed to make any choices for yourself, you should be property.
  2. 20 years old and 500 cocks (but only 25 of them count cos the rest were porn) you better take the FIRST fucking offer from a man you get, and be eternally grateful, even if he is 85, wears a daiper, and wants you to rim his ass daily.

At which point they either start laughing or crying, and either way avoid me… with one or two exceptions… remember all these chicks are single moms, so I see one with her two rug rats, both little girls, both raised by the state purse, so she lays some line on me, if I was nicer to her (spent money on her) I could have her any way I wanted…. I dunno, I guess it was a funny day, because instead of laughing I bit…  “Two things…” I said “… number one, anyone who wants you can have you, on camera, any time they  want

Number two … ” and remember this chick is 20 so all these literary / film references whoosh, which makes it even more ironic / funny “ … how much for the little girls? I don’t want to fuck em now, but I’ll book early for discount….oh sorry, did you think they were going to be a fucking lawyer and a vet… instead of following in mummy’s footsteps?

That does it, you just took their delusional illusion and wiped you ass with it, being near you is being near the death of their unicorn, so you are persona non grata…. while their lives follow the exact path you predicted.

Which all brings us all to the kernel of the problem.

Just what, exactly, is intelligence?

A wimminz brain is close enough, but different, to a man’s brain, but lets face it, not many of the niggerz out there display much intelligence either, so while intelligence is a byproduct of the organ we call the brain, it doesn’t appear to be a causal relationship.

There are various maladies that are located in the brain, but that can’t actually be detected by a visual dissection or inspection of the brain, that render the sufferer helpless and requiring the help of others to survive.

We will take one not so hypothetical example, her name is Samantha, her brain as far as anyone can tell is perfect in every way, but she needs help getting washed, dressed, finding her way home….  this would be fine if Sam was 5 years old, but she is 25 years old.

I’ve seen Sam and her same age female carer out and about, damned if you can spot the simpleton, none of the lads who hit on them appear to be able to either, and in fact the carers biggest job is stopping Sam and some random guy from getting it on.

Now, I can see why Sam is not eligible for a drivers licence, but the fact is the driving TEST serves its purpose, Sam could never in a million years pass a driving test, whereas her carer did.

What I don’t see is why Sam does not have the right to vote, but her carer does, when the difference is all apparently based on “intelligence”

While a driving test is mainly a test of physical proficiency, much of modern life is not, lawyers, social workers, office workers, there is not one shred of intelligence required, just some learning by rote, literally anyone can study and pass lawyers exams… just takes time and effort, no skill or intelligence of any kind required.

Which opens a whole tin of worms that the disabled industry is well aware of, Stephen Hawking, wheelchair bound mute dribbling idiot, except he is not, he is beyond all doubt INTELLIGENT.

It is almost like the brain is a muscle, and when it is exercised regularly and well it develops intelligence, and when it isn’t it does not, Hawkings brain, and Sam’s, and her carers, all look the same.

Sams and her carers are the same, never been exercised, in Sam’s case there may be some biochemical switch that does work, so exercise does not produce intelligence, but the end result is the same as Sam’s carers brain, atrophied, and does not produce intelligence.

No man who is a father of boys and who has been there to see, can have failed to notice that by the age of FIVE his sons could out think both their mother and their sisters and their female teachers and every other woman they came across.

Mommy “Johnny, stop using your super soaker to get Tiddles wet!

Johnny “OK mom.. <sigh>

time passes, Johnny and Timmy from next door use their super soakers to get next doors cat Benjamin wet

Mommy “Johnny, I thought I told you not to shoot cats with the soaker!!!!

Johnny, “No mum, you told me not to shoot TIDDLES, me and Timmy were shooting BENJAMIN

You know the rest…

…… and so wimminz be herd animals with low intelligence, because herd life does not exercise the brain, men be pack animals with higher intelligence, because pack life does exercise the brain.

Which leaves us, in the western world in 2012 AD, up shit creek without a paddle.

Because the fact is, it is illegal, with massive real world consequences and penalties, to treat wimminz as anything other than equally intelligent to men, unless said wimminz invoke DV or FRA allegations, in which case they are treated like Sam in the story above…. even though we all know, in 99.999% of cases, Sam in the story above is as intelligent as any other wimminz…

Now, I mentioned in the previous post, at the end, how Nature was going to address the obvious imbalances between the enlarged herds and the decimated packs.

Well, there is one way, and it is “rapid response” because it is already built in to all humans.

HG Wells talked about it, the Morlock and the Eloi, but as politically correct as ever, there were both males and females in both species.

Fact is, the herds, by their very nature of not exercising the brains to produce intelligence, and excising the pack influence which did engender intelligence, are producing skank ho’s like the porn sluts and their ilk.

The Morlock are the wimminz, (and the niggerz) because the fact is, zero intelligence of any kind is required by a wimminz to survive to breed, and Nature being the great economist, does not waste valuable energy on shit that ain’t needed to produce the next generation.

It was only in times of old, pre technology, that a wimminz needed a brain and some pack influence to survive, because she actually had to do various things for herself, in the modern world just being born with a cunt guarantees access to food and shelter and clothing and entertainment.

If we have a global war, the wimminz will have to start toeing the pack line, AND develop intelligence.

If we don’t and instead have a social and technological evolution and perhaps a pandemic, the wimminz will have to start toeing the pack line, and develop LESS intelligence (a stretch I know)

The young wimminz I have been fucking recently, nice young flesh, but you look in their fucking eyes man, I swear to god that I have seen more intelligence in the eyes of a dog or a cow. And I shit you not, and say this not for literary effect, I mean it most sincerely.

I don’t mean incapable through idleness of original thought, such as the 40’s and 50’s wimminz family lawyers and social workers et al.

I mean as dumb as a fucking animal, because those neural pathways were never lit up in the first place.

Their compliance in bed was TOTAL, how the fuck do you think they got kids, got into porn, whatever, and of course when the herd comes along again their compliance is total and immediate… when the slut exhibits compiance to a man, such as me, bad, when the slut exhibits compliance to the herd, good, black is white, two legs bad, four legs good… what about us say the ducks…

It’s not the predatory pack nature of being a man that is really, genuinely, actually, daily, so fucking dangerous for men like us, it is the fucking intellect that it has nurtured within us, the herd could tolerate us while we act as dumb as a sack of kittens, but show any true intellect, and they want nothing less than our eradication.

Intellect is the antidote to herd behaviour, and the herd will tolerate no antidotes.

Smart men will keep below the radar and place the long bet, not on the herd or the pack, but on Nature.

March 22, 2012

Dear diary

Today I are been mainly….. ignoring the wimminz… lol

Allow me to explain.

My alarm went off around 7, I turned it off, scratched my balls, thought “fuck it” and rolled over for another hour’s kip.

I got up at 8, scratched my balls, made my morning coffee, check emails etc.

I made my second coffee and watched all the late teen / early 20’s pussy walk past my window (I live in a student area in a university town) and notice I have a text from a local skank who wants to stop by and blow me for lunch.

I amble into the front room, where my main PC is connected to my 55 inch Samsung, because I have just bought a Radeon 6900 series GFX card so I feel like playing a little Skyrim / Fallout / Crysis at 1920 x 1080 with everything  turned up…

I get so carried away by this that when the skank ho swings by at lunch-time to blow me my head is still in another place, I’m lining up head shots of another kind entirely….

I could go on, but I am sure you get the general idea by now.

Wimminz themselves have reduced themselves to a position with me where;

  1. If the flesh is under 25 it *may* be enticing…. but sadly the personality it will come with will soon ruin that little porno illusion.
  2. If the flesh is over 25 but offers blowjobs to go it “may” be enticing… but the flesh it comes with will often ruin that little porno illusion.
  3. I actually do not need some bitch to cook and clean, I find it zero effort to keep myself and my place clean, fact is if you don’t *make* a fucking mess in the first place…
  4. As the years have passes and the wimminz excesses have worn me down, I find myself less and less willing to put up with *anything* from them that does not fall into the category of “100% pure what I want from them”

Read point #1 again, even the young fresh flesh, the thing all wimminz revere and mourn the passage of, only has a momentary porno relish, until reality sets in with the realisation that the bitch will sure as shit ain’t shinola have an attitude that will ruin the illusion.

Fact is I even have one wimminz who will wait on me hand and foot, who will feed and fuck and even house me, and she is very clean, not just in her home, but never ever get any kind of smell from her cunt, not even stale piss, this girl has it down pat, she basically worships the ground I walk on, which, see above, is about the only attitude from a woman that still flies with me, and yet I can’t bring myself to spend more than one weekend in four with her, because of item #2

Which is why my diary is full of “Did what I felt like doing” followed by “did what I felt like doing

The cold hard sober facts are that my diary could oh so easily have been full of “did x for the wife” and “did y for the kids” and “did z for the wife“, and I could have oh so easily been happy and contented with that shit, but it was not me or my cock that ruined that illusion for life, nossir, it was the fucking wimminz, ALL OF THE BITCHES, with their constant whining for fried fucking snow, after a while it rubs off and you find yourself dissatisfied, not that you don’t have fried snow, but that the wimminz keep pissing in the snow and telling you it is sherbet, so the dissatisfied behaviour rubs off and you say fuck it.

Take off the rose tinted glasses and nostalgia for for teen flesh and look back at my own first serious live in girlfriend, actually look back at what it was really like once you subtract all the docile shit you were imbued with, bitch was a fucking nightmare, that’s a fact, and as ever it was down to not wishing to ever, ever, ever pay the price or consequences for her own actions, it was ever thus and yes folks, AWALT.

It is a hell of a thing when the wimminz have taken female flesh and made it essentially borderline unfuckable to a cocksman like me, that takes fucking DECADES of sustained effort, the sort of shit that makes making the jews and arabs live in peace and harmony look like a simple day’s work.

Unlike the Jews and the Arabs, I was basically built from DNA that made the wimminz the thing I wanted to fuck in preference to almost anything else in life, in preference to a career, in preference to a fleet of motorcycles, in preference to just lazing around all day, in preference to being independently wealthy…

And yet the wimminz have indeed put in those decades of effort, and were ably supported by an army of niggerz and manginas, all of whom were in it for the paycheck, well, welcome to the world you wanted, bitches.

Before I go, the one who was going to blow me mentioned in conversation that apparently Jason Statham, who is now apparently some Hollywood hard man and heart throb, has dissed Kim Kardashian, for being a “brand”.

Now as far as I can tell, the Kardashians are in some recursive way common to many celebs famous for being famous, e.g. in the papers every fucking day, and certainly when I have looked at them they just look like sluts, and not every fuckable ones at that, so not exactly a hard target to choose, but what struck me and made me comment was the fact that Statham is dissing someone else….

Hard man my ass, look at that designer stubble and those oh so purty sweeeeet lips, Jason Statham is a bitch, with a bitch’s mouth, in more ways that one, jaw dropped moment from BJ girl that I could diss the sex god in such a manner, and I just threw out, off the top of my head, that he just does not LOOK like a man, unlike say for example Charles Bronson…. at which point the slut groaned and positive begged to suck my cock.

So there you have it, everything from Crysis 2 to Mr Majestyk, it can only be a day in a man’s life… pmsl

March 10, 2012

Letters to the Editor

One of my regular readers and commenters is Hans, and he recently had this to say;

God-damn this fucking “pony herd” instinct. It´s supremely annoying and one of the many reasons I´ve stopped explaining anything to a female.

He is of course spot on, if you use PoF you may now and again use the “who viewed me” button, if you have ever been around a skank ho while she is using PoF, she hits that viewed me like one of pavlov’s dogs.

But the wimminz herd thing goes deeper, I have a photo (all my profile photos are set to private), this is a particular profile photo that I use whenever I want to drive off a wimminz who is stalking me on PoF, it is me in a shirt and tie in an office full of computers, Mr Establishment, Mr Steady Job, Mr Regular Income, Mr Average, it works better than garlic on a vampire.

The kind of photo that you would think would put wimminz off, me with a 2 day stubble in a wife beater / muscle vest working on my motorcycle (which only has one seat BTW) Mr Rebel Without A Pay-check, draws them around like flies on shit… go figure.

But the herd goes even deeper…. my own mother, who is getting on in years considering I’m in my fifties and she had me late, who has seen her own son falsely accused of rape, who is one of the least feminist wimminz you could ask to meet, plays for team vagina when it comes to a great niece who is basically fucking nuts and should be either institutionalised or better still put over someone’s knee and have her ass slapped until she grew up, does she heap the blame for this girls awful behaviour on her mother, who spends all day pandering to her, or her grandmother, who does nothing but pour sympathy on the flames, does she fuck, she blames the kids father, the guy who refuses to even drive the entitled little bitch to the doctor for counselling, for not being a man and putting his foot down and “letting” his wife and grandmother in law shoulder all the burden of this entitled little princess she raised.

My mum is a wimminz, she lacks the intellectual capacity to join the dots between what was done to her son by a female false accuser and misandrist system, and this psycho little bitch who you guessed it got total custody because the father of her children is a dangerous and violent man who is now banned from all contact with his own kids.

Even when she tells me that this psycho skank’s oldest, at 6 years old, is now claiming to need to see the doctor because of some imaginary stressful illness, and I quote “because I have the same thing mummy has” she cannot intellectually join the dots between this bitch and my ex bitch.

If you ever wondered why wimminz utter inane phrases, like looking at an animal and claiming that they seem so intelligent, it is almost like they are looking right back at you, and why wimminz fall prey so things like farmville, and why wimminz conversations always sound like you are talking to some turing test bot, well here is your answer.

Wimminz are human, so one cannot claim that they have subhuman intelligence, but if the average male intellect is taken as the average human intellect, them wimminz are subnormal in intellect.

I can go to deepest darkest Africa and find some bush nigger who has never seen a motor car or television or computer, sit him down next to a western wimminz who is a “manager” of something, and he will still outshine the bitch in intellect, even without being able to speak a fucking word of English, he will be smart enough not to repeat a behaviour that has a negative outcome, e.g. he will be smarter than a rat or a budgie in a Skinner box…. unlike the fucking wimminz “manager” he is sat next to, who will repeat behaviours with negative outcomes.

Just tonight I had to kick one of my bitches to the kerb, told her, you quit X or you and me are history, so she does what all wimminz do, calls my bluff, and that is why you have that archived shit…


The wimminz in question had all the information and clues and data anyone could possibly ask for, to know that those kinds of shit tests do not fly or float with me, but that old herd instinct cannot be overcome, there quite simply IS NO INTELLECTUAL COMPONENT IN 99.99% OF A WIMMINZ BEHAVIOUR, so like the dumb animal in a Skinner box the wimminz will repetitively act out non-rewarding behaviour because, you know, it might work this time…..

Fucking wimminz is, as far as I can see, no different to fucking any other dumb animal, it’s all bestiality bro… lol

December 25, 2011

It’ll be lonely this cuntmass

Before I go any further a quick link to the the 1974 Mud track on YouTube – http://youtu.be/DZ8-UT8ojrk

Now, I have to confess to floating around in the seventies, on the roads, over the christmas holidays, back then it was tough buying fuel as everything was shut so maybe you’d syphon a gallon or two, and of course there were no mobiles or internet so if you wanted to stop by and say “Hey man” you had to do it in person.

Some people you called on were out, presumably doing the same thing, doing their own thing, some were in and welcomed you in for a hot drink, a piss, warm your toes and off you go again, and of course many were “in with family”, and they would come out to you rather than invite you (not that you would accept an invite in to a family do) and many were in partying family and friends.

Lots of people looked at you like you were a loser, the lonely homeless bastard and all that crap, they never knew about the Red Lion, which was effectively open 24/7 from Christmas to New Year for those in the know, pull in sleep, grab a bite to eat, drink, talk and hit the road again, nor did they know the incredible colour of purple you got as the pre-dawn sky reflected off your chrome fuel tank as you stopped for a piss break, or the sense of being alone and loving it in a post apocalyptic world as you blatted down streets and roads abandoned by humans and vehicles for the duration.

Yes, I was always on the outside looking in, and I have to say it didn’t bother me because the price of being on the inside was my freedom.

So we skip forwards a few decades to the closing days of Anno Domini 2011 and what do we find, AfOR sitting quietly and enjoying his own version of christmas, and now there are mobile phones and the internet, and guess what, PoF (Plenty of Fish) is chock full of skank ho’s who are online all christmas eve evening, and all christmas day mornings, and they are all looking for a man like AfOR to empty his sack into them, and lets face it there are a shit load more broken homes than in the seventies, and a shit load less family and extended family homes enjoying the festive season, lots of “single” people in vehicles playing santa’s sad sack of shit delivering presents to ex’s family / kids / relations etc.

Wimminz are social creatures see, nothing worse to them than not being needed or wanted at Christmas, and if the cure to that means getting their asses online with a mouse in one hand and a glass of supermarket wine in the other than that is exactly what they will do, and since the wimminz are doing it, it is no longer the role of the loser, the lonely surplus bastard and all that crap, suddenly it is something that the wimminz have to cope with and boy do they ever.

Thankfully they all have the Television on, which streams a constant river of bullshit into their minds, none of which has anything positive to say about the woman at home alone at christmas, hell, none of which even mentions the woman at home alone at christmas, so they are overcome with a desperate urge to fit in.

And then a funny thing happens.

And that funny thing reminds me of the seventies, being on the outside while the christmas parties and lights and warmth was going on inside, not because it is the same, but because it is ALMOST the same, but VERY different in important ways.

It is different because I had spent the time leading up to christmas in the seventies saying “Thanks but no” to the party invites, to the marriage proposals, to the join our gang offers, and the ones who usually looked at me with that “what a lonely loser” look in their eyes conveniently forgot that I did not want what was offered, the price was too fucking high.

I used to own and wear a tee shirt, it said ;


I did not have it on but can distinctly recall wishing I had worn it on many occasions on many Christmases in the seventies, just to express MY feelings and responses to their looks of “what a lonely loser” at me.

Which brings me to Xmas 2011 skank ho’s online throughout the festive period, and no doubt through the New year too.

Different in important ways from me back in the seventies, and me now, because I never wanted to get into those parties, and todays skank ho’s act like EVE kicked out of the garden of Eden for fucking the serpent, and desperate desperate desperate to get back in.

So I sit here, typing this, while my mobile pops up with SMS messages from my current sluts saying “Merry Christmas Master” and hoping that I will get back to them and use and abuse their bodies for my own sexual pleasures…. it’s not the garden of Eden but it is the closest they are ever going to get in the future, and we both know it, and the punchline is they are the EXACT sort of skanks who used to look at me and think “what a lonely loser” back in the seventies……

September 22, 2011

Anno Domini 1558

Filed under: Wimminz — Tags: , , , , , , , — wimminz @ 10:25 am

The First Blast of the Trumpet

Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women

John Knox


Extracted from: Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559



Editor’s Note

The First Blast of the Trumpet is, perhaps, Knox’s most famous and controversial work. In the twentieth century, few people have read the book, and still fewer have made an attempt to understand the reformer’s position.

For Knox, the teaching of scripture alone is sufficient to prove that women should not bear rule over men. The testimony of scripture is so plain, he wrote, that “to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness, that whatsoever pleases not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy” (p. 390).

Knox knew that his 16th-century opponents expected citations from classical and patristic sources. Therefore, the reformer takes aim at both the position and polemical methods of his critics by quoting some of the stoutest comments imaginable, refuting the government of women. Whether Knox personally joins with the ancient authors in every detail is immaterial; by numerous references to antiquity, the reformer demonstrates that there is a venerable history of opposition to the rule of women. Still, Knox points out that his main argument, even if stripped of the patristic citations, is fundamentally based upon the authoritative word of God. “For as I depend not upon the determinations of men, so I think my cause no weaker, albeit their authority is denied unto me; provided that God by his revealed will, and manifest word, stands plain and evident on my side” (p. 400).

Contemporary readers should also recall that, when Knox speaks of “nature,” he is often making reference to human nature. Even so, he states, “this part of nature is not my most sure foundation” (p. 385). Again, his principal concern is with the revealed will of God, written in the Bible.

The treatise was published in Geneva in 1558. As indicated in the preface, the work was published anonymously. The author wished to conceal his identity, until he had issued two more blasts, intending to disclose his name with the publication of the Third Blast. The reformer’s plan to write two sequels remained unfulfilled, although he later published a summary of the contents which he proposed to treat in the Second Blast. The summary of the Second Blast was appended originally to his Appellation (1558), but readers will find this summary following the First Blast in the present volume (pages 435-36).



The First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women


The kingdom appertains to our God. [Psalm 22:28]

Wonder it is, that amongst so many pregnant wits as the isle of Great Britain has produced, so many godly and zealous preachers as England did sometime nourish, and amongst so many learned, and men of grave judgment, as this day by Jezebel are exiled, none is found so stout of courage, so faithful to God, nor loving to their native country, that they dare admonish the inhabitants of that isle, how abominable before God is the empire or rule of a wicked woman (yea, of a traitress and bastard); and what may a people or nation, left destitute of a lawful head, do by the authority of God’s word in electing and appointing common rulers and magistrates. That isle (alas!) for the contempt and horrible abuse of God’s mercies offered, and for the shameful revolting to Satan from Christ Jesus, and from his gospel once professed, does justly merit to be left in the hands of their own counsel, and so to come to confusion and bondage of strangers. [1]But yet I fear that this universal negligence of such as sometimes were esteemed watchmen shall rather aggravate our former ingratitude, than excuse this our universal and ungodly silence in so weighty a matter. We see our country set forth for a prey to foreign nations; we hear [of] the blood of our brethren, the members of Christ Jesus, most cruelly to be shed; and the monstrous empire [government] of a cruel woman (the secret counsel of God excepted) we know to be the only occasion of all those miseries; and yet with silence we pass the time, as though the matter did nothing appertain to us. [2]But the contrary examples of the ancient prophets move me to doubt of this our fact. For Israel did universally decline from God by embracing idolatry under Jeroboam ­ in which they did continue even unto the destruction of their commonwealth (1 Kings 12:25-33). And Judah, with Jerusalem, did follow the vile superstition and open iniquity of Samaria (Ezek. 16). But yet the prophets of God ceased not to admonish the one and the other; yea, even after God had poured forth his plagues upon them. For Jeremiah did write to the captives in Babylon, and did correct their errors, plainly instructing them who did remain in the midst of that idolatrous nation (Jer. 29). Ezekiel, from the midst of his brethren (prisoners in Chaldea) did write his vision to those that were in Jerusalem; and, sharply rebuking their vices, assured them that they should not escape the vengeance of God, by reason of their abominations committed (Ezek. 7-9).

[3]The same prophets, for comfort of the afflicted and chosen saints of God, who did lie hid amongst the reprobate of that age (as commonly does the corn amongst the chaff), did prophesy and before speak the changes of kingdoms, the punishment of tyrants, and the vengeance which God would execute upon the oppressors of his people (Isa. 13; Jer. 46; Ezek. 36). [4]The same did Daniel, and the rest of the prophets, every one in their season. By whose examples, and by the plain precept which is given to Ezekiel (3″18-21), commanding him that he shall say to the wicked, “Thou shalt die the death,” we in this our miserable age are bound to admonish the world, and the tyrants thereof, of their sudden destruction, to assure them and to cry unto them, whether they list or not, “that the blood of the saints, which by them is shed, continually crieth and craveth the vengeance in the presence of the Lord of Hosts” (Rev. 6:9-10). And further, it is our duty to open the truth revealed unto us, unto the ignorant and blind world; unless that, to our own condemnation, we list to wrap up and hide the talent committed to our charge.

I am assured that God has revealed to some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a woman shall reign and have empire above man. And yet, with us all there is such silence, as if God therewith were nothing offended. [5]I know the natural man, enemy to God, shall find many causes why no such doctrine ought to be published in these our dangerous days: first, for that it may seem to tend to sedition; secondarily, it shall be dangerous, not only to the writer or publisher, but also to all such as shall read the writings, or favour this truth spoken; and last, it shall not amend the chief offenders, partly because it shall never come to their ears, and partly because they will not be admonished in such cases.

I answer, if any of these be a sufficient reason, that a known truth shall be concealed, then were the ancient prophets of God very fools, who did not better provide for their own quietness, than to hazard their lives for rebuking of vices, and for the opening of such crimes as were not known to the world. And Christ Jesus did injury to his apostles, commanding them to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name to every realm and nation. And Paul did not understand his own liberty, when he cried, “Woe be to me, if I preach not the evangel!” (1 Cor. 9:16). If fear, I say, of persecution, of slander, or of any inconvenience before named, might have excused and discharged the servants of God from plainly rebuking the sins of the world, just cause had every one of them to have ceased from their office. For suddenly their doctrine was accused by terms of sedition, of new learning, and of treason. Persecution and vehement trouble did shortly come upon the professors with the preachers. Kings, princes, and worldly rulers did conspire against God, and against his anointed Christ Jesus (Matt. 26:57-68; Acts 18:12-16; 21:28-39; Ps. 2; Acts 4:1-33).

But what? Did any of these move the prophets and apostles to faint in their vocation [calling]? No. But by the resistance (which the devil made to them by his supporters) were they the more inflamed to publish the truth revealed unto them, and to witness with their blood, that grievous condemnation and God’s heavy vengeance should follow the proud contempt of graces offered. The fidelity, bold courage, and constancy of those that are passed before us, ought to provoke us to follow in their footsteps, unless we look for another kingdom than Christ has promised to such as persevere in profession of his name to the end.

If any think that the empire of women is not of such importance, that for the suppressing of the same any man is bound to hazard his life: I answer, that to suppress it is in the hand of God alone. [6]But to utter the impiety and abomination of the same, I say, it is the duty of every true messenger of God to whom the truth is revealed in that behalf. [7]For the especial duty of God’s messengers is to preach repentance, to admonish the offenders of their offenses, and to say to the wicked, “Thou shalt die the death, except thou repent.” This, I trust, no man will deny to be the proper office of all God’s messengers, to preach (as I have said) repentance and remission of sins. But neither of both can be done, except the conscience of the offenders be accused and convicted of transgression. But how shall any man repent, not knowing wherein he has offended? And where no repentance is found, there can be no entry to grace. And therefore, I say, that of necessity it is that this monstiferous empire of women (which amongst all enormities that this day do abound upon the face of the whole earth, is most detestable and damnable) be openly revealed and plainly declared to the world, to the end that some may repent and be saved. And thus far to the first sort.

To such as think that it will be long before such doctrine comes to the ears of the chief offenders, [8]I answer, that the verity of God is of that nature, that at one time or at another it will purchase to itself audience. It is an odor [aroma] and smell that cannot be suppressed. Yea, it is a trumpet that will sound in despite of the adversary. It will compel the very enemies, to their own confusion, to testify and bear witness of it. For I find that the prophecy and preaching of Elijah were declared in the hall of the king of Syria, by the servants and flatterers of the same wicked king, making mention that Elijah declared to the king of Israel whatsoever the said king of Syria spoke in his most secret chamber (2 Kings 6:12). And the wondrous works of Jesus Christ were notified to Herod, not in any great praise or commendation of his doctrine, but rather to signify that Christ called that tyrant a fox, and that he did no more regard his authority than did John the baptist, whom Herod before had beheaded for the liberty of his tongue (Matt. 14:1-2).

But whether the bearers of the rumours and tidings were favourers of Christ, or flatterers of the tyrant, certain it is that the fame, as well of Christ’s doctrine as of his works, came to the ears of Herod. Even so may the sound of our weak trumpet, by the support of some wind (blow it from the south, or blow it from the north, it is no matter), come to the ears of the chief offenders. But whether it does or not, yet dare we not cease to blow as God will give strength (Rom. 1:15-17). [9]For we are debtors to more than princes: to wit, to the multitude of our brethren, of whom, no doubt, a great number have heretofore offended by error and ignorance, giving their suffrages, consent, and help to establish women in their kingdoms and empires, not understanding how abominable, odious, and detestable is all such usurped authority in the presence of God. And therefore must the truth be plainly spoken, that the simple and rude multitude may be admonished.

And as concerning the danger which may hereof ensue, I am not altogether so brutish and insensible, but that I have laid my account, what the finishing of the work may cost me for my own part. [10]First, I am not ignorant how difficult and dangerous it is to speak against a common error, especially when the ambitious minds of men and women are called to the obedience of God’s simple commandment. For to the most part of men, whatsoever antiquity has received appears lawful and godly. And secondarily, I look to have more adversaries, not only of the ignorant multitude, but also of the wise, politic, and quiet spirits of the world ­ so that as well shall such as ought to maintain the truth and verity of God become enemies to me in this case, as shall the princes and ambitious persons who, to maintain their unjust tyranny, do always study to suppress the same. And thus I am most certainly persuaded that my labour shall not escape reprehension of many.

[11]But because I remember that account of the talents received must be made to him ­ who neither respects the multitude, neither yet approves the wisdom, policy, peace, nor antiquity, concluding or determining anything against his eternal will, revealed to us in his most blessed word ­ I am compelled to cover my eyes, and shut up my ears, that I neither see the multitude that shall withstand me in this matter, neither that I shall hear the opprobrium, nor consider the dangers which I may incur for uttering the same. I shall be called foolish, curious, despiteful, and a sower of sedition; and one day, perchance (although now [I] am nameless) I may be attainted [condemned] of treason. [12]But seeing that it is impossible, but that either I shall offend God, daily calling to my conscience that I ought to manifest the known verity; or else that I shall displease the world for doing the same; I have determined to obey God, notwithstanding that the world shall rage thereat.

I know that the world offended (by God’s permission) may kill the body; but God’s majesty offended has power to punish body and soul for ever. His majesty is offended when his precepts are contemned and his threatenings esteemed to be of none effect. And amongst his manifold precepts given to his prophets, and amongst his threatenings, none is more vehement than is that which is pronounced by Ezekiel in these words: “Son of man, I have appointed thee a watchman to the house of Israel, that thou shouldest hear from my mouth the word; and that thou mayest admonish them plainly, when I shall say to the wicked man, ‘O wicked, thou shalt assuredly die.’ Then if thou shalt not speak, that thou mayest plainly admonish him that he may leave his wicked way, the wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require of thy hand. But and if thou shalt plainly admonish the wicked man, and yet he shall not turn from his way, such a one shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33:7-9).

This precept, I say, with the threatening annexed, together with the rest that is spoken in the same chapter, not to Ezekiel only, but to every one whom God places watchman over his people and flock (and watchmen are they, whose eyes he does open, and whose conscience he pricks to admonish the ungodly), compels me to utter my conscience in this matter, notwithstanding that the whole world should be offended with me for so doing. [13]If any wonder why I do conceal my name, let him be assured that the fear of corporeal punishment is neither the only, neither the chief cause. My purpose is thrice to blow the trumpet in the same matter, if God so permits. Twice I intend to do it without name; but at the last blast to take the blame upon myself, that all others may be purged.



To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

In the probation of this proposition, I will not be so curious as to gather whatsoever may amplify, set forth, or decor the same; but I am purposed, even as I have spoken my conscience in most plain and few words, so to stand content with a simple proof of every member, bringing in for my witness God’s ordinance in nature, his plain will revealed in his word, and by the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers.

[The Empire of Women is
Repugnant to Nature

And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled [deprived] woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be. Man, I say, in many other cases, does in this behalf see very clearly. [14]For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.

[15]I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. [16]For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?

“Oh fearful and terrible are thy judgments, O Lord, which thus hast abased man for his iniquity!”

I am assuredly persuaded that if any of those men, which, illuminated only by the light of nature, did see and pronounce the causes sufficient why women ought not to bear rule nor authority, should this day live and see a woman sitting in judgment, or riding from Parliament in the midst of men, having the royal crown upon her head, the sword and the scepter borne before her, in sign that the administration of justice was in her power: I am assuredly persuaded, I say, that such a sight should so astonish them, that they should judge the whole world to be transformed into the Amazons,[17] and that such a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that country, as poets do feign was made of the companions of Ulysses; or at least, that albeit the outward form of men remained, yet should they judge their hearts were changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolish fondness and cowardice of women. Yea, they further should pronounce, that where women reign or be in authority, that there must needs vanity be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty; and finally, that avarice, the mother of all mischief, must needs devour equity and justice.[18] [19]

But lest that we shall seem to be of this opinion alone, let us hear what others have seen and decreed in this matter. [20]In the Rules of the Law thus is it written: [21]“Women are removed from all civil and public office, so that they neither may be judges, neither may they occupy the place of the magistrate, neither yet may they be speakers for others.” The same is repeated in the third and the sixteenth books of the Digests,[22] where certain persons are forbidden, Ne pro aliis postulent, that is, that they be no speakers nor advocates for others.[23]And among the rest, women are forbidden, and this cause is added, that they do not against shamefacedness [modesty] intermeddle themselves with the causes of others; neither yet that women presume to use the offices due to men. The Law in the same place does further declare that a natural shamefacedness [modesty] ought to be in womankind,[24] which most certainly she loses whensoever she takes upon her the office and estate of man. [25]As in Calphurnia was evidently declared, who having license to speak before the senate, at length she became so impudent and importunate, that by her babbling she troubled the whole assembly; and so gave occasion that this law was established.[26]

[27]In the first book of the Digests, it is pronounced that the condition of the woman, in many cases, is worse than of the man: as in jurisdiction (says the Law), in receiving of cure and tuition, in adoption, in public accusation, in delation, in all popular action, and in motherly power which she has not upon her own sons. The Law further will not permit that the woman give anything to her husband, because it is against the nature of her kind, being the inferior member, to presume to give anything to her head.[28] The Law does moreover pronounce womankind to be most avaricious (which is a vice intolerable in those that should rule or minister justice).[29] And Aristotle, as before is touched, does plainly affirm, that wheresoever women bear dominion, there the people must needs be disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess, and vanity; and finally, in the end, they must needs come to confusion and ruin.[30]

[31]Would to God the examples were not so manifest to the further declaration of the imperfections of women, of their natural weakness and inordinate appetites! I might adduce histories, proving some women to have died for sudden joy; some for impatience to have murdered themselves; some to have burned with such inordinate lust, that for the quenching of the same, they have betrayed to strangers their country and city;[32] and some to have been so desirous of dominion, that for the obtaining of the same, they have murdered the children of their own sons, yea, and some have killed with cruelty their own husbands and children.[33] [34] [35] But to me it is sufficient (because this part of nature is not my most sure foundation) to have proved, that men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and have determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, that women rule and govern over men. [36]For those that will not permit a woman to have power over her own sons, will not permit her (I am assured) to have rule over a realm; and those that will not suffer her to speak in defence of those that be accused (neither that will admit her accusation intended against man) will not approve her that she shall sit in judgment, crowned with the royal crown, usurping authority in the midst of men.

[The Empire of Women is Contrary
to the Revealed Will of God

But now to the second part of nature, in the which I include the revealed will and perfect ordinance of God; and against this part of nature, I say, that it does manifestly repugn that any woman shall reign and bear dominion over man. For God, first by the order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman (by reason of her rebellion) has pronounced the contrary.

[37]First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As St. Paul does reason in these words: “Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therefore ought the woman to have a power upon her head” [1 Cor. 11:8-10] (that is, a cover in sign of subjection). Of which words it is plain that the apostle means, that woman in her greatest perfection should have known that man was lord above her; and therefore that she should never have pretended any kind of superiority above him, no more than do the angels above God the Creator, or above Christ their head.[38] So I say, that in her greatest perfection, woman was created to be subject to man.

[39]But after her fall and rebellion committed against God, there was put upon her a new necessity, and she was made subject to man by the irrevocable sentence of God, pronounced in these words: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. With sorrow shalt thou bear thy children, and thy will shall be subject to thy man; and he shall bear dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16).[40] Hereby may such as altogether be not blinded plainly see, that God by his sentence has dejected all women from empire and dominion above man. For two punishments are laid upon her: to wit, a dolour, anguish, and pain, as oft as ever she shall be mother; and a subjection of her self, her appetites, and will, to her husband, and to his will. From the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility, policy, nor law made by man deliver womankind; but whosoever attains to that honour to be mother, proves in experience the effect and strength of God’s word. But (alas!) ignorance of God, ambition, and tyranny have studied to abolish and destroy the second part of God’s punishment. For women are lifted up to be heads over realms, and to rule above men at their pleasure and appetites. [41]But horrible is the vengeance which is prepared for the one and for the other, for the promoters and for the persons promoted, except they speedily repent. For they shall be dejected from the glory of the sons of God to the slavery of the devil, and to the torment that is prepared for all such as do exalt themselves against God.

Against God can nothing be more manifest than that a woman shall be exalted to reign above man; for the contrary sentence he has pronounced in these words: “Thy will shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall bear dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16). As [though] God should say, “Forasmuch as you have abused your former condition, and because your free will has brought yourself and mankind into the bondage of Satan, I therefore will bring you in bondage to man. For where before your obedience should have been voluntary, now it shall be by constraint and by necessity; and that because you have deceived your man, you shall therefore be no longer mistress over your own appetites, over your own will or desires. For in you there is neither reason nor discretion which are able to moderate your affections, and therefore they shall be subject to the desire of your man. He shall be lord and governor, not only over your body, but even over your appetites and will.” This sentence, I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters, as the rest of the scriptures do evidently witness. So that no woman can ever presume to reign above man, but the same she must needs do in despite of God, and in contempt of his punishment and malediction.[42]

[43]I am not ignorant, that the most part of men do understand this malediction of the subjection of the wife to her husband, and of the dominion which he bears above her. But the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kinds of superiority, authority, and power over man, speaking as follows, by the mouth of St. Paul: “I suffer not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Here he names women in general, excepting none; affirming that she may usurp authority above no man. And that he speaks more plainly in another place in these words: “Let women keep silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as the law sayeth” (1 Cor. 14:34). These two testimonies of the Holy Ghost are sufficient to prove whatsoever we have affirmed before, and to repress the inordinate pride of women, as also to correct the foolishness of those that have studied to exalt women in authority above men, against God and against his sentence pronounced.

But that the same two places of the apostle may the better be understood: it is to be noted, that in the latter, which is written in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the 14th chapter (vvs. 7-32), before the apostle had permitted that all persons should prophesy one after another, adding this reason, “that all may learn and all may receive consolation;” and lest that any might have judged, that amongst a rude multitude, and the plurality of speakers, many things little to purpose might have been affirmed, or else that some confusion might have arisen, he adds, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;” as [if] he should say, “God shall always raise up some to whom the verity shall be revealed, and unto such you shall give place, albeit they sit in the lowest seats.” And thus the apostle would have prophesying an exercise to be free to the whole church, that every one should communicate with the congregation what God had revealed to them, providing that it were orderly done. [44]But from this general privilege he excluded all women, saying, “Let women keep silence in the congregation.” And why, I pray you? Was it because that the apostle thought no woman to have any knowledge? No, he gives another reason, saying, “Let her be subject, as the law saith” (1 Cor. 14:34). In which words is first to be noted, that the apostle calls this former sentence pronounced against woman a law: that is, the immutable decree of God, who by his own voice has subjected her to one member of the congregation, that is to her husband. [45]Whereupon the Holy Ghost concludes, that she may never rule nor bear empire above man; for she that is made subject to one, may never be preferred to many. And that the Holy Ghost does manifestly express, saying: “I suffer not that woman usurp authority above man” (1 Tim. 2:12). He says not, “I will not that woman usurp authority above her husband;” but he names man in general, taking from her all power and authority to speak, to reason, to interpret, or to teach; but principally to rule or to judge in the assembly of men. So that woman by the law of God, and by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, is utterly forbidden to occupy the place of God in the offices aforesaid, which he has assigned to man, whom he has appointed and ordained his lieutenant in earth, excluding from that honour and dignity all women, as this short argument shall evidently declare.

[46]The apostle takes power from all women to speak in the assembly. Ergo, he permits no woman to rule above man. [47]The former part is evident, whereupon the conclusion of necessity does follow; for he that takes from woman the least part of authority, dominion, or rule, will not permit unto her that which is [the] greatest. But greater it is to reign above realms and nations, to publish and to make laws, and to command men of all estates, and finally, to appoint judges and ministers, than to speak in the congregation. For her judgment, sentence, or opinion in the congregation, may be judged by all, may be corrected by the learned, and reformed by the godly. But woman being promoted in sovereign authority, her laws must be obeyed, her opinion followed, and her tyranny maintained, supposing that it be expressly against God and the profit of the commonwealth, as too manifest experience does this day witness.

And therefore yet again I repeat, that which before I have affirmed: to wit, that a woman promoted to sit in the seat of God (that is, to teach, to judge, or to reign above man) is a monster in nature, contumely to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance. For he has deprived them, as before is proved, of speaking in the congregation, and has expressly forbidden them to usurp any kind of authority above man. How then will he suffer them to reign and have empire above realms and nations? He will never, I say, approve it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect ordinance, as after shall be declared, and as the former scriptures have plainly given testimony. To the which to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness, that whatsoever pleases not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy. I have therefore thought good to recite the minds of some ancient writers in the same matter, to the end that such as altogether be not blinded by the devil, may consider and understand this my judgment to be no new interpretation of God’s scriptures, but to be the uniform consent of the most part of godly writers since the time of the apostles.

[48]Tertullian, in his book of Women’s Apparel, after he has shown many causes why gorgeous apparel is abominable and odious in a woman, adds these words, speaking as it were to every woman by name: [49]“Do you not know,” says he, “that you are Eve. The sentence of God lives and is effectual against this kind; and in this world, of necessity it is, that the punishment also live. You are the port and gate of the devil. You are the first transgressor of God’s law. You did persuade and easily deceive him whom the devil durst not assault. For your merit (that is, for your death), it behooved the Son of God to suffer the death; and does it yet abide in your mind to deck you above your skin coats?”

By these and many other grave sentences and quick interrogations, did this godly writer labour to bring every woman in contemplation of herself, to the end that every one, deeply weighing what sentence God had pronounced against the whole race and daughters of Eve, might not only learn daily to humble and subject themselves in the presence of God, but also that they should avoid and abhor whatsoever thing might exalt them or puff them up in pride, or that might be occasion that they should forget the curse and malediction of God. And what, I pray you, is more able to cause a woman to forget her own condition, than if she is lifted up in authority above man? It is a very difficult thing to a man (be he never so constant) promoted to honours, not to be tickled somewhat with pride (for the wind of vain glory does easily carry up the dry dust of the earth). [50]But as for woman, it is no more possible that she, being set aloft in authority above man, shall resist the motions of pride, than it is able to the weak reed, or to the turning weathercock, not to bow or turn at the vehemence of the inconstant wind. And therefore the same writer expressly forbids all women to intermeddle with the office of man. [51]For thus he writes in his book de Viginibus Velandis: “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the congregation, neither to teach, neither to baptize, neither to vindicate to herself any office of man.” [52]The same he speaks yet more plainly in the Preface of his sixth book written Against Marcion, where, recounting certain monstrous things which were to be seen at the Sea called Euxinum, amongst the rest, he recites this as a great monster in nature, “that women in those parts were not tamed nor abased by consideration of their own sex, but that, all shame laid apart, they made expenses upon weapons, and learned the feats of war, having more pleasure to fight than to marry and be subject to man.” Thus far of Tertullian, whose words are so plain, that they need no explanation. For he that takes from her all office appertaining to man, [and] will not suffer her to reign above man ­ and he that judges it a monster in nature that a woman shall exercise weapons ­ must judge it to be a monster of monsters that a woman shall be exalted above a whole realm and nation. Of the same mind are Origen and diverse others (whose sentences I omit to avoid prolixity), yea, even till the days of Augustine.

[53]Augustine, in his twenty-second book written Against Faustus, proves that a woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that in nothing has woman equal power with man, saving that neither of both have power over their own bodies. By which he would plainly conclude, that woman ought never to pretend nor thirst for that power and authority which are due to man. [54]For so he does explain himself in another place, affirming that woman ought to be repressed and bridled betimes, if she aspires to any dominion; alleging that it is dangerous and perilous to suffer her to proceed, although it is in temporal and corporeal things. And thereto he adds these words: “God sees not for a time, neither is there any new thing in his sight and knowledge:” meaning thereby, that what God has seen in one woman (as concerning dominion and bearing of authority) the same he sees in all; and what he has forbidden to one, the same he also forbids to all. [55]And this most evidently yet in another place he writes, moving this question, “How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man, and has none authority, neither to teach, neither to be witness, neither to judge, much less to rule or bear empire?” [56]These are the very words of Augustine, of which it is evident that this godly writer does not only agree with Tertullian, before recited, but also with the former sentence of the Law, which takes from woman not only all authority amongst men, but also every office appertaining to man.

To the question how she can be the image of God, he answers as follows: “Woman,” says he, “compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him,” etc.[57] And how that woman ought to obey man, he speaks yet more clearly in these words, “The woman shall be subject to man as unto Christ. For woman,” says he, “has not her example from the body and from the flesh, that so she shall be subject to man, as the flesh is unto the Spirit, because that the flesh in the weakness and mortality of this life lusts and strives against the Spirit, and therefore would not the Holy Ghost give example of subjection to the woman of any such thing,” etc. This sentence of Augustine ought to be noted of all women, for in it he plainly affirms, that woman ought to be subject to man, that she never ought more to desire preeminence [over] him, than that she ought to desire above Christ Jesus.

With Augustine, St. Jerome agrees in every point,[58] who thus writes in his Hexaemeron: “Adam was deceived by Eve, and not Eve by Adam, and therefore it is just, that woman receive and acknowledge him for governor whom she called to sin, lest that again she slide and fall by womanly facility.” And writing upon the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, “Let women be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord; for man is head to the woman, and Christ is head to the congregation, and he is Saviour to the body; but the congregation is subject to Christ, even so ought women to be to their husbands in all things” (Eph. 5:22-24). He proceeds further, saying, “Women are commanded to be subject to men by the law of nature, because man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as Christ is the head of the church, so is man of the woman. From Christ the church took beginning, and therefore it is subject unto him; even so did woman take beginning from man that she should be subject.” Thus we hear the agreeing of these two writers to be such, that a man might judge the one to have stolen the words and sentences from the other. And yet it is plain, that during the time of their writing, the one was far distant from the other. But the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of concord and unity, did so illuminate their hearts, and direct their tongues and pens, that as they did conceive and understand one truth, so did they pronounce and utter the same, leaving a testimony of their knowledge and concord to us their posterity.

If any think that all these former sentences be spoken only of the subjection of the married woman to her husband: as before I have proved the contrary by the plain words and reasoning of St. Paul, so shall I shortly do the same by other testimonies of the foresaid writers. [59]The same Ambrose, writing upon the second chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, after he has spoken much of the simple arrayment of women, he adds these words: “Woman ought not only to have simple arrayment, but all authority is to be denied unto her. For she must be in subjection to man (of whom she has taken her origin), as well in habit as in service.” And after a few words, he says, “Because that death did enter into the world by her, there is no boldness that ought to be permitted unto her, but she ought to be in humility.” Hereof it is plain, that from all [every] woman, be she married or unmarried, is all authority taken to execute any office that appertains to man. Yea, it is plain, that all [every] woman is commanded to serve, to be in humility and subjection. Which thing yet speaks the same writer more plainly in these words:[60] “It is not permitted to women to speak, but to be in silence, as the law says (1 Cor. 14:34). What says the law? ‘Unto thy husband shall thy conversion be, and he shall bear dominion over thee’ (Gen. 3:16). This is a special law,” says Ambrose, “whose sentence, lest it should be violated, infirmed, or made weak, women are commanded to be in silence.” Here he includes all women; and yet he proceeds further in the same place, saying, “It is shame for them to presume to speak of the law, in the house of the Lord,[61] who has commanded them to be subject to their men.”

But most plainly speaks he, writing upon the 16th chapter (vs. 13) of the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, upon these words: “Salute Rufus and his mother.”[62] “For this cause,” says Ambrose, “did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of the grace of God, in the which a woman has no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lord to take care over his business, that is, over the church, to which office his mother could not be appointed, albeit she was a woman so holy that the apostle called her his mother.” Hereof it is plain, that the administration of the grace of God is denied to all [every] woman. By the administration of God’s grace, is understood not only the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, by the which the grace of God is presented and ordinarily distributed unto man, but also the administration of civil justice, by the which virtue ought to be maintained, and vices punished. The execution whereof is no less denied to woman, than is the preaching of the evangel, or administration of the sacraments, as hereafter shall most plainly appear.

Chrysostom, amongst the Greek writers of no small credit, speaking in rebuke of men, who in his days were become inferior to some women in wit and in godliness, says, [63]“For this cause was woman put under your power (he speaks to man in general), and you were pronounced lord over her, that she should obey you, and that the head should not follow the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who in his order ought to be the head, does not keep the order of the feet (that is, does not rule the feet), [64]and that she that is in place of the foot is constituted to be the head.” He speaks these words, as it were, in admiration [astonishment] that man was become so brutish, that he did not consider it to be a thing most monstrous that woman should be preferred to man in anything, whom God had subjected to man in all things.

He proceeds, saying, “Nevertheless, it is the part of man, with diligent care, to repel the woman that gives him wicked counsel; and woman, which gave that pestilent counsel to man, ought at all times to have the punishment which was given to Eve sounding in her ears.” And in another place,[65] he induces [brings in] God speaking to the woman in this sort: “Because you left him, of whose nature you were participant, and for whom you were formed, and have had pleasure to have familiarity with that wicked beast, and would take his counsel; [66]therefore I subject you to man, and I appoint and affirm him to be your lord, that you may acknowledge his dominion; and because you could not bear rule, learn well to be ruled.” Why they should not bear rule, he declares in other places, saying, “Womankind is imprudent and soft (or flexible): imprudent, because she cannot consider with wisdom and reason the things which she hears and sees; and soft she is, because she is easily bowed.”[67] I know that Chrysostom brings in these words, to declare the cause why false prophets do commonly deceive women, because they are easily persuaded to any opinion, especially if it be against God; and because they lack prudence and right reason to judge the things that are spoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the same, which in no wise ought to be in those that are appointed to govern others. [68]For they ought to be constant, stable, prudent, and doing everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with men. For that he does witness in another place, saying, “Women have in themselves a tickling and study of vain glory; and that they may have in common with men. They are suddenly moved to anger; and that they have also common with some men. [69]But virtues in which they excel, they have not common with man; and therefore has the apostle removed them from the office of teaching, which is an evident proof that in virtue they far differ from man.”

Let the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he yet proceeds, after that he has in many words lamented the effeminate manners of men, who were so far degenerated to the weakness of woman, that some might have demanded, “Why may not women teach amongst such a sort of men, who in wisdom and godliness are become inferior unto women?” He finally concludes, “That not withstanding that men be degenerate, yet may not women usurp any authority above them.” [70]And in the end he adds these words, “These things I do not speak to extol them (that is women), but to the confusion and shame of ourselves, and to admonish us to take again the dominion that is meet and convenient for us; not only that power which is according to the excellency of dignity, but that which is according to providence, and according to help and virtue; for then is the body in best proportion when is has the best governor.”

O that both man and woman should consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father! He would not that man for appetite of any vain glory should desire preeminence above woman. For God has not made man to be head for any such cause, but having respect to that weakness and imperfection which always lets [hinders] woman to govern. He has ordained man to be superior; and that Chrysostom means, saying, “Then is the body in best proportion when it has the best governor. But woman can never be the best governor, by reason that she, being spoiled [deprived] of the spirit of regiment, can never attain to that degree to be called or judged a good governor; because in the nature of all [every] woman lurks such vices as in good governors are not tolerable.”[71] Which the same writer expresses in these words, “Womankind,” says he, “is rash and fool-hardy; and their covetousness is like the gulf of hell, that is insatiable.”[72] And therefore in another place, he wills that woman shall have nothing to do in judgment, in common affairs, or in the regiment of the commonwealth (because she is impatient of troubles), but that she shall live in tranquility and quietness. And if she has occasion to go from the house, that yet she shall have no matter of trouble, neither to follow her, neither to be offered unto her, as commonly there must be to such as bear authority.

And with Chrysostom fully agrees Basilius Magnus, in a sermon which he makes upon some places of scripture,[73] wherein he reproves diverse vices; and amongst the rest, he affirms woman to be a tender creature, flexible, soft, and pitiful; which nature God has given unto her, that she may be apt to nourish children. The which facility of the woman did Satan abuse, and thereby brought her from the obedience of God. And, therefore, in diverse other places does he conclude that she is not apt to bear rule, and that she is forbidden to teach.

Innumerable more testimonies of all sorts of writers may be adduced for the same purpose, but with these I stand content; judging it sufficient, to stop the mouth of such as accuse and condemn all doctrine as heretical which displeases them in any point, that I have proved by the determinations and laws of men illuminated only by the light of nature, by the order of God’s creation, by the curse and malediction pronounced against woman by the mouth of St. Paul, who is the interpreter of God’s sentence and law, and finally, by the minds of those writers who, in the church of God, have been always held in greatest reverence: that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, to God’s will and appointed ordinance (yea, that it cannot be without contumely [insult] committed against God), that a woman should be promoted to dominion or empire, to reign over man, be it in realm, nation, province, or city. Now rests it in a few words to be shown that the same empire of women is the subversion of good order, equity and justice.

[The Empire of Women is Subversive
of Good Order, Equity and Justice

Augustine defines order to be that thing by the which God has appointed and ordained all things.[74] Note well, reader, that Augustine will admit no order where God’s appointment is absent and lacking. And in another place he says, “that order is a disposition, giving their own proper places to things that are unequal,” which he terms in Latin, parium et disparium, that is, of things equal or like, and things unequal or unlike.[75] Of which two places, and of the whole disputation (which is contained in his second book De Ordine),[76] it is evident that whatsoever is done either without the assurance of God’s will, or else against his will manifestly revealed in his word, is done against all order. But such is the empire and regiment of all women (as evidently before is declared); and therefore, I say, it is a thing plainly repugnant to good order: yea, it is the subversion of the same.

If any list to reject the definition of Augustine, as either not proper to this purpose, or else as insufficient to prove my intent, let the same man understand, that in so doing he has infirmed my argument nothing. For as I depend not upon the determinations of men, so I think my cause no weaker, albeit their authority is denied unto me; provided that God by his revealed will, and manifest word, stands plain and evident on my side.

That God has subjected womankind to man, by the order of his creation, and by the curse that he has pronounced against her, is declared before. [77]Besides these, he has set before our eyes two other mirrors and glasses, in which he wills that we should behold the order which he has appointed and established in nature: the one is the natural body of man; the other is the politic or civil body of that commonwealth, in which God by his own word has appointed an order. In the natural body of man, God has appointed an order that the head shall occupy the uppermost place; and the head he has joined with the body, that from it life and motion do flow to the rest of the members. In it he has placed the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the tongue to speak, which offices are appointed to none other member of the body. The rest of the members have every one their own place and office appointed, but none may have neither the place nor office of the head. For who would not judge that body to be a monster, where there was no head eminent above the rest, but that the eyes were in the hands, the tongue and the mouth beneath in the belly, and the ears in the feet? Men, I say, should not only pronounce this body to be a monster, but assuredly they might conclude that such a body could not long endure. [78]And no less monstrous is the body of that commonwealth where a woman bears empire; for either it does lack a lawful head (as in very deed it does), or else there is an idol exalted in the place of the true head.

[79]I call that an idol which has the form and appearance, but lacks the virtue and strength which the name and proportion do resemble and promise. As images have face, nose, eyes, mouth, hands, and feet painted, but the use of the same cannot the craft and art of man give them, as the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David teaches us, saying, “They have eyes, but they see not; mouth, but they speak not; nose, but they smell not; hands and feet, but they neither touch nor have power to go” (Ps. 115:5-7). [80]And such, I say, is every realm and nation where a woman bears dominion. For in despite of God (he of his just judgment so giving them over to a reprobate mind) may a realm, I confess, exalt up a woman to that monstiferous honour, to be esteemed as head. But impossible it is to man and angel to give unto her the properties and perfect offices of a lawful head; for the same God that has denied power to the hand to speak, to the belly to hear, and to the feet to see, has denied to woman power to command man, and has taken away wisdom to consider, and providence to foresee, the things that are profitable to the commonwealth: yea, finally, he has denied to her in any case to be head to a man, but plainly has pronounced that “man is head to woman, even as Christ is head to all man [every man]” (1 Cor. 11:3).

If men in a blind rage should assemble together, and appoint themselves another head than Christ Jesus (as the Papists have done their Romish Antichrist), should Christ therefore lose his own dignity, or should God give to that counterfeit head power to give life to the body, to see whatsoever might endanger or hurt it, or to speak in defence, and to hear the request of every subject? It is certain that he would not. For that honour he has appointed before all times to his only Son; and the same will he give to no creature besides. [81]No more will he admit nor accept woman to be the lawful head over man, although man, devil, or angel will conjure in their favour. For seeing he has subjected her to one (as before is said), he will never permit her to reign over many. Seeing he has commanded her to hear and obey one, he will not suffer that she speak, and with usurped authority command realms and nations.

Chrysostom, explaining these words of the apostle (1 Cor. 11:3), “The head of woman is man,” compares God in his universal regiment to a king sitting in his royal majesty, to whom all his subjects, commanded to give homage and obedience, appear before him, bearing every one such a badge and cognizance of dignity and honour as he has given to them; which if they despise and contemn, then do they dishonour their king. “Even so,” says he, “ought man and woman to appear before God, bearing the ensigns of the condition which they have received of him. Man has received a certain glory and dignity above the woman; and therefore ought he to appear before his high Majesty bearing the sign of his honour, having no cover upon his head, to witness that in earth man has no head.”[82] Beware Chrysostom what you say! [83]You shall be reputed a traitor if Englishmen hear you, for they must have my sovereign lady and mistress; and Scotland has drunken also the enchantment and venom of Circe[84] ­ let it be so to their own shame and confusion.

[85]He proceeds in these words, “But woman ought to be covered, to witness that in earth she had a head, that is man.” True it is, Chrysostom, woman is covered in both the said realms, but it is not with the sign of subjection, but it is with the sign of superiority: to wit, with the royal crown. To that he answers in these words: “What if man neglects his honour? He is no less to be mocked,” says Chrysostom, “than if a king should depose himself of his diadem or crown and royal estate, and clothe himself in the habit of a slave.” What, I pray you, should this godly father have said, if he had seen all the men of a realm or nation fall down before a woman? If he had seen the crown, scepter, and sword, which are ensigns of the royal dignity given to her, and a woman cursed of God, and made subject to man, placed in the throne of justice to sit as God’s lieutenant? What, I say, in this behalf, should any heart unfeignedly fearing God have judged of such men? I am assured that not only should they have been judged foolish, but also enraged and slaves to Satan, manifestly fighting against God and his appointed order.

The more that I consider the subversion of God’s order, which he has placed generally in all living things, the more I do wonder at the blindness of man, who does not consider himself in this case so degenerate, [86]that the brute beasts are to be preferred unto him in this behalf. For nature has in all beasts printed a certain mark of dominion in the male, and a certain subjection in the female, which they keep inviolate. For no man ever saw the lion make obedience, and stoop before the lioness; neither yet can it be proved that the hind takes the conducting of the herd amongst the harts. And yet (alas!) man, who by the mouth of God has dominion appointed to him over woman, does not only to his own shame stoop under the obedience of women, but also, in despite of God and of his appointed order, rejoices and maintains that monstrous authority as a thing lawful and just. [87]The insolent joy, the bonfires and banqueting, which were in London, and elsewhere in England, when that cursed Jezebel was proclaimed queen, did witness to my heart that men were become more than enraged; for else how could they have so rejoiced at their own confusion and certain destruction? For what man was there of so base judgment (supposing that he had any light of God), who did not see the erecting of that monster to be the overthrow of true religion, and the assured destruction of England, and of the ancient liberties thereof? And yet, nevertheless, all men so triumphed, as if God had delivered them from all calamity.

“But just and righteous, terrible and fearful, are thy judgments, O Lord! For as sometimes thou didst so punish men for unthankfulness ­ that man shamed not to commit villainy with man, and that because, knowing thee to be God, they glorified thee not as God (Rom. 1:21-22) ­ even so hast thou most justly now punished the proud rebellion and horrible ingratitude of the realms of England and Scotland. For when thou didst offer thyself most mercifully to them both, offering the means by which they might have been joined together for ever in godly concord, then was the one proud and cruel, and the other inconstant and fickle of promise.

“But yet (alas!) did miserable England further rebel against thee. For albeit thou didst not cease to heap benefit upon benefit during the reign of an innocent and tender king, yet no man did acknowledge thy potent hand and marvellous working. [88]The stout courage of captains, the wit and policy of counsellors, the learning of bishops, did rob thee of thy glory and honour. For what then was heard as concerning religion, but ‘the king’s proceedings, the king’s proceedings must be obeyed? It is enacted by Parliament, therefore it is treason to speak in the contrary.’

“But this was not the end of this miserable tragedy. [89]For thou didst yet proceed to offer thy favours, sending thy prophets and messengers to call for reformation of life in all estates. For even from the highest to the lowest, all were declined from thee (yea, even those that should have been the lanterns to others). Some, I am assured, did quake and tremble, and from the bottom of their hearts thirsted amendment, and for the same purpose did earnestly call for discipline. But then burst forth the venom which before lurked; then might they not contain their despiteful voices, but with open mouths did cry, ‘We will not have such a one to reign over us.’ Then, I say, was every man so stout that he would not be brought in bondage; no, not to thee, O Lord, but with disdain did the multitude cast from them the amiable yoke of Christ Jesus. [90]No man would suffer his sin to be rebuked; no man would have his life called to trial. And thus did they refuse thee, O Lord, and thy Son Christ Jesus to be their pastor, protector, and prince. And therefore hast thou given them over to a reprobate mind. [91]Thou hast taken from them the spirit of boldness, of wisdom, and of righteous judgment. They see their own destruction, and yet they have no grace to avoid it. Yea, they are become so blind that, knowing the pit, they headlong cast themselves into the same, as the nobility of England do this day, fighting in the defence of their mortal enemy, the Spaniard.

“Finally, they are so destitute of understanding and judgment, that although they know that there is a liberty and freedom which their predecessors have enjoyed, yet are they compelled to bow their necks under the yoke of Satan, and of his proud mistress, pestilent Papists and proud Spaniards. And yet they cannot consider, that where a woman reigns and Papists bear authority, that there Satan must needs be president of the council. Thus hast thou, O Lord, in thy hot displeasure, revenged the contempt of thy graces offered.

[92]“But, O Lord, if thou shalt retain wrath to the end, what flesh is able to sustain? We have sinned, O Lord, and are not worthy to be relieved. But worthy art thou, O Lord, to be a true God, and worthy is thy Son Christ Jesus to have his evangel and glory advanced, which both are trodden under foot in this cruel murder and persecution, which the builders of Babylon commit in their fury, [and] have raised against thy children for the establishing of their kingdom. Let the sobs therefore of thy prisoners, O Lord, pass up to thine ears; consider their affliction; and let the eyes of thy mercy look down upon the blood of such as die for testimony of thy eternal verity; and let not thine enemies mock thy judgment for ever. To thee, O Lord, I turn my wretched and wicked heart; to thee alone I direct my complaint and groans; for in that isle to thy saints is left no comfort.”

Albeit I have thus (talking with my God in the anguish of my heart) somewhat digressed, yet I have not utterly forgotten my former proposition: to wit, that it is a thing repugnant to the order of nature that any woman be exalted to rule over men. For God has denied unto her the office of a head. And in the treating of this part, I remember that I have made the nobility both of England and Scotland inferior to brute beasts, for they do to women that which no male amongst the common sort of beasts can be proved to do to their female: that is, they reverence them, and quake at their presence; they obey their commandments, and that against God. Wherefore I judge them not only subjects to women, but slaves of Satan, and servants of iniquity.

If any man thinks these my words sharp or vehement, let him consider that the offence is more heinous than can be expressed by words. For where all things are expressly concluded against the glory and honour of God, and where the blood of the saints of God is commanded to be shed, whom shall we judge, God or the devil, to be president of that council? [93]Plain it is, that God rules not by his love, mercy, nor grace in the assembly of the ungodly; then it rests that the devil, the prince of this world, does reign over such tyrants. Whose servants, I pray you, shall they be judged such as obey and execute their tyranny? God, for his great mercies’ sake, illuminate the eyes of men, that they may perceive into what miserable bondage they are brought by the monstiferous empire of women!

[94]The second glass which God has set before the eyes of man, wherein he may behold the order which pleases his wisdom (concerning authority and dominion) is that commonwealth to which it pleased his Majesty to appoint and give laws, statutes, rites, and ceremonies, not only concerning religion, but also touching their policy and regiment of the same. And against that order it does manifestly repugn, that any woman shall occupy the throne of God: that is, the royal seat which he by his word has appointed to man; as is evident, in giving the law to Israel, concerning the election of a king. For thus it is written, “If thou shalt say, ‘I will appoint a king above me, as the rest of the nations which are about me;’ thou shalt make thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from amongst the midst of thy brethren thou shalt appoint king above thee. Thou mayest not make a stranger, that is not thy brother” (Deut. 17:14-15). Here expressly is a man appointed to be chosen king, and a man native amongst themselves; by which precept are all women and all strangers excluded.

What may be objected for the part or election of a stranger shall be, God willing, answered in The Blast of the Second Trumpet. For this present [time], I say, that the erecting of a woman to that honour is not only to invert the order which God has established, but also it is to defile, pollute, and profane (so far as in man lies) the throne and seat of God, [95]which he has sanctified and appointed for man only, in the course of this wretched life, to occupy and possess as his minister and lieutenant, excluding from the same all women, as before is expressed.

[96]If any thinks that the fore written law did bind the Jews only, let the same man consider that the election of a king and appointing of judges did neither appertain to the ceremonial law,[97] neither yet was it merely judicial; but that it did flow from the moral law, as an ordinance having respect to the conservation of both the tables. For the office of the magistrate ought to have the first and chief respect to the glory of God, commanded and contained in the former table, as is evident by that which was enjoined to Joshua, what time he was accepted and admitted ruler and governor over his people, in these words: “Thou shalt divide the inheritance to this people, the which I have sworn to their fathers to give unto them; so that thou be valiant and strong, that thou mayest keep and do according to that holy law, which my servant Moses hast commanded thee. Thou shalt not decline from it, neither to the right hand, neither to the left hand, that thou mayest do prudently in all things that thou takest in hand. [98]Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth; but meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest keep and do according to everything that is written in it. For then shall thy ways prosper, and then shalt thou do prudently,” etc. (Josh. 1:1-9).

And God gives the same precept by the mouth of Moses to kings, after they are elected, in these words: “When he shall sit in the throne, or seat of his kingdom, he shall write to himself a copy of this law in a book. And that shall be with him, that he may read in it all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and all these statutes, that he may do them,”etc. (Deut. 17:18-20). Of these two places it is evident, that principally it appertains to the king, or to the chief magistrate, to know the will of God, to be instructed in his law and statutes, and to promote his glory with his whole heart and study, which are the chief points of the first table.

No man denies, but that the sword is committed to the magistrate, to the end that he should punish vice and maintain virtue. [99]To punish vice, I say: not only that which troubles the tranquillity and quiet estate of the commonwealth (by adultery, theft, or murder committed), but also such vices as openly impugn the glory of God, as idolatry, blasphemy, and manifest heresy, taught and obstinately maintained, as the histories and notable acts of Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah do plainly teach us; whose study and care was not only to glorify God in their own life and conversation, but also they unfeignedly did travail to bring their subjects to the true worshipping and honouring of God; and did destroy all monuments of idolatry, did punish to death the teachers of it, and removed from office and honours such as were maintainers of those abominations. Whereby, I suppose, that it is evident, that the office of the king, or supreme magistrate, has respect to the moral law, and to the conservation of both the tables.

[100]Now, if the moral law is the constant and unchangeable will of God, to which the Gentile is no less bound than was the Jew; and if God wills, that amongst the Gentiles the ministers and executors of his law be now appointed, as sometimes they were appointed amongst the Jews; further, if the execution of justice is no less requisite in the policy of the Gentiles, than ever it was amongst the Jews; what man can be so foolish to suppose or believe, that God will now admit those persons to sit in judgment, or to reign over men in the commonwealth of the Gentiles, whom he by his expressed word and ordinance did before debar and exclude from the same? And that women were excluded from the royal seat, the which ought to be the sanctuary to all poor afflicted, and therefore is justly called the seat of God (besides the place before recited of the election of a king, and besides the places of the New Testament, which are most evident), the order and election which were kept in Judah and Israel do manifestly declare. [101]For when the males of the kingly stock failed, as oft as it chanced in Israel, and sometimes in Judah, it never entered into the hearts of the people to choose and promote to honours any of the king’s daughters (had he never so many); but knowing God’s vengeance to be poured forth upon the father by the taking away of his sons, they had no further respect to his stock, but elected such one man or other as they judged most apt for that honour and authority. Of which premises, I conclude (as before) that to promote a woman head over men is repugnant to nature, and a thing most contrary to that order which God has approved in that commonwealth which he did institute and rule by his word.

But now to the last point: to wit, that the empire of a woman is a thing repugnant to justice, and the destruction of every commonwealth where it is received. In probation [proof] whereof, because the matter is more than evident, I will use few words.

[102]First, I say, if justice is a constant and perpetual will to give to every person their own right (as the most learned in all ages have defined it to be), then to give, or to will to give, to any person that which is not their right, must repugn to justice. But to reign above man can never be the right to woman, because it is a thing denied unto her by God, as is before declared. Therefore, to promote her to that estate or dignity can be nothing else but repugnancy to justice. If I should speak no more, this were sufficient. For except that either they can improve the definition of justice, or else that they can entreat God to revoke and call back his sentence pronounced against woman, they shall be compelled to admit my conclusion.

If any find fault with justice as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall not hurt, for I have the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of him, who assuredly will defend this quarrel; and he commands me to cry: [103]“Whatsoever repugns to the will of God, expressed in his most sacred word, repugns to justice; but that women have authority over men, repugns to the will of God expressed in his word; and therefore my Author commands me to conclude, without fear, that all such authority repugns to justice.” The first part of the argument, I trust, neither Jew nor Gentile dare deny; [104]for it is a principle not only universally confessed, but also so deeply printed in the heart of man, be his nature never so corrupted, that whether he will or not, he is compelled at one time or other to acknowledge and confess that justice is violated when things are done against the will of God, expressed by his word. And to this confession the reprobate are no less co-acted and constrained, than are the children of God, albeit to a diverse end.

The elect, with displeasure of their fact, confess their offence, having access to grace and mercy, as did Adam, David, Peter, and all other penitent offenders. [105]But the reprobate, notwithstanding they are compelled to acknowledge the will of God to be just, the which they have offended, yet are they never inwardly displeased with their iniquity, but rage, complain, and storm against God, whose vengeance they cannot escape ­ as did Cain, Judas, Herod, Julian [called] the Apostate, yea, Jezebel and Athaliah (Gen. 4:9-12; Matt. 27:3-5). For Cain no doubt was convicted in conscience that he had done against justice in [the] murdering of his brother. Judas did confess openly before the high priest that he had sinned in betraying innocent blood. Herod, being stricken by the angel, did mock those his flatterers, saying unto them, “Behold your God” (meaning himself) “cannot now preserve himself from corruption and worms.” Julian was compelled in the end to cry, “O, Galilean!” (so always in contempt did he name our Saviour Jesus Christ) “thou hast now overcome.” And who doubts but Jezebel and Athaliah, before their miserable end, were convicted in their cankered consciences to acknowledge that the murder which they had committed, and the empire which the one had usurped six years, were repugnant to justice? [106]Even so they shall, I doubt not, which this day do possess and maintain that monstiferous authority of women, shortly be compelled to acknowledge that their studies and devices have been bent against God, and that all such authority as women have usurped repugns to justice; because, as I have said, it repugns to the will of God expressed in his sacred word.

And if any man doubts hereof, let him mark well the words of the apostle, saying, “I permit not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man” (1 Tim. 2:12). No man, I trust, will deny these words of the apostle to be the will of God expressed in his word; and he says openly, “I permit not,” etc., which is as much as “I will not,” that a woman have authority, charge, or power over man; for so much imports the Greek word authentein in that place. Now, let man and angel conspire against God; let them pronounce their laws, and say, “We will suffer women to bear authority: who then can depose them?” Yet shall this one word of the eternal God, spoken by the mouth of a weak man, thrust them every one into hell (Rev. 2:20-23). Jezebel may for a time sleep quietly in the bed of her fornication and whoredom; she may teach and deceive for a season; but neither shall she preserve herself, neither yet her adulterous children, from great affliction, and from the sword of God’s vengeance, which shall shortly apprehend such works of iniquity. The admonition I defer to the end.

Here I might bring in the oppression and injustice which is committed against realms and nations, which sometimes lived free, and now are brought in bondage of foreign nations by the reason of this monstiferous authority and empire of women. But that I delay till better opportunity. And now I think it expedient to answer such objections as carnal and worldly men, yea, men ignorant of God, use to make for maintenance of this tyranny (authority it is not worthy to be called) and most unjust empire of woman.

[Common Objections Answered]

[107]First, they do object the examples of Deborah, and of Huldah, the prophetesses, of whom the one judged Israel, and the other, by all appearance, did teach and exhort (Judges 4; 2 Chron. 34:20-28).

Secondarily, they do object the law made by Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27:1-12).

Thirdly, the consent of the estates of such realms as have approved the empire and regiment of women.

And last, the long custom which has received the regiment of women, their valiant acts and prosperity, together with some papistical laws which have confirmed the same.

[108]To the first I answer, that particular examples do establish no common law. The causes were known to God alone, why he took the spirit of wisdom and force from all men of those ages; and did so mightily assist women against nature, and against his ordinary course; that the one he made a deliverer to his afflicted people Israel, and to the other he gave not only perseverance in the true religion, when the most part of men had declined from the same, but also to her he gave the spirit of prophecy, to assure King Josiah of the things which were to come. With these women, I say, did God work potently and miraculously; yea, to them he gave most singular grace and privilege.

But who has commanded that a public, yea, a tyrannical and most wicked law be established upon these examples? [109]The men that object the same are not altogether ignorant that examples have no strength when the question is of law. As if I should ask, “What marriage is lawful.” And it should be answered, “that lawful it is to man not only to have many wives at once, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters, and to enjoy them both living at once, because David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same.” I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason. Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian, with a good conscience, may defraud, steal, or deceive? And [an] answer were made, that so he might, by the example of the Israelites, who, at God’s commandment, deceived the Egyptians, and spoiled them of their garments, gold, and silver: I think likewise this reason should be mocked.

And what greater force, I pray you, has the former argument: Deborah did rule Israel, and Huldah spoke prophecy in Judah; ergo, it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men. The consequent is vain, and of none effect. [110]For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man, than it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same, it makes not the like fact or deed lawful unto us. For God (being free) may, for such causes as are approved by his inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigour of his law, and may use his creatures at his pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he has made subject to his law, and not to the examples of fathers. And this I think sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirits.

But to repress the raging of woman’s madness, I will descend somewhat deeper into the matter; and not fear to affirm, that as we find a contrary spirit in all these most wicked women (that this day are exalted in to this tyrannical authority) to the spirit that was in those godly matrons; so, I say, [111]I fear not to affirm, that their condition is unlike, and that their end shall be diverse. In those matrons, we find that the spirit of mercy, truth, justice, and of humility did reign. Under them we find that God did show mercy to his people, delivering them from the tyranny of strangers, and from the venom of idolatry, by the hands and counsel of those women. But in these of our ages, we find cruelty, falsehood, pride, covetousness, deceit, and oppression. In them we also find the spirit of Jezebel and Athaliah; under them we find the simple people oppressed, the true religion extinguished, and the blood of Christ’s members most cruelly shed; and, finally, by their practices and deceit, we find ancient realms and nations given and betrayed into the hands of strangers, the titles and liberties of them taken from the just possessors. [112]Which one thing is an evident testimony, how unlike our mischievous Marys be unto Deborah, under whom were strangers chased out of Israel, God so raising her up to be a mother and deliverer to his oppressed people. But (alas!) he has raised up these Jezebels to be the uttermost of his plagues, the which man’s unthankfulness has long deserved. But his secret and most just judgment shall neither excuse them, neither their maintainers, because their counsels are diverse.

But to prosecute my purpose, let such as list to defend these monsters in their tyranny prove, first, that their sovereign mistresses are like Deborah in godliness and piety; and secondarily, that the same success does follow their tyranny, which did follow the extraordinary regiment of that godly matron. [113]Which thing, although they were able to do (as they never shall be, let them blow till they burst), yet shall her example profit them nothing at all. [114]For they are never able to prove that either Deborah, or any other godly woman (having commendation of the Holy Ghost within the scriptures), has usurped authority above any realm or nation by reason of her birth and blood; neither yet did they claim it by right or inheritance; but God by his singular privilege, favour, and grace, exempted Deborah from the common malediction given to women in that behalf; and against nature he made her prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happy in regiment, and a blessed mother and deliverer to his people. [115]The which he did, partly to advance and notify the power of his majesty, as well to his enemies as to his own people, in that he declared himself able to give salvation and deliverance by means of the most weak vessels; and partly he did it to confound and shame all men of that age, because they had for the most part declined from his true obedience. And therefore was the spirit of courage, regiment, and boldness taken from them for a time, to their confusion and further humiliation.

But what makes this for Mary and her match Philip? One thing I would ask of such as depend upon the example of Deborah, whether she was widow or wife when she judged Israel, and when God gave that notable victory to his people under her? If they answer she was a widow, I would lay against them the testimony of the Holy Ghost, witnessing that she was wife to Lapidoth (Judges 4:4). And if they will shift and allege that she might be called so, notwithstanding that her husband was dead: I urge them further, that they are not able to prove it to be any common phrase or manner of speech in the scriptures, that a woman shall be called the wife of a dead man, except that there be some note added, whereby it may be known that her husband is departed, as is witnessed of Anna (Luke 2:36-37). But in this place of the Judges, there is no note added that her husband should be dead, but rather the contrary expressed. For the text says, “In that time a woman named Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lapidoth, judged Israel” (Judges 4:4). [116]The Holy Ghost plainly speaks, that what time she judged Israel, she was wife of Lapidoth. If she was his wife, and if she ruled all alone in Israel, then I ask, “Why did she not prefer her husband to that honour to be captain, and to be leader to the host of the Lord?” If any think that it was her husband, the text proves the contrary; for it affirms that Barak, of the tribe of Naphtali, was appointed to that office. If Barak had been her husband, to what purpose should the Holy Ghost so diligently have noted the tribe, and another name than was expressed before? Yea, to what purpose should it be noted that she sent and called him?

Whereof I doubt not but that every reasonable man does consider, that this Barak was not her husband; and thereof, likewise, it is evident, that her judgment and government in Israel was no such usurped power as our queens unjustly possess this day; but that it was a spirit of prophecy which rested upon her, what time the multitude of the people had wrought wickedly in the eyes of the Lord; [117]by which spirit she did rebuke the idolatry and iniquity of the people, exhort them to repentance, and, in the end, did bring them this comfort, that God should deliver them from the bondage and thralldom of their enemies. And this she might do, notwithstanding that another did occupy the place of the supreme magistrate (if [there] was any in those days in Israel), for so I find did Huldah, the wife of Shallum, in the days of Josiah, king of Judah, speak prophecy and comfort the king (2 Kings 22:14); and yet he resigned to her neither the scepter nor the sword.

That this our interpretation, how that Deborah did judge in Israel, is the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, the pondering and weighing of the history shall manifestly prove. When she sends for Barak, I pray you, in whose name gives she him his charge? [118]Does she speak to him as kings and princes use to speak to their subjects in such cases? No, but she speaks as she that had a special revelation from God, which neither was known to Barak, nor to the people, saying, “Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded thee?” This is her preface, by the which she would stir up the dull senses of Barak and of the people, willing to persuade unto them, that the time was come when God would show himself their protector and deliverer; in which preface, she usurps to herself neither power nor authority. For she says not, “I, being your princess, your mistress, your sovereign lady and queen, command you upon your allegiance, and under pain of treason, to go and gather an army.” No, she spoils herself of all power to command, attributing that authority to God, of whom she had her revelation and certitude to appoint Barak captain, which appears more plainly after. For when she had declared to him the whole counsel of God, appointing unto him as well the number of soldiers, as the tribes out of which they should be gathered; and when she had appointed the place of battle (which she could not have done but by special revelation from God), and had assured him of victory in the name of God; and yet that he fainted, and openly refused to enter in to that journey, except that the prophetess would accompany him; she did use against him no external power, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death. But for assurance of his faint heart and weak conscience, being content to go with him, she pronounces, that the glory should not be his in that journey, but that the Lord should sell Siserah into the hand of a woman.

Such as have more pleasure in light than in darkness may clearly perceive that Deborah did usurp no such power nor authority as our queens do this day claim; but that she was endued with the spirit of wisdom, of knowledge, and of the true fear of God, and by the same she judged the facts of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry, yea, and also did redress to her power their injuries that were done by man to man. But all this, I say, she did by the spiritual sword, that is, by the word of God, and not by any temporal regiment or authority which she did usurp over Israel: in which, I suppose, at that time there was no lawful magistrate, by the reason of their great affliction. For so witnesses the history, saying, “And Ehud being dead, the Lord sold Israel into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan;” and he by Siserah his captain afflicted Israel greatly the space of twenty years. And Deborah herself, in her song of thanksgiving, confesses that before she did arise mother in Israel, and in the days of Jael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble.

[119]If any stick to the term, alleging that the Holy Ghost says “that she judged Israel,” let them understand that neither does the Hebrew word, neither yet the Latin, always signify civil judgment, or the execution of the temporal sword; but most commonly [it] is taken in the sense which we have before expressed. For of Christ it is said, “He shall judge many nations,” and that, “He shall pronounce judgment to the Gentiles” (Isa. 2:4; 42:1; Micah 4:2-3) and yet it is evident that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commanded Jerusalem and Judah to judge betwixt him and his vineyard (Isa. 5:3), and yet he appointed not them all to be civil magistrates.

To Ezekiel it is said, “Shalt thou not judge them, son of man?” And after, “Thou son of man, shalt thou not judge? Shalt thou not judge, I say, the city of blood?” And also, “Behold, I shall judge betwixt beast and beast” (Ezek. 20:4; 22:2; 34:17, 20). And such places, in great number, are to be found throughout the holy scriptures. And yet I trust no man will be so foolish as to think, that any of the prophets were appointed by God to be political judges, or to punish the sins of man by corporeal punishment. No, the manner of their judgment is expressed in these words: “Declare to them all their abominations; and thou shalt say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “A city shedding blood in the midst of her, that her time may approach, and which hath made idols against herself that she might be polluted; thou hast transgressed in the blood which thou hast shed; and thou are polluted in the idols which thou hast made”‘” (Ezek. 22:2-4).

Thus, I say, do the prophets of God judge, pronouncing the sentence of God against malefactors. And so I doubt not but Deborah judged, what time Israel had declined from God, rebuking their defection, and exhorting them to repentance, without usurpation of any civil authority. [120]And if the people gave unto her for a time any reverence or honour, as her godliness and happy counsel did well deserve, yet was it no such empire as our monsters claim; for which of her sons or nearest kinsmen left she ruler and judge in Israel after her? The Holy Ghost expresses no such thing; whereof it is evident, that by her example God offers no occasion to establish any regiment of women above men, realms, and nations.

[121]But now to the second objection, in which women require (as to them appears) nothing but equity and justice, whilst they, and their patrons for them, require dominion and empire above men. For this is their question: “Is it not lawful that women have their right and inheritance, like as the daughters of Zelophehad were commanded by the mouth of Moses, to have their portion of ground in their tribe?”

I answer, it is not only lawful that women possess their inheritance, but I affirm also that justice and equity require that so they do. [122]But therewith I add that which gladly they list not understand, that to bear rule or authority over man can never be right nor inheritance to woman; for that can never be just inheritance to any person which God by his word has plainly denied unto them. But to all women has God denied authority above man, as most manifestly is before declared; therefore to her it can never be inheritance. And thus must the advocates of our ladies provide some better example and stronger argument, for the law made in favour of the daughters of Zelophehad will serve them nothing.

[123]And assuredly great wonder it is, that in so great light of God’s truth, men list to grope and wander in darkness. For let them speak of conscience, if the petition of any of these forenamed women was to reign over any one tribe, yea, or yet over any one man within Israel. Plain it is they did not, but only required that they might have a portion of ground among the men of their tribe, lest that the name of their father should be abolished. And this was granted unto them without respect to any civil regiment. And what makes this, I pray you, for the establishing of this monstrous empire of women? [124]The question is not, if women may not succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children; for that I willingly grant. But the question is, if women may succeed to their fathers in offices, and chiefly to that office, the executor whereof does occupy the place and throne of God. And that I absolutely deny, and fear not to say, that to place a woman in authority above a realm is to pollute and profane the royal seat, the throne of justice, which ought to be the throne of God; and that to maintain them in the same is nothing else but continually to rebel against God.

One thing there is yet to be noted and observed in the law made concerning the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 36:6-12): to wit, that it was forbidden unto them to marry without their own tribe, lest that such portion as fell to their lot should be transferred from one tribe to another, and so should the tribe of Manasseh be defrauded and spoiled of their just inheritance by their occasion. [125]For avoiding of which, it was commanded by Moses that they should marry in the family or household of the tribe and kindred of their father. Wonder it is, that the advocates and patrons of the right of our ladies did not consider and ponder this law, before they counseled the blind princes and unworthy nobles of their country to betray the liberties thereof into the hands of strangers: England, for satisfying of the inordinate appetites of that cruel monster Mary (unworthy, by reason of her bloody tyranny, of the name of a woman), betrayed, alas! to the proud Spaniard; and Scotland, by the rash madness of foolish governors, and by the practices of a crafty dame, resigned likewise, under the title of marriage, into the power of France.

[126]Does such translation of realms and nations please the justice of God? Or is the possession, by such means obtained, lawful in his sight? Assured I am that it is not. No otherwise, I say, than is that possession whereunto thieves, murderers, tyrants and oppressors do attain by theft, murder, tyranny, violence, deceit, and oppression, which God of his secret (but yet most just) judgment does often permit for punishment, as well of the sufferers as of the violent oppressors, but does never approve the same as lawful and godly. [127]For if he would not permit that the inheritance of the children of Israel should pass from one tribe to another by the marriage of any daughter, notwithstanding that they were all one people, all spoke one tongue, all were descended of one father, and all did profess one God and one religion; if yet, I say, God would not suffer that the commodity and usual fruit which might be gathered of the portion of ground limited and assigned to one tribe should pass to another, will he suffer that the liberties, laws, commodities, and fruits of whole realms and nations be given into the power and distribution of others by reason of marriage? and in the powers of such as besides that they are of a strange tongue, of strange manners and laws, they are also ignorant of God, enemies to his truth, deniers of Christ Jesus, persecutors of his true members, and haters of all virtue? [128]As the odious nation of Spaniards does manifestly declare, who for very despite which they do bear against Christ Jesus, whom their forefathers did crucify (for Jews they are, as histories do witness, and they themselves confess), do this day make plain war against all true professors of his holy gospel. And how blindly and outrageously the French king and his pestilent prelates do fight against the verity of God, the flaming fires which lick up the innocent blood of Christ’s members do witness, and by his [the king’s] cruel edicts[129] is notified and proclaimed.[130] And yet to these two cruel tyrants (to France and Spain I mean) is the right and possession of England and Scotland appointed. But just or lawful shall that possession never be, till God does change the statute of his former law, which he will not do for the pleasure of man. For he has not created the earth to satisfy the ambition of two or three tyrants, but for the universal seed of Adam; and has appointed and defined the bounds of their habitation, to diverse nations assigning diverse countries (Acts 17:26), as he himself confesses, speaking to Israel in these words: “You shall pass by the bounds and limits of your brethren, the sons of Esau, who dwell in Mt. Seir. They shall fear you; but take diligent heed that ye shew not yourselves cruel against them; for I will give you no part of their land; no, not the breadth of a foot. For Mt. Seir I have given to Esau to be possessed.” And the same he does witness to the sons of Lot, to whom he had given Ar to be possessed (Deut. 2:4-5, 9).

And Moses plainly affirms, that when the Almighty did distribute and divide the possessions to the Gentiles, and when he did disperse and scatter the sons of men, that then he did appoint the limits and bounds of peoples, for the number of the sons of Israel (Deut. 32:8). [131]Whereof it is plain, that God has not exposed the earth in prey to tyrants, making all things lawful which by violence and murder they may possess; but that he has appointed to every several nation a several possession, willing them to stand content (as nature did teach an ethnic [heathen][132] to affirm) with that portion which by lot and just means they had enjoyed. For what causes God permitted this his distribution to be troubled, and the realms of ancient nations to be possessed of strangers, I delay at this time to treat. Only this I have recited, to give the world to understand that the reign, empire, and authority of women have no ground within God’s scriptures. [133]Yea, that realms or provinces possessed by their marriage is nothing but unjust conquest; for so little does the law made for the daughters of Zelophehad help the cause of your queens, that utterly it fights against them, both damning their authority and fact. But now to the third objection.

The consent, say they, of realms and laws pronounced and admitted in this behalf, long conseutude and custom, together with the felicity of some women in their empires, have established their authority. [134]To whom I answer, that neither may the tyranny of princes, neither the foolishness of people, neither wicked laws made against God, neither yet the felicity that in this earth may hereof ensue, make that thing lawful which he by his word has manifestly condemned. For if the approbation of princes and people, and laws made by men, or the consent of realms, may establish anything against God and his word, then should idolatry be preferred to the true religion; for more realms and nations, more laws and decrees published by emperors, with common consent of their counsels, have established the one than have approved the other. And yet I think that no man of sound judgment will therefore justify and defend idolatry; no more ought any man to maintain this odious empire of women, although that it were approved of all men by their laws. For the same God, that in plain words forbids idolatry, does also forbid the authority of women over man, as the words of St. Paul before rehearsed do plainly teach us. [135]And therefore, whether women be deposed from that unjust authority (have they never usurped it so long), or if all such honour be denied unto them, I fear not to affirm that they are neither defrauded of right nor inheritance. For to woman can that honour never be due nor lawful (much less inheritance) which God has so manifestly denied unto them.

I am not ignorant that the subtle wits of carnal men (which can never be brought under the obedience of God’s simple precepts), to maintain this monstrous empire, have yet two vain shifts. [136]First, they allege, that albeit women may not absolutely reign by themselves, because they may neither sit in judgment, neither pronounce sentence, neither execute any public office; yet may they do all such things by their lieutenants, deputies, and judges substitute. Secondarily, they say, a woman born to rule over any realm may choose her a husband, and to him she may transfer and give her authority and right. To both I answer in few words.

First, that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water. Secondarily, that no person has power to give the thing which does not justly appertain to themselves. [137]But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men, and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she has not), to the place of a lawful magistrate; [138]and therefore, [those] who receive of a woman office or authority are adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent [impartial] and equal in the cause of God as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed, that a tyrant by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so establish himself, that he appointed officers, and did what he list for a time; and in this meantime the native king made strait inhibition of all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, neither yet receive any dignity of him; yet, nevertheless, they would honour the same traitor as king, and become his officers in all affairs of the realm: if after the native prince did recover his just honour and possession, should he repute or esteem any man of the traitor’s appointment for a lawful magistrate, or for his friend and true subject? Or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if he should do so, who is able to accuse him of rigour, much less condemn his sentence of injustice? And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case? [139]For that woman [who] reigns above man, she has obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God. How can it be then, that she, being criminal and guilty of treason committed against God, can appoint any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible.

Wherefore, let men that receive of women authority, honour, or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realms and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman, and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before: to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of a consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers, because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally, they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.

[140]The same is the duty of the nobility and estates, by whose blindness a woman is promoted. First, insofar as they have most heinously offended against God, placing in authority such as God by his word has removed from the same, unfeignedly they ought to call for mercy. And, being admonished of their error and damnable fact, in sign and token of true repentance, with common consent, they ought to retreat [retract] that which unadvisedly and by ignorance they have pronounced; and ought, without further delay, to remove from authority all such persons as by usurpation, violence, or tyranny, do possess the same. For so did Israel and Judah after they had revolted from David, and Judah alone in the days of Athaliah (1 Kings 11). [141]For after that she, by murdering of her son’s children, had obtained empire over the land, and had most unhappily reigned in Judah six years, Jehoiada the high priest called together the captains and chief rulers of the people; and showing to them the king’s son Joash, did bind them by an oath to depose that wicked woman, and to promote the king to his royal seat; which they faithfully did, killing at his commandment not only that cruel and mischievous woman, but also the people did destroy the temples of Baal, break his altars and images, and kill Mattan, Baal’s high priest, before his altars.

The same is the duty as well of the estates as of the people that have been blinded. First, they ought to remove from honour and authority that monster in nature: so I call a woman clad in the habit of a man, yea, a woman against nature reigning above man. Secondarily, if any presume to defend that impiety, they ought not to fear, first to pronounce, and then after to execute against them the sentence of death. If any man is afraid to violate the oath of obedience which they have made to such monsters, let them be most assuredly persuaded, that as the beginning of their oaths (proceeding from ignorance) was sin, so is the obstinate purpose to keep the same nothing but plain rebellion against God. But of this matter in The Second Blast, God willing, we shall speak more at large.


And now, to put an end to The First Blast. Seeing that by the order of nature; by the malediction and curse pronounced against woman, by the mouth of St. Paul, the interpreter of God’s sentence; by the example of that commonwealth in which God by his word planted order and policy; and, finally, by the judgment of the most godly writers; God has dejected woman from rule, dominion, empire, and authority above man: moreover, seeing that neither the example of Deborah, neither the law made for the daughters of Zelophehad, neither yet the foolish consent of an ignorant multitude, are able to justify that which God so plainly has condemned; [142]let all men take heed what quarrel and cause from henceforth they do defend.

If God raises up any noble heart to vindicate the liberty of his country, and to suppress the monstrous empire of women, let all such as shall presume to defend them in the same most certainly know, that in so doing they lift up their hand against God, and that one day they shall find his power to fight against their foolishness. Let not the faithful, godly, and valiant hearts of Christ’s soldiers be utterly discouraged, neither yet let the tyrants rejoice, albeit for a time they triumph against such as study to repress their tyranny, and to remove them from unjust authority. For the causes [are known to God] alone why he suffers the soldiers to fail in battle, whom nevertheless he commands to fight. As sometimes did Israel fighting against Benjamin. The cause of the Israelites was most just; for it was to punish that horrible abomination of those sons of Belial, abusing the Levite’s wife, whom the Benjamites did defend; and they had God’s precept to assure them of well-doing, for he did not only command them to fight, but also appointed Judah to be their leader and captain; and yet they fell twice in plain battle against those most wicked adulterers (Judges 20).

[143]The secret cause of this, I say, is known to God alone. But by his evident scriptures we may assuredly gather, that by such means does his wisdom sometimes beat down the pride of the flesh (for the Israelites at the first trusted in their multitude, power, and strength); and sometimes by such overthrows he will punish the offences of his own children, and bring them to the unfeigned knowledge of the same, before he will give them victory against the manifest contemners, whom he has appointed nevertheless to uttermost perdition; as the end of the battle did witness. For although with great murder the children of Israel did twice fall before the Benjamites; yet after they had wept before the Lord, after they had fasted and made sacrifice in sign of their unfeigned repentance; they so prevailed against the proud tribe of Benjamin, that after twenty-five thousand strong men of war were killed, in battle, they destroyed man, woman, child, and beast, as well in the fields as in the cities, which all were burned with fire; so that of that whole tribe only six hundred men remained, who fled to the wilderness, where they remained four months, and so were saved.

[144]The same God who did execute this grievous punishment, even by the hands of those whom he suffered twice to be overcome in battle, does this day retain his power and justice. Cursed Jezebel of England, with the pestilent and detestable generation of Papists, make no little brag and boast, that they have triumphed not only against Wyatt,[145] but also against all such as have enterprised anything against them or their proceedings. But let her and them consider, that yet they have not prevailed against God; his throne is more high than that the length of their horns are able to reach.

And let them further consider, that in the beginning of this their bloody reign, the harvest of their iniquity was not come to full maturity and ripeness. No! it was so green, so secret I mean, so covered, and so hid with hypocrisy, that some men (even the servants of God) thought it not impossible but that wolves might be changed into lambs, and also that the viper might remove her natural venom. But God, who does reveal in his appointed time the secrets of hearts, and that will have his judgments justified even by the very wicked, has now given open testimony of her and their beastly cruelty. For man and woman, learned and unlearned, nobles and men of baser sort, aged fathers and tender damsels, and finally, the bones of the dead, as well women as men, have tasted of their tyranny. So that now, not only the blood of father Latimer, of the mild man of God the bishop of Canterbury [Cranmer], of learned and discreet Ridley, of innocent Lady Jane Dudley [Grey], and many godly and worthy preachers that cannot be forgotten, such as fire has consumed, and the sword of tyranny most unjustly has shed, do call for vengeance in the ears of the Lord God of hosts; but also the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed, the groanings of the angels (the watchmen) of the Lord, yea, and every earthly creature abused by their tyranny, do continually cry and call for the hasty execution of the same.

I fear not to say, that the day of vengeance, which shall apprehend that horrible monster Jezebel of England, and such as maintain her monstrous cruelty, is already appointed in the counsel of the eternal. And I verily believe that it is so nigh, that she shall not reign so long in tyranny as hitherto she has done,[146] when God shall declare himself to be her enemy, when he shall pour forth contempt upon her according to her cruelty, and shall kindle the hearts of such as sometimes did favour her with deadly hatred against her, that they may execute his judgments. And therefore, let such as assist her take heed what they do; for assuredly her empire and reign is a wall without foundation. [147]I mean the same of the authority of all women. It has been underpropped this blind time that is past, with the foolishness of people, and with the wicked laws of ignorant and tyrannical princes. But the fire of God’s word is already laid to those rotten props (I include the pope’s law with the rest), and presently they burn, albeit we espy not the flame. When they are consumed (as shortly they will be, for stubble and dry timber cannot endure the fire), that rotten wall, the usurped and unjust empire of women, shall fall by itself in despite of all men, to the destruction of so many as shall labour to uphold it. And therefore let all men be advertised, for the trumpet has once blown.

Praise God, ye that fear him (Ps. 22:23).



Summary of the Proposed
Second Blast of the Trumpet


Because many are offended at the First Blast of the Trumpet, in which I affirm, that to promote a woman to bear rule or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely [an insult] to God, and a thing most contrary to his revealed and approved ordinance; and because also, that some have promised (as I understand) a confutation of the same, I have delayed the Second Blast till such time as their reasons appear, by the which I either may be reformed in opinion, else shall have further occasion more simply and plainly to utter my judgment. Yet in the meantime, for the discharge of my conscience, and for avoiding suspicion, which might be engendered by reason of my silence, I could not cease to notify these subsequent propositions, which, by God’s grace, I purpose to treat in the Second Blast promised.

1. It is not birth only, nor propinquity of blood, that makes a king lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus and his eternal verity; but in his election must the ordinance, which God has established in the election of inferior judges, be observed.

2. No manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God’s holy precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment [government], honour, or dignity, in any realm, province, or city that has subjected itself to his blessed evangel.

3. Neither can oath nor promise bind any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against God and against his truth known.

4. But if either rashly they have promoted any manifestly wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after declares himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God (and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint, and elect.

“If the eye be single, the whole body shall be clear” (Matthew 6:22).




1. Marginal note: Negligence of watchmen

2. Marginal note: The diligence of the old prophets of God

3. Marginal note: God always had his people amongst the wicked, who never lacked their prophets and teachers

4. Marginal note: Examples what teachers ought to do in this time

5. Marginal note: Three chief reasons that do stay men from speaking the truth

6. Marginal note: It is necessary for every man to open the impiety which he knows to hurt his commonwealth

7. Marginal note: No man can repent except he know his sin

8. Marginal note: The property of God’s truth

9. Marginal note: The ignorant multitude has set up the authority of women, not knowing the danger

10. Marginal note: A very dangerous thing to speak against old errors

11. Marginal note: Accounts will be had of God’s gifts

12. Marginal note: The cause moving the author to write

13. Marginal note: For the author’s name

14. Marginal note: Causes why women should not have preeminence over men

15. Marginal note: Private examples do not break general ordinance

16. Marginal note: Aristotle, Politics

17. Marginal note: Amazons were monstrous women, that could not abide the regiment of men, and therefore killed their husbands

18. Marginal note: Read Justin

19. Marginal note: Aristotle, Politics

20. Marginal note: Lib. 50, De Regulis Juris

21. Marginal note: What women may not be

22. Marginal note: 3, 16 lib., Digestorium

23. Marginal note: Ad Senatus Consul Velleianum

24. Marginal note: Lib. 3., De Postulatione, tit. 1

25. Marginal note: Calphurnia

26. Marginal note: De Statu Hominum, titul. 8

27. Marginal note: From women power is taken away by the civil law over their own children

28. Marginal note: Dig., lib. 24, De Donatione Inter Virum et Fminam

29. Marginal note: Women are covetous, therefore unmeet governors, lib. 1, Digest De Legib. et Senatuscon, tit. 3

30. Marginal note: England and Scotland beware

31. Marginal note: Great imperfections of women

32. Marginal note: Romilda, the wife of Gisulphus, betrayed to Cacanus the dukedom of Friuli in Italy

33. Marginal note: Jane, Queen of Naples, hanged her husband

34. Marginal note: Athaliah, 2 Kings 1:1

35. Marginal note: Irene Anton. Sabellicus

36. Marginal note: If the less things be denied to women, the greater cannot be granted.

37. Marginal note: Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve man

38. Marginal note: A good comparison

39. Marginal note: A new necessity of woman’s subjection

40. Marginal note: Woman, by the sentence of God, subject to man

41. Marginal note: The punishment of women unjustly promoted, and of their promoters

42. Marginal note: Let all women take heed

43. Marginal note: Answer to an objection

44. Marginal note: From a general privilege is woman secluded

45. Marginal note: She that is subject to one may not rule many

46. Marginal note: A stong argument

47. Marginal note: Note

48. Marginal note: Tertullian, De Habitu Mulierum

49. Marginal note: Let women hearken what Tertullian, an old doctor says

50. Marginal note: Note

51. Marginal note: Tertullian, De Virginibus Velandis

52. Marginal note: In Pomio, Contra Marcionem

53. Marginal note: Augustine, lib. 22, Contra Faustum, c. 7

54. Marginal note: De Trinitate, lib. 12, cap. 7

55. Marginal note: In Quæst. Veteris Testamenti, quæst. 43

56. Marginal note: Note

57. Marginal note: Lib. De. Continentia, cap. 4

58. Marginal note: Ambrose in Hexaemeron, lib. 5, c. 7

59. Marginal note: Ambrose, Super 2 c. 1 Epist. ad Timothy

60. Marginal note: Ambrose in 1 Epist. ad Cor., cap 14

61. Marginal note: Whose house, I pray you, ought the Parliament house to be ­ God’s or the devil’s

62. Marginal note: Rufus is by St. Paul saluted before his mother.

63. Marginal note: Chrysostom, Hom. 17 in Genesis

64. Marginal note: Note

65. Marginal note: Homil. 15 in Genesis

66. Marginal note: God grant all women’s hearts to understand and follow this sentence!

67. Marginal note: In Matt. cap. 23, Homil. 44

68. Marginal note: Woman cannot have virtue [power] in equality with man, ad Eph., cap. 4, sermon 13

69. Marginal note: Note

70. Marginal note: The body lacking the head cannot be well governed, neither can commonwealth lacking man

71. Marginal note: In cap. 22 John, Homil. 87

72. Marginal note: In John, Homil. 41

73. Marginal note: Basilius Magnus in Aliquot Scripturæ Locos

74. Marginal note: De Ordine, lib. 1, c. 10

75. Marginal note: De Civitas Dei, lib. 19, cap. 13

76. Marginal note: Whatsoever is done without the appointment of God’s will is done without order

77. Marginal note: Two mirrors in which we may behold the order of nature

78. Marginal note: Commonwealths under the rule of women lack a lawful head.

79. Marginal note: Idol

80. Marginal note: The empire of a woman is an idol

81. Marginal note: Note

82. Marginal note: Mark the similitude of Chrysostom

83. Marginal note: Note

84. Circe is the mythical enchantress who detained Odysseus and transformed his men into swine.

85. Marginal note: How women are covered in England and Scotland

86. Marginal note: Brute beasts to be preferred

87. Marginal note: Insolent joy brings sudden sorrow

88. Marginal note: What robbed God of his honour in England in time of the gospel

89. Marginal note: God’s benefits shown to England

90. Marginal note: Discipline refused in England

91. Marginal note: The nobility, and the whole realm of England, cast themselves willingly into the pit

92. Marginal note: Confession

93. Marginal note: Note

94. Marginal note: Note

95. Marginal note: God has appointed man his minister and lieutenant

96. Marginal note: Answer to an objection

97. Marginal note: The election of a king flows from the moral law

98. Marginal note: Rulers should take heed to this

99. Marginal note: What vices magistrates ought to punish

100. Marginal note: Note: the Gentile no less bound to the moral law than the Jews

101. Marginal note: Note

102. Marginal note: The first argument, that the authority of women repugns justice

103. Marginal note: The second argument

104. Marginal note: Nature does confess that repugnancy to God’s will is injustice

105. Marginal note: How the reprobate confess God’s will to be just

106. Marginal note: Women’s authority brings forth monsters

107. Marginal note: The defence of the adversaries

108. Marginal note: Answer to the first objection

109. Marginal note: Examples against the law have no strength when the question is of law

110. Marginal note: Note

111. Marginal note: Antithesis betwixt the former matrons and our Jezebels

112. Marginal note: Note

113. Marginal note: Note

114. Marginal note: No godly woman did ever claim authority over man by reason of her birth and blood

115. Marginal note: Why God sometimes works by extraordinary means

116. Marginal note: Note

117. Marginal note: Note

118. Marginal note: Deborah commanded not as princes used to command

119. Marginal note: To judge is not always understood of civil regiment

120. Marginal note: Note

121. Marginal note: An answer to the second objection

122. Marginal note: What woman would not gladly bear

123. Marginal note: The daughters of Zelophehad desired to reign over no man in Israel

124. Marginal note: Women may succeed to inheritance, but not to office

125. Marginal note: Our patrons for women do not mark this condition

126. Marginal note: Realms gotten by practices are no just possession

127. Marginal note: Note

128. Marginal note: The Spaniards are Jews, and they brag that Mary of England is of the root of Jesse

129. Marginal note: Note the law which he has proclaimed in France against such as he terms Lutherans

130. In the year 1551, the edict of Henry the Second, known as the Edict of Châteaubriand, contained fifty-six articles, denouncing severe punishment on the Lutherans, with the view of suppressing heresy, and overcoming the wilfulness and obstinacy “of this unhappy sect.” But this and similar edicts had no such effect; and in May 1553, five persons were burned at Lyon, and five others in the course of the same year, besides such as suffered at Paris, Toulouse, and other parts of France. [D.L.]

131. Marginal note: Note

132. Marginal note: Cicero, De Officiis, lib. 1

133. Marginal note: Realms gotten by marriage are unjust conquest

134. Marginal note: Answer to the third objection

135. Marginal note: Women may and ought to be deposed from authority

136. Marginal note: The fourth objection

137. Marginal note: Woman can make no lawful officer

138. Marginal note: Let England and Scotland take heed

139. Marginal note: Woman in authority is rebel against God

140. Marginal note: What the nobility ought to do in this behalf

141. Marginal note: Mark this fact, for it agrees with God’s law pronounced

142. Marginal note: An admonition

143. Marginal note: Why God permits sometimes his own soldiers to fall in battle.

144. Marginal note: Note

145. Sir Thomas Wyatt, son of the distinguished statesman and poet of the same name, during the reign of Henry VIII. After the untimely death of Edward VI, having joined in the unsuccessful effort to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, he was condemned for high treason, and was executed on the 11th of April 1554. [D.L.]

146. This prediction of Knox as to the speedy termination of Queen Mary’s reign, whom he here styles Jezebel of England, proved correct. She died in the sixth year of her reign, on the 17th of November, or within seven or eight months of the publication of The First Blast. [D.L.]

147. Marginal note: The authority of all women is a wall without foundation

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: