Misogyny in the Bible - A collection  of thought and ideas by APSE Ministries         1

Does the Bible Teach that Women are Second Class Citizens?                                   8

The surprising chasm splitting young Americans along political lines                     15

Why are men so much more right-wing than women now?                                        20

MISOGYNY COMES ROARING BACK                                                                            25

1

Misogyny in the Bible - A collection  of thought and ideas by APSE Ministries

Misogyny in the Old Testament: 

1. Where did male superiority come from?  

Genesis 3:16  I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing…, Your desire will be for your husband and HE WILL RULE OVER YOU.

2. Numbers 30 is about vows.  They relegate a woman not back to a second class citizen, but about a fifth class citizen.  Men make the decisions.  

Vs 2 When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.  (Basically, if a MAN makes a vow it stands.  He is a male so he is able to speak for himself.)

Vss 3-5  “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand.   But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.  (A young woman can make a vow but the father has veto power over her.  The father has the final say.)

Vss 10-12  “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.  But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her.  (Once a woman marries, the final say of any vow she makes is now transferred to the husband.)  

Vs 9  “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.  (Good news.  If her husband dies or he dumps his wife she gets to make decisions on her own.  There is no “superior male” to veto her decision.

2

3. More examples in Deuteronomy.  Women are essentially property of men.  

An example.  Deuteronomy 21:10  Marrying a captive woman - slightly paraphrased):  When you win a battle and you see a hot woman (vs. 11) and want her for your own wife (add to your harem?), take her home, shave her head, clean her nails, set aside her clothes.  Give her a month to mourn her parents (whom you may have personally killed), then check her out and see if you still want her.  If you decide, nah, never mind, you must let her go as a free woman since you dishonored her.  She, obviously having no rights, would be at your mercy.  Maybe wanting you since you then have to take care of her and she has no family and is dishonored, or maybe not since she probably hates your guts.  (IMHO…)

An aside:

Sexual Complimentarity – John Piper   (Rev. Piper presents courses in conservative Christianity, one being this particular course.  He also has a paper that grudgingly accepts inter-racial marriage since it seems Moses had a wife of color.)

His logic: If women are elders and pastors then there is no difference between man and woman, hence homosexuality is ok.  (That is one giant leap.  I have read it dozens of times and I just don’t get it.)

However it does beg the question on prohibiting women in leadership positions in the church.  i.e. elders, pastors.  Is this based on scripture written in a time when females were denied the opportunity of education?  Are we limiting ourselves based on customs of the 1st century?

Back to misogyny:

4. For all the criticism of misogyny and the anti female material in the Bible, in truth it is actually the opposite. Even in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 when a woman is raped, the fact that her rapist must MARRY HER is revolutionary for the day.  At the time, women had NO RIGHTS.  They were UNCLEAN and useless for 20% of their lives (via menstruation).  They were “dirty” and must be cleansed after menstruation.  

Who would want a raped virgin as his wife?  Very likely no one.  So how could she ever support herself - other than prostitution.  So the law is forcing the rapist to provide for the victim for the rest of her life.  Good news.  You will be provided for.  Bad news.  You must live with your rapist forever.  

3

5. Jewish families had become a bit more liberal, equitable, fair, faithful in treating women, but the eldest son was critical.  If the husband died first, which frequently happened, the woman’s sustenance was wholly dependent on the eldest son.  Hence the concern over the welfare of the eldest son over all children.  Perhaps why the eldest son got the “birthright,” the larger portion of the inheritance? 

The New Testament

The treatment of women in the New Testament involves the two central figures of the books.  Jesus in the Gospels, and Paul in the Epistles.

Jesus:  Jesus was in my opinion the greatest champion for women’s rights in the history of civilization.  The position is covered in the article Jesus: The Greatest Champion for Women’s Rights article in this section.

For Paul, the issue was a bit more complex.  Hence, his writings on treatment and roles and responsibilities of women seem to bounce all over the place.

The meshing of Judaism with the Gentiles was quite a task.   

In the Gentile world, adultery was rampant. 

Here is the problem text from Paul that really offends:  Ephesians 5:21-23

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.   Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

4

Well that doesn’t sound too good for women.  Except… and this is HUGE.  Men never had this responsibility to a wife before.  This sounds awful but it is really quite radical in its day)

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—  for we are members of his body.  

The wording here sounds strangely anti-woman in the 21st century.  Many consider it insulting. 

But PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF PAUL’S DAY.  It was worldly radical - on the OPPOSITE WAY.  For the first time in Greco-Roman society MAN had to love and respect WOMAN.  Care for your wife as much as one cares for himself.  He stated further in Galatians 3:28 …there is neither male nor female…  They are EQUAL.  In Greco-Roman society that was crazy radical and a real boost for the lives of women.  

Paul made similar comments in Ephesians chapter 5:  Woman, (submit /love/respect) your husband.  It will be easier for him to love you.  Man, love your wife, it is easier for your wife to submit to you.  Neither of these comes before the other as we are to SUBMIT TO EACH OTHER OUT OF REVERENCE FOR CHRIST.  (WHY DIDN’T PAUL JUST SAY THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?)

This theme is also in Colossians 18-19  Wives, submit to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.  

TAKE IN CONTEXT that at that time in the Gentile world marriage was not about love, but about a woman bearing children for her husband (and her own future security IF she bears a son).  This does NOT mean women are second class to their husbands TODAY.  It was a radical idea of the time for a marriage to be about LOVE AND CARING FOR YOUR PARTNER - BOTH WAYS.

(It is critical to remember marriages at the time were mostly arranged marriages.  How much “love” was involved is debatable.)

5

In these texts Paul is referencing Isaiah:  Isaiah 62:5b  ...as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will God rejoice over you.  (This appears to be the analogy Paul uses in his description of marriage in the epistles, verbiage that was understandable in Paul’s time but seems almost insulting in today’s world of women’s rights.)

BUT… Did Paul go too far?

In the Pastoral Epistles written later Paul seems to soften his position of neother male nor female.  Perhaps to help the church fit in more with Greco-Roman society norms he pulled back a little and put men back in leadership and limited the responsibilities and opportunities for women in the church.  

Read the Apocryphal Book The Acts of Paul and Thecla and Notes on Thecla.  Were The 2 books of Timothy and Titus written in response to women thinking that they can escape a male dominated society through this new religion of Christianity?  Would Paul’s efforts to promote women’s rights doom his fledgling churches?

Let’s look at 1Timothy:

1 Timothy 2  Instructions on Worship   8Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn (the importance here is that women MUST LEARN, a very unusual and PROGRESSIVE POSITION in that in normal life very few women had an opportunity for an education.  The reference is not complete silence, but a quiet demeanor.  Why are we applying this 1st century thought to today?) in quietness and full submission 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man (Note: The word in Greek here is DOMINEER over a man, not that she has to remain totally quiet.  One interpretation is that women may teach but cannot be considered AUTHORITATIVE.  Can MEN DOMINEER over a woman?  If a woman can be authoritative I assume the men can be.  Then again, why are we applying this 1st century thought to today?), she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  4 And Adam was not the one 

6

deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (OUCH.  Try to spin THIS verse to say Adam was as much at fault as Eve for original sin.). 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (MORE OUCH.  A woman who does not procreate is doomed?).

1. Timothy 3  Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons - Where do women fit in?  (OVERSEERS HAVE AUTHORITY.  DEACONS ARE TEACHERS, hence women can  be deacons, or deaconesses, but not have authority.  Women cannot be ELDERS.  Is this a timeless mandate?  Or just because women were teaching heresy in the day.)  Here is a trustworthy saying.   Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable,  able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.  4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.  5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)  6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited, and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.  12  A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.  (SO WHAT ABOUT HUSBANDS OF WIDOWS?  OR, HORRORS, A DIVORCEE?  What about the father of Janice Hale?  Note: I met Janice at church camp.  I liked her a lot, but I was far from her league.  She was a PK - preacher’s kid.  But man, she was WILD!)

Or should women just accept their fate as second class citizens in the church.  The male superiority in the faith offer this little ditty: “Women, learn from Joseph Barsabbas (Justus), the follower of Jesus that was not chosen to replace Judas.  Mathias was chosen as the 12th apostle.  But Justus continued to serve the Lord Jesus in whatever capacity he could even though he COULD NOT SERVE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION.  Just like women…  Woman: KNOW YOUR PLACE!”  (Be happy we let you cook and wash dishes?)

7

From The Historical Jesus by Crossen:  Another thought.

Pg 299  Jesus said:  I have not come to bring peace to the world but daughter against father…   Conflict because of religion (the old covenant vs the new covenant)?  Or BECAUSE JESUS IS UPSETTING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF MALE (Patriarchal) DOMINANCE.  In the various versions, including the Gospel of Thomas, the divisions over Jesus will not only be patriarchal but also INTERGENERATIONAL (parents vs children - sons and daughters, and sons OR daughters and spouses) and also ACROSS SEX AND GENDER - male vs female.

(Were these words written AFTER Paul’s epistles?  But spoken BEFORE Paul’s epistles. Perhaps indicating Paul’s words about woman keep quiet in church and women cannot teach in church are not JESUS’ words but merely Paul trying to make or keep peace with his Greco-Roman male dominated audience.)

No question Jesus was a revolutionary.  He upset the apple cart in more than one area.  Including roles of women.  Although not disciples, he had women in his inner circle.  In fact it seems they funded much or all of his entire ministry.  

Then again, Paul referenced churches in the homes of women (See Lydia - The “purple woman” in Acts 16:11-15), no men mentioned or involved.  The book of Paul and Thecla references a woman missionary.  Seems Paul wasn’t as misogynistic as the conservative churches like to make him out to be.

8

Does the Bible Teach that Women are Second Class Citizens? 

It seems there are some that believe just that.  Here are 2 articles that put forth a conservative position of women’s roles in society and in the church according to their interpretation of scripture.

The initial paragraphs are notes from an article of July 19, 2017 / biblicalgenderroles.com) 

Additional notes are added from a Bible.org  class by Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh of Dallas Theological Seminary.

(Personal note:  I have a far different take on this subject than the authors of this article.  It comes from my personal experience.I had the good fortune and sincere privilege to attend school with 2 special classmates, Barb and Kathy.  Female.  Kind.  Friends.  And sheer geniuses.  Neither shy nor overbearing.  Definitely humble.  But I guarantee you, either one could overwhelm both of the following 2 authors with knowledge, skills, leadership, speaking, teaching, and dare I say, class.  For either of these 2 authors to suggest Barb, Kathy, or a plethora of brilliant women have to take a back seat to them because Eve bit the apple first is ignorance.  I learned my lesson of respect and equality for women early, not by intimidation, but by friendship and sharing with smart and talented girls and women in my life.  Just as I learned from fellow boys and men.  Even more shocking: Some of them were even gay.  And persons of color.)  

Second class citizen: “A person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.”

So the question then becomes, does the Bible advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men according to the dictionary definition I just gave?

The answer simply put is YES. The Bible does in fact advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men if “second class citizen” simply means they are to have less rights and opportunities than men.In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.

9

God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help mate for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

God’s Third-Class Citizen – Children as God’s inheritance to man “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

God’s Fourth-Class Citizen - A fourth social class allowed by God because of SinSin’s entrance into the world resulted in crime, laziness, poverty and war. These four human conditions would necessitate that God allow for a fourth class of citizen which is that of a slave.  While God allowed for slavery he also specifically gave rules regarding the humane treatment of slaves and the conditions under which slavery may occur. (Because of sin there is laziness, evidently also stupidity and inability to care for oneself, so God decided for the benefit of that sinner that he should become a slave for his own good.  The only way he could survive…)Is a woman’s second-class status only applicable if she is married or living with her father?

Even if a woman feels called by God to celibacy in his service this does not remove her second-class status. Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman makes this clear. I Corinthians 11:3  “3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 

10

“We attended home church and were told that women are to be submissive to their husbands, and not speak in the church.”  

AUTHOR’S RESPONSE:  If you had church services in your home (as many churches do) then your husband would be right in teaching that you and your daughters should remain silent and simply listen during the spiritual instruction given by the men. This is actually very clearly taught in the Scriptures.  “11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

So, it is perfectly Biblical for elder women in the Lord to conduct women’s Bible studies in their home or maintain blogs online with other women as long as this occurs under the authority of their husbands. The women teaching should teach what is in accordance with their husband’s teachings and the women attending should do so with their husband’s permission.

“Some of the men in the church were not very caring and loving husbands and they did not honor their wives. Last year I realized that my efforts to be a Proverbs 31 wife has led me to have a relationship that is not what I consider to be what God wants. My husband is verbally abusive, self-centered, and has neglected his role as Father and Husband.”

Who determines if a husband is acting in a caring or loving way toward his wife or honoring his wife? I can tell you who does not determine this. Neither his wife nor his children. Ultimately it is God himself who judges whether your husband is caring and loving to you and honoring you in the way God expects of him. And how does he determine God’s will in these areas? By examining the Scriptures and how God loves his wife.

11

Responses to this article:

1) Nice article.  I disagree on women teaching women about Scripture. They simply can’t be trusted to get it right. Let them teach how to be a good wife and mother, no more.

2)  You only mentioned that with regards to going to church in the article, so I just wanted to make sure you knew it applies to all times, not just in church. Wasn’t trying to be rude though. Sorry if I came off that way. Hope you’ve been doing well lately, and God bless you!

WAIT!  THERE’S MORE! 

Bible.org  Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh Dallas Theological Seminary

Old Testament Precedent: Divine Distinctions Based Upon Gender

Family leadership (rights of the first-born) was passed down from one generation to another through the males. The Abrahamic Covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, and then through his sons. In the Book of Numbers, we find provisions made for the rare instances in which there were no males through which the inheritance would pass down.  But it is clear that such instances are rare, and are the exception, rather than the rule.

When a census was taken, it was of males only. Of course, we should remember that a census was taken for military purposes, and thus only males 20 years old and older were counted.

Circumcision was a male ritual. It was the male Israelites who identified with the Abrahamic Covenant by means of circumcision. 

The laws regarding ceremonial uncleanness after the birth of a child made distinctions on the basis of gender. A woman who bore a male child was declared unclean for seven days, while a woman who bore a female child was declared unclean for fourteen days.

Only the male Israelites were required to appear in Jerusalem three times a year for the three great religious feasts. In some instances, at least, this must have meant leaving the family behind in order to attend some of these feasts.

12

Contrary to popular representations, angels appear only in masculine form. 

The regulations of the law regarding vows assume the subordination of women to men. A man was bound to his vows. When a single woman made a vow, it could be nullified by her father, and when a woman who had made a vow married, her husband had the right to set aside her vow (at the time he first learned of it, but not later on).

The laws pertaining to jealousy and divorce also distinguished on the basis of gender. If a man doubted the purity of his wife, there was a process whereby his suspicions could be verified or shown to be false.  Regulations regarding divorce seemed to pertain only to the men, but not to the women. In other words, there were provisions for a man to divorce his wife, but not reciprocal provisions for a woman to divorce her husband.

Women were not allowed to assume positions of leadership over men. There were no women priests, no women kings, and only a few women prophets.  Indeed, it was an indication of divine judgment when women ruled over men:

My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths (Isaiah 3:12, ESV).

The bottom line is that with a very few exceptions (and these served to prove a point), women did not lead men in the Old Testament. Instances where women did lead will be dealt with in our next lesson.

13

The Old Testament evidence is beyond dispute: God distinguished between males and females, on the basis of gender alone. This mountain of evidence sufficiently explains Paul’s concluding words in 1 Corinthians 14:

Paul teaches that women are to remain silent in the church. We know that this means women cannot teach the men, and that they are not even to ask a question. But what does it mean to be “silent”? Some may conclude that this means absolute silence. Thus, a woman could not even sing with the congregation, or lean over to tell one of her children to be quiet. We have drawn the line elsewhere. We believe that the woman’s silence is directly related to the leadership and authority of men in the church. Thus, we believe that a woman should not “lead in prayer,” “teach the congregation,” or exercise authority when the church is gathered.

Do all the same rules apply in the home, or when a ministry group meets? Some might think so. We don’t allow women to teach men, even in small groups and in the context of the home. We do allow women to share observations and to ask questions in these smaller and less formal settings. Could our “lines” be challenged? No doubt, but wherever we do draw the line, someone is sure to disagree.

To press on, we know that Paul has forbidden women to teach men. But we also know that women can teach their children in the context of the home.  Can a woman teach a Sunday school class? We believe so, but we draw the line at the junior high level. Women can teach children, and they can teach women, but we don’t allow them to teach young men. Where these lines are to be drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and so we try to make these distinctions wisely, realizing that others may draw them elsewhere.

14

However, saner heads put forth: Historical Context of the Scriptures

“The first stage in serious Bible study,” notes Grant Osborne, “is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found.”  He goes on to note, “Since Christianity is a historical religion, the interpreter must recognize that an understanding of the history and culture within which the passage was produced is an indispensable tool for uncovering the meaning of that passage.” Osborne’s advice is especially pertinent considering the wide chasm that exists between the Ancient Near East (ANE) and twenty-first century America.

If we are to understand what Moses meant in the Pentateuch, we must have some understanding of his milieu. Moreover, we must remember that Israel was birthed out of the ANE where patriarchy, primogeniture, polygamy, and slavery were accepted norms. That is to say, Israel did not exist in a vacuum, isolated from its neighboring nations. This close proximity explains why many of those less than ideal structures existed in ancient Israel.

With this context established, one readily observes that God does not endorse the broken structures of patriarchy, polygamy, slavery and so forth. Rather, we observe that God worked within those already existing structures, seeking to make incremental moral improvements on established practices. This strategy is not too different from a new pastor who aims to take his church in a new direction, but he does so gradually lest he leave others behind.

Of course this is all important because, remember, THE WOMAN IS THE WEAKER VESSEL.("Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).  She did bite the apple first…

Nor can a woman be an elder!!!  Paul listed qualifications for elders.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

15

The surprising chasm splitting young Americans along political lines

(Could it be misogyny?)

By Christian Paz | May 16, 2025 6:00 am

Gen Z men are becoming more religious. The women, not so much.

Among the persistent mysteries of the 2024 election is the roots of the modern political gender gap, particularly among young people. Though their final vote choices were a bit more nuanced than some pre-election polls suggested, young men and women, aged 18 to 29, had the largest divergence in their vote among the age groups. Gen Z men supported Donald Trump by 14 percentage points; Gen Z women supported Kamala Harris by 17 points, per one post-election analysis.

Those dynamics, particularly the aggressive rightward shift of young men, have raised some interesting questions: What was driving this divide? Was something in particular moving young men to the right while pushing young women to the left? Could it be the manosphere, economics, or old-school sexism?

Or could it be something else, like the apparent resurgence of organized religion?

As I’ve reported, the rapid decline of religiosity within the United States has been slowing down over recent years. Particularly since the pandemic, data shows Gen Z is no longer continuing the rapid decline in religious affiliation, particularly Christianity, that started with previous generations. If anything, religious belief has seen a small revival with that youngest cohort.

That shift suggests a curious dynamic at play among America’s youth. As Gen Z has been getting more politically polarized along gendered lines, so too has their religious affiliation. Those trends suggest that modern politics and religious beliefs may be having a bit of self-reinforcing effect on each other: As young men find faith and religious belonging, their politics are drifting to the right too, in turn reinforcing their existing beliefs.

16

The opposite seems to be true with young women: Religious customs are not jibing with their political and social beliefs, pushing them out of churches, and reinforcing that drift away from some organized religions.

Those religious trends matter. As religious and political beliefs of young men and women move away from each other, it stands to complicate not just electoral choices, but the future of family life, dating, and social belonging.

The religious gender gap is changing 

The last 10 years have seen American Christianity bottom out. After a steady decline in Christian religiosity since the 1990s, Christian belief began to stabilize at around 60 percent of the American adult population — still a historic low point — sometime around the turn of the 2020s.

A key contributor to this slow-down appears to be Gen Z. After years of successive generations losing their religion, Gen Z seemed to get as irreligious as it could be. Now, what we’ve seen since 2020 is a kind of dead cat bounce: a slightly higher level of Christian religious affiliation among the youngest adults. Among the youngest cohort of Gen Z, those born between 2000 and 2006, the share who identify as Christian has increased since 2023, from 45 percent to 51, per the Pew Research Center. And overall, Gen Z seems to be more Christian than past trend lines predicted they should be: at 46 percent compared to a projected 41 percent. 

At the heart of that halt and slight reversal is a dual dynamic: Young women are leaving religious congregations, while young men’s religious identification and practice rises. These changes come across in a few ways. 

First, the gender gap in religious participation has not just evaporated in recent years, but reversed. The religious researcher and data scientist Ryan Burge has found in his analysis of survey data from the Cooperative Election Study that while women used to attend religious services more regularly than men, the reverse is now happening. Among the cohort born in the 1990s and 2000, it’s men who are now outpacing women in weekly attendance.

17

Looking at other reference points suggests something similar. Young women are more likely than young men to say they are religiously unaffiliated, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life research. Young women are now as likely as young men to say religion is “not that important” to them — a significant development since women have traditionally been more fervent believers. And the religious gender gap among the youngest cohort appears to be narrowing in other ways, too: Regardless of which religion they identify with, young women and young men report about the same rates of daily prayer. For older generations, women greatly outpace men in praying daily.

Is religion making men more conservative? 

We could still stand to get better data about what is happening. It could be that young men simply remain as religious as older generations of men are (while women lose religion), or that men are getting more religious in general, or that men are particularly loyal to organized religion. Some data suggest young women remain religious or spiritual but just don’t identify with organized churches in the same way men do. But the religious gender gap still appears to be changing among Gen Z.

But is politics driving these changes in religious behavior and belief? Or is religion driving stronger political beliefs? The data is a little less definitive here, but two things seem to bear out: According to AEI’s Survey Center, young women who are leaving churches report doing so because their congregations’ beliefs are more conservative than the beliefs they hold. Churches are out of step with where most young women are. 

Additionally, young Christian women who remain in their churches are still more likely to be liberal and hold progressive beliefs than young Christian men. Even as they remain Christians, they are becoming more politically liberal.

18

Underlying all of this is the fact that Gen Z women are more likely to identify as feminists, as LGBTQ, and as supportive of abortion rights. According to the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, young Christian women are 13 points more likely than young men to say that abortion should be legal. They are 18 points more likely to support gay marriage and 26 points more likely to accept LGBTQ people.

As the researcher Daniel A. Cox of the AEI’s Survey Center points out, these are all shifts from what young Christians believed 10 years ago. “The gender gap in views of abortion has since quadrupled,” he notes in a recent analysis, but when it comes to views on homosexuality and gay marriage, it seems like young men have moved right. “Young Christian women have hardly changed their views over the last decade, while young men have become less supportive.”

On a range of other views of government, political parties, and ideology in general, what’s happening with nonreligious young people is also happening among believers. Young Christian women are much more liberal, and more likely to be Democrats, than young Christian men. Cox notes that it might not be religion making these political views so different but the degree to which young Christian women have more connections and exposure to diverse communities and are consuming different kinds of media. Religious young men seem to be stuck in more homogenous environments, both in the digital and in the real world, he suggests.

Still, while we can confidently say young women are becoming more liberal and less religious in that process, we can’t say the same for men. Religion may or may not be making young men more conservative, but it does seem likely that their conservative religious and political beliefs are at least keeping young men in churches. It appears to be slowing down their drift away from organized religion. 

All of which stands to complicate the future of not just Gen Z’s social and cultural bonds to each other but also those of future generations. It’s the youngest cohort of Gen Z, those born between 2000 and 2006, that is narrowing religious gender gaps while widening political ones. That poses issues for their social, romantic, and familial futures. Gen Z already reports struggles with socializing, dating, maintaining healthy relationships, and combatingloneliness. Marriage rates continue to fall. So as young men and women drift away from each other, it’s hard to see how prospective partners breach these divides. And these dynamics may very well end up having electoral effects.

20

Vox

Why are men so much more right-wing than women now?

Don’t blame Joe Rogan too much — one theory says that the roots of this gender gap go back decades.
By Maia Mindel | May 6, 2025 6:00 am
The emergence of a political divide between young men and young women has been one of the most-discussed developments in recent politics. President Donald Trump won 56 percent of men under 30in November, compared to just 41 percent four years earlier. It’s not just the US, either. Around the globe, young men are more likely to support right-wing parties and politicians than their female counterparts. South Korean men and women, for example, are some of the furthest apart in the world: Voters under 30 had a gender gap of 25 percentage points in support for deposed President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The causes of this divide are complex and have been endlessly discussed. There’s social media and the existence of “manosphere” content creators like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan, who promote right-wing parties and ideas. Additionally, widespread isolation, especially for the youth, means that social media now has an outsized impact, leading to a distorted public sphere where preferences are distorted by biased algorithms. There is, of course, a gendered backlash aspect: Women have made notable advances in the public sphere over the last five years, and Trump has capitalized on anxieties about such gains, as well as longer-simmering grievances and tensions, to advance his reactionary agenda. 
But while much of the debate has centered on electoral strategy, social issues like transgender rights or Me Too, and chastising activists for their unproductive work, the truth is somewhat more nuanced. Younger men are more conservative on some issues, but men’s and women’s differing votes don’t seem to be based on policy differences: Surveys of American voters point to men and women largely agreeing on which issues they find most important, and they mostly seem to trust the same parties on each of those issues.
The best way to understand the growing gender divide isn’t the culture war. It’s how the economy has shifted over the past half-century.

21

Flying solo

To understand the divergence in values between men and women, one has to understand where fundamental values — such as the support for democracy as opposed to far-right parties — come from. At their core, these develop not from heady cost-benefit analysis of policy, but from prior experiences, particularly during formative years (the “14 to 24” decade).
Let’s start with the most fundamental experience: economic security. Support for democracy relies on democracies providing material benefits. And so, economic inequality and lack of economic growth — which have been accelerating in recent decades — are both associated with widespread turns to the radical, anti-democratic, misogynistic right. 
In the United States and Europe, for example, rising wealth inequality and slowing economic growth are linked to support for far-right parties. In Brazil, unemployment increased attendance at conservative evangelical churches that then boosted the support of far-right candidates. The clearest examples come from Nazi Germany: areas more closely harmed by Weimar Era austerity programs saw the largest upswells of support for Adolf Hitler.
A second crucial factor in support for democracy is “social trust” — that is, trust in the government, institutions, and other citizens. Once again, economics plays a role. Economic deprivation and income inequality are linked to lower social trust. Voters in worse economic conditions are consistently more likely to endorse a zero-sum mindset, or the belief that the only way for a person to gain from society is at the expense of others. A zero-sum mentality results in less support for progressive, anti-individualistic, or cosmopolitan values, while non-zero-sum values and high social trust seem to be linked with more liberal values. 
Studies consistently find that job insecurity leads to sexist views (for example, among European men), as well as developing beliefs that women’s advancement came at their expense. Chinese men who experience worse economic conditions are also more hostile to women and more sexist, and British men who grew up in high-unemployment regions report feeling less agreement with progressive and feminist statements. 
But shouldn’t broad economic conditions — and their associated effect on trust and political values — equally affect men and women, driving both rightward? No.

22

From the factory line to “Gen Z boss and a  mini

Starting in the 1970s, but especially in the 1990s, most developed and middle-income economies transformed; in particular, manufacturing declined and service jobs increased due to trade, lower unionization, and automation. 
In consequence, the labor market split into two: lower-paying “manual” occupations (which include both construction and, say, childcare) and higher-paying “cognitive” jobs. One classic example is ATMs: They eliminated the highly paid, low-education job of “bank teller,” and replaced it with low-paying customer service jobs (the people at the bank counter), and higher-paying “financial services” jobs (the people offering loans, advice, or other bank services). The Great Recession further entrenched this split: The “cognitive” track added 8.4 million jobs (on net) after 2007, while the manual job track lost, on net, 5.5 million. 
Since manufacturing was traditionally a “male” job, its decline in the economy meant that men had worse job prospects and fewer opportunities, especially since the skills required in manufacturing itself also changed to require more education. As a result, men without college degrees lost their position as the second-highest earning group of people (after college-educated men). And cuts to social services disproportionately affected men due to their higher likelihood of committing crimes.
At the same time, the decline of manufacturing made men less marriageable (and therefore lowered fertility rates), a dynamic that’s made the situation worse since securing a wife and starting a family was a major motivation for men to work. The other major sector that employs “unskilled” men, construction, suffered devastating setbacks after the Great Recession and didn’t recover afterward. Men are also at a disadvantage in the “care economy” section of the manual sector, somewhat due to (self-imposed) cultural factors: They just don’t want to apply to “pink collar” sectors. 
In contrast, the growth in the cognitive sector has benefited women. Men have been falling behind women in high school performance, college enrollment, and college graduation, putting them at a disadvantage in securing high-paying cognitive jobs.

23

The reasons are complex, but they may be related to neurological differences(though this idea has come under criticism). Research suggests that male teachers teach boys more effectively than female ones. This trend was worsened by Covid, which increased achievement gaps in students and, like many other extreme events, reduced medium-term educational attainment.
And after entering the knowledge sector job market, women still retain an advantage. First, women have better “social” skills than men, and these are in greater demand in the cognitive sector. Flexible work arrangements, which have become more common in recent years, have benefited women, who favor flexibility more. And while men do benefit over their female coworkers due to fast-tracked promotions and relationships with (overwhelmingly male) superiors, the reluctance of boomer bosses to retirecrowds out younger men from top jobs. 
This dynamic has been especially important for men’s beliefs on gender issues (since men become more supportive of traditional gender roles) and have also boosted far-right and anti-cosmopolitan viewpoints for them specifically. One such example is the online vitriol against the “Gen Z boss and a mini” video, where female employees of an Australian company sing and dance about their workplace. It has even been cited by the online, mostly male, right as a reason to support tariffs. 
Men’s search for meaning
When manufacturing left center stage, male workers struggled to adapt — resulting in, as social scientists consistently find, lower social trust, zero-sum mindsets, and more regressive gender norms. All of this provided timber
Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman explains in his book Liquid Modernitythat, in the shift from the manufacturing economy to the cognitive economy, men lost their social role as producers and providers, while women shifted away from being caretakers, and both became consumers. 
However, Bauman missed that traditional gender norms make taking an identity as “consumers” less attractive to men since men, perhaps influenced by psychological differences in attitudes around money, tend to spend less than women on “frivolous” items such as clothing or entertainment. Feminist messages, such as those seen in books like Lean In and the “girlboss” trope, empowered women to take pride in their role as employees and in business.

24

Likewise, traditional roles as caretakers have not actually been rejected to a large extent, leaving women with many avenues to personal satisfaction while also abandoning men “in crisis.” 
The crisis of masculinity is an opportunity to redefine men’s role in an inclusive way of both caretaking and producing. This is especially crucial given how it is unlikely that manufacturing will make a resurgence as a dominant part of the economy.
While this means that direct attempts to raise social trust by putting men in crisis on the factory line seem unfeasible, a surprising silver lining comes from the fact that most young men are not virulent misogynists: sexist views among boys are less common than those same boys think, and this lack of openness keeps them from expressing their real beliefs. One extreme example is that, in Saudi Arabia, husbands are supportive of women working, but refuse to express this belief due to fear of judgment by other men, while their wives want to work, but think these attitudes are not common among women. 
So it is possible to break out of the “sexism trap” by encouraging people to express their true views, by encouraging people to make cross-gender friendships and have in-depth conversations, and by building a more prosperous and functional government and economy — since positive experiences with democracy and market-based economies raise support for them and strengthen social trust. If a world of loneliness and economic deprivation can produce these anti-democratic values, a world of social connection and prosperity will surely replace them. 

25

The Atlantic 

MISOGYNY COMES ROARING BACK

Donald Trump will return to Washington flanked by an entourage intent on imposing its archaic vision of gender politics on the nation.
By Sophie Gilbert       DECEMBER 03, 2024
Throughout American political history, two capable, qualified, experienced women have run for president on a major-party ticket. Both have lost to Donald Trump, perhaps the most famous misogynist ever to reach the highest office. But in 2024, what was even more alarming than in 2016 was how Trump’s campaign seemed to be promoting a version of the country in which men dominate public life, while women are mostly confined to the home, deprived of a voice, and neutralized as a threat to men’s status and ambitions.
This time around, I wasn’t hopeful. I didn’t let myself entertain any quixotic notions about what having a woman in the most powerful position in the world might mean for our status and sense of self. I simply wished for voters to reject the idea, pushed so fervently by those on Trump’s side, that women should be subservient incubators, passively raising the next generation of men who disdain them. This wish did not pan out. “Your body, my choice. Forever,” the white-supremacist influencer Nick Fuentes, who has dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, posted on X on Election Night. “Women threatening sex strikes like LMAO as if you have a say,” the right-wing troll Jon Miller wrote on the same site.
For Trump, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion was apparently only the beginning. Bolstered by that definitive Supreme Court win and flanked by a hateful entourage intent on imposing its archaic vision of gender politics on the nation, the Trump-Vance ticket seemed to outright reject ideas of women’s autonomy and equality. Theirs was a campaign of terminally online masculinity, largely designed for men, expressed in brutish terms of violence, strength, and power. Trump insisted, in one late campaign appearance, that he would be a protector of women, “whether the women like it or not.” The vice president–elect, J. D. Vance, was revealed to have personal disgust for child-free women, whom he had described as “cat ladies” and “sociopathic.” He’d also, on one podcast, affirmed that the entire function “of the postmenopausal female” was caring for grandchildren. The super PAC founded by Elon Musk, who has shown great

26

enthusiasm for personally inseminating women, released an ad referring to Kamala Harris as a “C word.” (The ad, which was deleted a few days later, winkingly revealed the C to stand for “Communist.”) And on X, Musk himself reposted a theory that “a Republic of high status males is best for decision making.” The former Fox News host Tucker Carlson excitedly compared Trump’s return to office to a strict father coming home to give his wayward daughter “a vigorous spanking.”
None of this is new, necessarily. But as of this writing, men ages 18 to 29 have swung a staggering 15 points to the right since 2020, according to an Associated Press survey of registered voters. A few years ago, researchers at Penn State found that people’s alignment with the ideals of “hegemonic masculinity”—the celebration of male dominance in society and of stereotypically masculine traits—predicted their support for Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Since then, our cultural environment has been flooded with ever more avatars of dopey machismo: steroid-ingesting, crypto-shilling, energy-drink-chugging bros; YouTubers and podcast hosts and misogynist influencers, all profiting wildly from the juvenile attention economy. The language that the Trump-Vance campaign used was intended to resonate with this audience, even if it sounded asinine to everyone else. (“Tampon Tim,” the right-wing social-media nickname given to Tim Walz for approving a measure that supplies period products to Minnesota public-school students, is an insult only if you’re 8 years old or terrified of women’s bodies.)
But the philosophy of the people soon to be in power isn’t informed just by emotionally stunted Twitch streamers and playground bullies. Peter Thiel, the entrepreneur and conservative power broker who did more than anyone to further Vance’s post-law career and helped fund his bid for Senate, wrote in a 2009 essay that women getting the vote had doomed “capitalist democracy.” Trump’s ally and former aide John McEntee posted on X in October: “Sorry we want MALE only voting. The 19th might have to go.” For all the attention-getting antics of Trump’s extremely online contingent, his brain trust consists mainly of very wealthy, very powerful men who think women’s rights have simply gone too far. Forget the hope for a female president, or the fury at the fact that a charming, hardworking, genuinely inspirational candidate like Harris couldn’t break through all the accreted layers of American prejudice. What is going to happen to women now?

27

Not all Trump voters embrace misogyny. And preliminary exit polling shows that a sizable minority of American women voted for him this time; in an economy that’s getting more precarious for every successive generation, both men and women may have been swayed by the promise of prosperity. Still, the teased enforcement of outdated gender roles has clearly connected with young men in particular. Among voters ages 18 to 29, the gender gap was striking: about 16 points, according to the AP.
The Trump-Vance administration can’t obligate women to go back to the 1960s, though. It can’t force women out of the workforce. And it can’t mandate that women be subservient to men, sexually, romantically, or professionally. One has to wonder, then, what will become of the men who have been reared on Andrew Tate TikToks and violent gonzo porn devoted to women’s sexual degradation. The gender divide is about to grow into a chasm.
In the U.S., 63 percent of men under 30 are currently single, compared with 34 percent of women in the same age group, according to the Pew Research Center. This suggests that women aren’t the only ones who may ultimately suffer from this coming rupture in American life. So, too, will the men who have been trained to see women as disgusting, untamable, fundamentally inferior to them.
For all Vance and Musk purport to worry about birth rates, I’d argue that they have done more to dissuade women from having children than almost anyone else, by enabling the radicalization and isolation of Gen Z men. For thousands of years, marriage was a necessity for women—a means of financial security and social acceptance. This isn’t true anymore. Many women simply aren’t willing or remotely motivated to attach themselves to men who denigrate them, or to stay in abusive marriages for the sake of their children, as Vance once seemed to suggest that they should.

28

In my own circle of friends, I see women living contentedly alone rather than settling for men who don’t respect them. I see intelligent, kind, high-achieving friends thriving in their community, spending their own money, appreciating culture, taking care of their own needs and taking care of one another. Within hours of the election result becoming clear, Google searches went up sharply for South Korea’s feminist protest movement “4B”—a social philosophy that advocates for women not to date, marry, have sex with, or have children with men. (South Korea currently has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world.)
American conservatism has long fetishized motherhood in a way that made it proximate to power—mothers are lionized and even encouraged to seek political office, as long as it’s understood that they’re doing so on behalf of others. Sarah Palin, the first female vice-presidential candidate on a Republican ticket, tried to defang her own ambition by suggesting that she was just a hockey mom who got involved. But the kind of motherhood now being promoted on the right is much more passive, and powerless. It’s the kind modeled by the former Supreme Court clerk Usha Vance, who stands by silently while her husband weakly brushes off his racist fans’ attacks on his family. It’s also exemplified by the tradwives of TikTok and Instagram, who cater to the male gaze with their doe-eyed; paisley-smock-wearing; Kinder, Kirche, Küche performances of submissive domesticity.

29

The gender dynamics of this moment cannot be a surprise to anyone. Since his arrival in politics, in 2015, Trump has made his thoughts on women abundantly clear. He’s propagated the idea that those of us who don’t flatter or agree with him are not just difficult but “nasty,” using the language of disgust to make women seem contaminated and morally reprehensible. He has shamed women for the way they look, for aging, for having opinions. (Those of us who have public personas online have experienced this sort of treatment too, and have seen it snowball with his encouragement.) None of this is in any way negated by his decision to make a woman his chief of staff, or to nominate women for key positions.
Even before Harris officially became the nominee in 2024, Trump’s allies were attacking her in sexualized terms, subliminally linking female power to the so-called threat of unfettered female sexuality. Early in July, Alec Lace—the host of a podcast dedicated to fatherhood, if you can believe it—referred to Harris on the Fox Business channel as “the original Hawk Tuah girl,” a reference to a viral clip about oral sex. In August, Trump circulated a post on his social-media platform, Truth Social, that insinuated that Harris had performed sexual favors to establish her career in politics. In September, Semafor reported that a shadowy conservative network had been paying influencers to promote sexualized 
30

smears of Harris. In October, a billboard in Ohio briefly drew consternation for displaying a mocked-up image of Harris on her hands and knees, about to engage in a sex act. (It was paid for by a towing company.)
The old analytical terms we use to describe sexism in politics aren’t sufficient to deal with this onslaught of repugnant hatred. Michelle Obama was right, in her closing argument of the 2024 campaign, to note that Harris had faced an astonishing double standard: Both the media and Americans more broadly had picked apart her arguments, bearing, and policy details while skating over Trump’s “erratic behavior; his obvious mental decline; his history as a convicted felon, a known slumlord, a predator found liable for sexual abuse.” She also captured the stakes of the election when she said that voters were fundamentally making a choice in 2024 about “our value as women in this world.” On that front, the people have spoken. But women don’t have to play along.
All his life, Trump has ruined people who get close to him. He won’t ruin women, but he will absolutely destroy a generation of men who take his vile messaging to heart. And, to some extent, the damage has already been done.

Return to Top of Page

Return to Home