Editor’s note: The text below constitutes the side-by-side plagiarism allegation document prepared by

David Gordon, with regard to “Ask Your Husband.” It is reproduced here in its entirety.

NOTE: Almost the entirety of Ch. 5 in Ask Your Husband was plagiarized from my No Christian
Feminism manuscript. I cannot reproduce each instance of intellectual theft because of the sheer
volume, but am highlighting some of the most egregious instances. Even the very structure of this
chapter was ripped off from my chapter. I analyze 1) scripture, 2) Church Fathers, 3) Scholastics, 4)
Magisterium, 5) conflicts with modern Magisterium in the context of both male headship and
women’s domesticity. This is obviously how the Ask Your Husband chapter is structured, with minor
token deviations. Oftentimes, the order of authorities cited is even the same between both works.

Ask Your Husband No Christian Feminism

“Throughout most of Christian history, there was “Notably, in Patristic and Scholastic literature,
universal agreement that a godly woman ought to adjurations for women to embrace domesticity
remain at home. Silvana Vecchio, commenting on are so widespread and uncontroverted that one
the unanimous agreement that women ought to scholar was inspired to remark: ‘If there is one
remain at home, wrote, ‘If there is one point on point on which there is unanimous agreement [by
which there is unanimous agreement [by the the time of the Middle Ages] where the model of
time of the Middle Ages] where the model of a a good wife is concerned, it is that the house is
good wife is concerned, it is that the house is the the woman’s domain. A good wife stays at home
woman’s domain. A good wife stays at home and and takes care of the house. Founded on
takes care of the house. Founded on scriptural scriptural and patristic authority and universally
and patristic authority and universally accepted accepted since the beginning . . . , this position
since the beginning of time, this position was was amply reinforced by Aristotelian texts whose
amply reinforced by Aristotelian texts whose focus on the house as a political and economic
focus on the house as a political and economic nucleus produced a precise definition of a
nucleus produced a precise definition of a woman’s role in the domestic realm.’ Bear in mind
woman’s role in the domestic realm.’ Up to this that the testimony of the Church Fathers may not
point, Church Fathers, saints, philosophers, be lightly or summarily disregarded. As discussed
doctors, and popes have all agreed that women previously, the Council of Trent taught that when
ought to remain at home by God’s design” the Fathers speak in unison, they can be trusted
(pg.180) to set forth the true and proper doctrine of the
Church” (pg. 152)
Note how author’s explanatory brackets are
copied from my own explanatory brackets. Footnote to: Silvana Vecchio, “The Good Wife,” in
These brackets are my addition and are not in A History of Women: Silences of the Middle Ages,
the original Vecchio text. ed. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1992), 125

Footnote to: Silvana Vecchio, “The Good Wife,” in

A History of Women: Silences of the Middle Ages,
ed. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press, 1992), 125

Footnote is the exact same, except she changes

the Massachusetts to the abbreviation (MA).
“Anyway, Pope John Paul II, in the above remarks “John Paul II also lends his voice to this chorus. In
contradicts all those before him. In the following Laborem Exercens, he exhorts, ‘Just remuneration
passage, he even contradicts himself. In Laborem for the work of an adult who is responsible for a
Exercens, he wrote: ‘Just remuneration for the family means remuneration which will suffice for
work of an adult who is responsible for a family establishing and properly maintaining a family
means remuneration which will suffice for and for providing security for its future. Such
establishing and properly maintaining a family remuneration can be given either through what is
and for providing security for its future. Such called a family wage—that is, a single salary given
remuneration can be given either through what is to the head of the family [i.e. the husband] for
called a family wage—that is, a single salary given his work, sufficient for the needs of the family
to the head of the family [i.e., the husband] for without the other spouse [i.e. the wife] having to
his work, sufficient for the needs of the family take up gainful employment outside the
without the other spouse [i.e., the wife] having home—or through other social measures such as
to take up gainful employment outside the family allowances or grants to mothers devoting
home—or through other social measures such as themselves exclusively to their families. These
family allowances or grants to mothers devoting grants should correspond to the actual needs,
themselves exclusively to their families. These that is, to the number of dependents for as long
grants should correspond to the actual needs, as they are not in a position to assume proper
that is, to the number of dependents for as long responsibility for their own lives.
as they are not in a position to assume proper Experience confirms that there must be a social
responsibility for their own lives. re-evaluation of the mother's role, of the toil
Experience confirms that there must be a social connected with it, and of the need that children
re-evaluation of the mother's role, of the toil have for care, love and affection in order that
connected with it, and of the need that children they may develop into responsible, morally and
have for care, love and affection in order that religiously mature and psychologically stable
they may develop into responsible, morally and persons. It will redound to the credit of society to
religiously mature and psychologically stable make it possible for a mother—without inhibiting
persons. It will redound to the credit of society to her freedom, without psychological or practical
make it possible for a mother—without inhibiting discrimination, and without penalizing her as
her freedom, without psychological or practical compared with other women—to devote herself
discrimination, and without penalizing her as to taking care of her children and educating them
compared with other women—to devote herself in accordance with their needs, which vary with
to taking care of her children and educating them age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to
in accordance with their needs, which vary with take up paid work outside the home is wrong
age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to from the point of view of the good of society and
take up paid work outside the home is wrong of the family when it contradicts or hinders these
from the point of view of the good of society and primary goals of the mission of a mother’”
of the family when it contradicts or hinders these
primary goals of the mission of a mother’” (Pg. 160-161)

Note that author again leaves my explanatory Footnote to: John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, § 19.
brackets in the quoted material. These were not
in the original JPII document; they are my own
addition. Author’s quotation also begins and
ends where my own quotation does.
Footnote to: Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Laborem
Exercens (Sept. 14, 1981), § 19

(Pg. 182-183)
“A few years later, in 1917, Pope Benedict XV “Picking up the torch of his predecessor, Pius X,
composed a letter, Natalis Trecentesimi, wherein Pope Benedict XV penned a letter, Natalis
he addresses women who lack shame by imitating Trecentesimi, which lampooned the claptrap of
men—something earlier mentioned in this feminist careerism: ‘With the decline in religion,
chapter in regard to authentic femininity being cultured women have lost their sense of shame
ineffectively supplanted with ‘worldlier’ manly along with their piety. Many, in order to take up
virtues: ‘With the decline in religion, cultured occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to
women have lost their sense of shame along with imitating men. Others abandoned the duties of
their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations the housewife, for which they were fashioned, to
ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. cast themselves recklessly into the current of life’
Others abandoned the duties of the housewife, (emphasis added)” (pg. 154)
for which they were fashioned, to cast
themselves recklessly into the current of life’” (pg. Footnote to: Benedict XV, Natalis Trecentesimi,
170) December 27, 1917

Footnote to: Benedict XV, Natalis Trecentesimi, Note that she kept in my italics/emphasis, not
December 27, 1917 realizing that the emphasis was not in the
original source. More smoking-gun proof of
illicitly copying and pasting from my manuscript.
“Pope Pius X (AD 1835-1914) derided the feminist “Pope Pius X built upon Leo XIII’s anti-feminist
attempt to subvert God’s holy order and hierarchy legacy. In an address to a union of Italian Catholic
of the Christian household in his Address to women given in 1909, he noted the distinct and
Delegation of the Union of Italian Catholic Ladies immiscible roles of men and women in society:
in 1909: ‘After creating man, God created woman ‘After creating man, God created woman and
and determined her mission, namely, that of determined her mission, namely, that of being
being man’s companion, helpmeet and man’s companion, helpmeet and consolation…It
consolation…It is a mistake, therefore, to is a mistake, therefore, to maintain that woman’s
maintain that woman’s rights are the same as rights are the same as man’s. Women in war or
man’s. Women in war or parliament are outside parliament are outside their proper sphere, and
their proper sphere, and their position there their position there would be the desperation and
would be the desperation and ruin of society. ruin of society. Woman, created as man’s
Woman, created as man’s companion, must so companion, must so remain under the power of
remain under the power of love and affection, but love and affection, but always under his power.
always under his power. How mistaken, therefore, How mistaken, therefore, is that misguided
is that misguided feminism which seeks to correct feminism which seeks to correct God’s work. It is
God’s work. It is like a mechanic trying to correct like a mechanic trying to correct the signs and
the signs and movements of the universe. movements of the universe. Scripture, and
Scripture, and especially the three epistles of St. especially the three epistles of St. Paul,
Paul, emphasizes woman’s dependence on man, emphasizes woman’s dependence on man, her
her love and assistance, but not her slavery to love and assistance, but not her slavery to him’”
him’” (pg. 169) (pg. 154)

Footnote to: Pius X, “Address to Delegation of the Footnote to: Pius X, “Address to Delegation of the
Union of Italian Catholic Ladies,” April 21, 1909 Union of Italian Catholic Ladies,” April 21, 1909
“For this citation, and a small handful of others
in this chapter, I am indebted to the early
research of my husband and his brother, in an
early draft of what became my husband’s book,
The Case for Patriarchy, and also what will in the
future become my brother-in-law’s book, No
Christian Feminism”

This is proof that she has been following my

manuscript directly and that the constant
overlaps in argument are causative—not from
parallel evolution.

“Consider this handy assortment of scripture “Conveniently, John Fulton has woven the
verses that establish man’s headship over his ‘apostolic doctrine’ on male headship into a tidy
wife: tapestry:

The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. v: 23), The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. v: 23),
the woman being made for the man and not the the woman being made for the man and not the
man for the woman (1 Cor. xi: 8); therefore, the man for the woman (1 Cor. xi: 8); therefore, the
woman is not to usurp authority over the man (1 woman is not to usurp authority over the man (1
Tim. ii: 12), but to be obedient (Tit. ii: 5; 1 Pet. iii: Tim. ii: 12), but to be obedient (Tit. ii: 5; 1 Pet. iii:
6), submitting herself (Col. iii: 18), with reverence 6), submitting herself (Col. iii: 18), with reverence
(Eph. v: 33), and in subjection to her husband (1 (Eph. v: 33), and in subjection to her husband (1
Pet. iii: 5); while the husband is to love his wife as Pet. iii: 5); while the husband is to love his wife as
his own body (Eph. v: 28), even as Christ loved his own body (Eph. v: 28), even as Christ loved
the church and gave himself for it (Eph. v: 25), the church and gave himself for it (Eph. v: 25),
and he is especially to honor his wife because of and he is especially to honor his wife because of
her weakness and dependence (1 Pet. iii: 7)” her weakness and dependence (1 Pet. iii: 7)”

Footnote to: “John Fulton, The Laws of Marriage; Footnote to: “John Fulton, The Laws of Marriage;
Containing the Hebrew Law, the Roman Law, the Containing the Hebrew Law, the Roman Law, the
Law of the New Testament, and the Canon Law of Law of the New Testament, and the Canon Law of
the Universal Church: Concerning the the Universal Church: Concerning the
Impediments of Marriage and the Dissolution of Impediments of Marriage and the Dissolution of
the Marriage Bond (New York: E. & J.B. Young & the Marriage Bond (New York: E. & J.B. Young &
Co., 1883), 15” (pgs. 57–58) Co., 1883), 15” (pgs. 125–126)

Note the exact same CMS form citation to a rare

text that author has clearly never read. I found
this recondite work at a thrift store when I was
in law school. It’s out of print and from over a
century ago. Moreover, I accidentally cited only
pg. 15, but the quote is actually on pp. 15–16. So
it’s further evident that my note was just copied
and pasted.
“Women of today recur to Mary’s passivity and “Mary, through her authentic femininity—that is
receptivity—two of her leading virtues—as to say through her passivity and
excuses not to emulate her” (pg. 16) receptivity—paved the way to reverse the curse
of Eve” (pg. 176)

“Even beyond the Annunciation story, the Gospels

speak to Mary’s perfect passivity and receptivity”
(pg. 177)

“The twin perfections of passivity and receptivity

are the fonts of all the feminine virtues, since
these perfections are integral to womanhood
itself” (pg. 178)

“Let us make valiant efforts to reacquaint woman

with her twin crowns of passivity and receptivity”
(pg. 189)
“There is no such thing as a ‘Christian feminist.’ “’CHRISTIAN FEMINISM’: INANE ATTEMPTS TO
It’s a circular square. Feminism is not compatible SQUARE THE CIRCLE” (pg. 2)
with Christianity” (pg. 44 N.10).
“There is simply no such thing as Christian
feminism” (pg. 7)

“While Christianity and feminism are

incompatible on numerous levels, it is the issue of
patriarchy that serves as the substantive basis for
their smoldering antagonism” (pg. 108).

“When we speak of inerrant teaching, Catholics “We will look at the Scriptures, the Tradition of
separate what we are taught into two categories: the Church, and the Magisterium to prove that
Scripture and Tradition. If we expand our the sacrosanct feminist ideal of the working wife
parameters to include teaching that is not is incompatible with the Christian mode of living”
necessarily infallible, then we might also speak of (pg. 145)
the Magisterium. Accordingly, let’s divide the
Church’s timeless teaching on the duties of a wife “The Church’s doctrine on the domestic role of
and mother into those same categories” (pg. 129) woman, especially in the context of wifehood and
motherhood, is clearly set forth by the
unanimous testimony of scripture, the early
Fathers, the Magisterium, and the moral
theologians of the Church” (pg. 163-164)

“There can be no doubt that the word of God

enjoins male headship. Scripture, the teachings
of the Church Fathers, the constant tradition of
the Church, and the Church’s Magisterium are
united on this point” (pg. 130)
“The Church Fathers also agreed on the role of “Note that in this analysis of why Christianity and
wives. I will lay before you the many instances feminism are mutually exclusive on a substantive
where Magisterial Tradition expresses—in terms level, that is to say, in our proof that God has
of both natural and supernatural law—the devised, from the beginning, that the human race
manner in which rightly ordered wives ought to should be governed through a system of
comport themselves in a Christian society” (pg. patriarchy, we will recur to natural revelation and
156) then to supernatural revelation” (pg. 108)
“Feminine virtues are narrowly tailored, by “On the flipside, the female anatomy, physiology,
nature, for homemaking” (pg. 158) and psyche are themselves suggestive of women’s
special penchant for domestic caretaking and
nurturing” (pg. 146)
“With the systematic eradication of the feminine “Scripture identifies the attributes of a virtuous
virtues, typically offset by docility, quietude, and woman: 1) chastity (Sirach 26:15); 2) modesty
fealty” (pg. 158) (Sirach 26:15); 3) graciousness (Sirach 26:13); 4)
quietness (Sirach 26:14); 5) obedience (Titus 2:5);
6) domesticity (Sirach 26:16; Proverbs 31:27; Titus
2:5); and 7) faithfulness (Proverbs 31:11)” (pg.
178)
“Today, Polycarp would find women molded into Sandberg wants more women to self-consciously
weak-armed ‘mini-men,’ with the systematic aspire to lead, to cultivate ambition, to agitate for
eradication of the feminine virtues. … Feminists power, and to leave behind timidity … exuding
wish to swap out their natural strengths for those cavalier disregard for the manifold hazards of
of men. … masculinized femininity. … (pgs. 62-63)
Feminists have culturally appropriated the manly “At the same time, man recognized his own
virtues such as assertiveness, boldness, and assertiveness, aggression, and cocksureness,
leadership” (pgs. 158-159) which are traits conducive to leadership” (pg.
113)

“Women should never commandeer leadership “Wives have commandeered veto power” (pg. 42)
roles” (pg. 2)
“The husband is the head of the wife in ‘all things “As the Catechism of Trent says, the wife is to
consistent with Christian piety’ [footnote to submit to her husband in all things that are not
Catechism of Trent]. This plainly means that the sinful” (pg. 183); “The husband is privileged to
husband can order his wife in all ways except to command his wife to do anything that is not
sin” (pg. 1) sinful” (pg. 183)
“Silence is an integral part of womanly humility “We number quietness among the feminine
and obedience” (pg. 3) virtues for a few reasons. First, it is a mark of a
person willing to be led. … Quietness is a mark
of the humility and generosity that go along with
woman’s role as man’s helpmate” (pg. 182)
“feminism is everywhere” (pg. 5) “Everywhere one looks, the culture bears the
telltale indicia of feminist sabotage” (pg. 30- 31)
“these part-time wives are spread way too thin, “Others, usually younger women, perhaps in an
having to squeeze household duties into a short effort to justify their own disordered careerism,
window after work and before bed” (pg. 5) insubordination to their husbands,
 capriciousness, and part-time motherhood, echo
“It is safe to say that mothers seeking refuge and the empty distinction between radical and good
fulfillment in outside work renders her [sic] a feminism” (pg. 4)
part-time mom” (pg. 24)
“Homecooked meals have, on the whole, become
overly efficient, overly functional, artless, saltless
(since fetishized healthiness has replaced
emotional tenderness as a means for part-time
mothers to demonstrate affection), and bland”
(pg. 63)

“Anticipating motive dissimulation among those

women who opt for part-time motherhood and
part or full-time employment…” (pg. 185)
“wives are not designed to be family bosses any “women aren’t fit to lead because they weren’t
more than they are suited to be society’s bosses” designed for such a role. Only when the Church,
(pg. 6) the family, and society fully and openly embrace
this truth will we be able to recapture what has
been lost with the advent of feminism” (pg.
143-144)

“Note [Mary’s] stark passivity—active “The disordered activity of Eve was only
passivity—which she willed and propagated in her remedied by the righteous passivity of Mary, the
goodness” (pg. 13). New Eve” (pg. 1)

“Although the Catholic wife doesn’t make the “Generally, a husband should consult with his
final decisions for the family, she does submit her wife before making major decisions, because the
wisdom for review. … Most Christian men take obeisance that she owes is not that of a child, but
great care to ask for their wives’ opinions on of a beloved helpmate. The wife serves as a
important family matters. Presumably a prudent husband’s advisor, and she should not be
man asks his wife for counsel” (pg. 6) relegated to a hyperbolically passive role where
she has no persuasive say (as opposed to
authoritative say) in domestic decisions” (pg. 183)
“The Church teaches it, but she seems “Male headship is not an embarrassment from
embarrassed by her own teaching” (pg. 8) which we ought to shy away; rather it reflects the
infinite wisdom of the all-good Creator, whose
law we should advocate with satisfaction” (p.
143)
“Many women today say ‘I will not serve,’ which “Whereas Eve’s defiant ‘no’ to the will of God in
is the exact opposite of the most humble and Eden paved the way for Adam to cause the race
obedient woman to ever live, Our Lady, who said, to fall by eating the forbidden fruit; Mary’s
“Amen” (pg. 12). blessed fiat, her ‘yes’ to God, allowed Christ to
enter into salvation history and redeem the
world” (pg. 177)
“Our Lady’s life was defined by her humble and “Mary utters her last recorded words of the
obedient service to the patriarchy. … It continued Gospel (which are directed as much at the person
with her wisdom at Cana at the beginning of her reading the scriptures as they are at the wedding
Son’s service: ‘Do whatever He tells you (Jn 2:5). attendants whom Mary was addressing), ‘Do
Note her stark passivity … which she will and whatever he tells you’ (John 2:1–5). In response,
propagated in her goodness. In other words, she Christ famously tells the wedding attendants to
began her role in the greatest tale ever told by ‘fill the jars with water’ and then proceeds to turn
affirmatively submitting to the Lord’s will. At the water into wine (John 2:7–11). Mary does not
Cana, she tells every Christian woman to do the presume to speak or teach beyond telling people
same” (pg. 13-14) to follow her son, despite the fact that she is the
Immaculate Conception and is destined to be
Queen of Heaven! She doesn’t presume to act to
resolve the problem—she knows that this active
role is the prerogative of the New Adam” (pg.
177-178)
“She [Mary] became the perfect model for all “Passivity and receptivity are the dual crowns that
women and for all times. Of all her many virtues, grace the head of the fair Christian maiden. Mary,
her deference proves the crown gem” (pg. 7) being the Immaculate Conception, is the
consummate model of femininity. … We may
always look to Mary as the pinnacle of
womanhood” (pg. 176)
“I didn’t receive it [instruction about wives’ duty “Perturbing was Franciscan’s stark top-down
to obey] from the Catholic female ‘leaders’ pedagogical omission of magisterial and biblical
teaching RCIA. … Nor did I get it from the priests’ teaching on the distinct roles of women and men
homilies, even though many households were in the Church and in the world (e.g., the
utterly broken and needed most especially to leadership role of men and the followership role
hear it. … Few know about this teaching and of women). To be sure, in my experience at the
embrace it because the Church and the world university, I heard no lectures from the classroom
refuse to preach it boldly (pg. 8) podium or sermons from the campus pulpit
urging men and women to aggressively pursue
their disparate sex-linked prerogatives; I heard no
exposition of Providence’s intention to “create
them male and female” and of what this means in
domestic practice. Needless to say, this silence is
thoroughly disquieting considering the fact that
confusion over sex-roles is one of the foremost
problems vexing the Western world today” (pg. 6)
“To love being at home (which further insinuates (Quoting Emma Drake) “You should make the
that we must make it a highly pleasant place to home so attractive that no club can win the
be!)” (pg.13) husband away from it in his leisure hours. You
should make it, not only a haven of rest for him,
but a place for delightful entertainments of his
friends at all suitable times” (pg. 186)
“G. K. Chesterton once prophetically proclaimed, “Indeed, Chesterton took great relish in roasting
‘[Feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that the farcical idea that, ‘women are free when they
women are free when they serve their employers serve their employers but slaves when they help
but slaves when they help their husbands’” (pg. their husbands’” (pg. 5)
15)
“Clearly, if Mary is the Mother of God, then young “Mary, being the Immaculate Conception, is the
women should imitate her holy example. consummate model of femininity, as Christ is the
Conversely, if young Christian women cannot look sublime model of masculinity. We may always
to Mary’s life and ‘resume’ as the most perfect look to Mary as the pinnacle of womanhood. She
example of true femininity, then we should is God’s masterpiece, and every woman should
question whether we believe her to be the strive to emulate her mien, her disposition, and
Mother of God” (pg. 16) her life of holiness” (pg. 176)
“The moral order is immutable” (pg. 17) “Christians know that since the Church is
infallible, it cannot contradict or change scripture
or her prior definitive teachings: truth does not
admit of change, and perfection is inherently
immutable” (pg. 102-103)
“As if God expects us to follow his natural and “It is evident on the basis of both natural and
supernatural moral order” (pg. 17) supernatural revelation that providence itself
ordained that men should have headship” (pg.
109)
“We are ceaselessly told that unless we support (Quoting James Tooley) “And we have this partly
ourselves through careerism, as a man does, we because the equality feminists forced us to
are but a leech upon society” (pg. 17) believe that motherhood was parasitic, the
housewife a leech” (pg. 6)
“Household labor specialization and “Similarly, the division of labor in the home has
single-income household are both Christian and undergone a drastic shift, from specialization by
practical” (pg. 17) sex to epicene free-for-all. …. Feminists freely
admit that their endgame is to “draw[] men into
caretaking tasks at home” in order to facilitate
women abandoning husbands and children for
the workforce and to attack timeless sex-roles,
which they see as ‘oppressive.’ … We have cast
aside that longstanding human knowledge that
specialization of labor is most efficient” (pg. 41)
“I’d be willing to wager that the Lord doesn’t view In the section: “DAYCARE SURROGACY AND
childrearing by daycare and public school as an DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS”
alternative to that of a loving mother attending
the hearth of the home” (pg. 18) “Children, whose cravings for a mother’s loving
presence at home are widely going unsatiated.
As has already been noted, seduced by the
feminist echo-chamber of the 1960s, women
began a grand migration away from home and
hearth and towards the labor market“ (pg. 58)
“A trifling career in marketing or retail “(ironically, often working at schools and hospitals
management or education (of other people’s caring for other people’s children, in a perverse
children)” (pg.18) sort of mother-exchange)” (pg. 20 full
manuscript)
“If the heart dies, so does the body. And so it is “We can therefore say that the ungracious
with the heart of the home” (pg. 21) woman is a coronary and that her home is a
cadaver. Without the operation of the heart, the
body withers and dies” (pg. 181)
“[Woman] is now more inexplicably miserable “And, as a result, [women are] less happy than
than any other demographic in any other time in they’ve ever been, which should surprise exactly
history” (p. 20) no one” (p. 64)

Footnotes on pg. 20 to: Betsey Stevenson and “In a groundbreaking study entitled “The Paradox
Justin Wolfers, “The Paradox of Declining Female of Declining Female Happiness,” University of
Happiness,” National Bureau of Economic Pennsylvania public-policy scholars Betsey
Research, May 2009 Stevenson and Justin Wolfers demonstrated that
in the 35 years between 1972 and 2007, the
subjective well-being of American women fell,
“both absolutely and relatively to that of men”
(pg. 64)

Footnote: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers,

“The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,”
American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 1, no. 2 (2009): 190,
190–191, www.jstor.org/stable/25760045.

“In other words, the modern woman has turned “Fulfillment eludes those who take on roles for
her back on that for which God designed her. … which they were not designed. Thus, feminism’s
Accordingly, she is or more … miserable” (pg. 20) legacy can be none other than the spiritual and
emotional malaise of women: the feminist
movement is predestining women to failure and
disappointment by pigeonholing them in roles
foreign to their nature” (pg. 64)
“The very notion of Christian patriarchy—which “Along with the Magisterium of the Church, the
bears two components, clerical and lay—grew prayers and longstanding customs of the Church
unpopular” (p. 38) (her theologia prima) reflect the idea that male
headship is proper in domestic and ecclesial
society” (pg. 143)
“Priests complicit with radical left ‘newspeak’ like “Thus, progressives hold Orwellian machinations
scriptural redaction and replacement understand like ‘newspeak,’ ‘rightspeak,’ and ‘thoughtcrime’
… that oppressive feminism visits furious anger close to their hearts” (pg. 37)
upon … dissenters” (pg. 40)
“The ambiguity and silence from the pulpit have “Franciscan’s stark top-down pedagogical
resulted in an unprecedented time of complete omission of magisterial and biblical teaching on
marital discord, vocational confusion, and vice. In the distinct roles of women and men in the
lieu of top-down Church teaching … ” (pg. 40). Church and in the world” (pg. 6)
“All Christian households must have male “Scripture’s theological anthropology proposes
headship in common” (pg. 43) definitively that the right governance of the
world, the family, and the Church requires male
headship” (pg. 118)
“[Men and women] were not designed to be “In the natural hierarchy of creatures, men
equal in rank” (pg. 57) outrank women. Since it is fitting that the lower
are subject to the higher, then it is only
“How in the world can the most intimate human appropriate that men should govern women, and
bond come from a hierarchical friendship?” (pg. not vice versa” (pg. 117)
59)
“They assume [the Church] requires ranklessness “So Christians recognize that egalitarianism is
and an attack on all hierarchy. It does not” (pg. alien to the created order and accordingly
61) disavow it” (pg. 173)
“Most people already know that nature “In the animal kingdom … the larger specimen
designated the husband the leader on account of tends to dominate the smaller. This is exemplified
his alpha psychology and his superior physical in the concept of the ‘alpha male.’ … And this
strength” (pg. 63) brute physical dominance strongly correlates with
leadership dominance” (pg. 115)

“Testosterone is considered an ‘androgenic’

hormone by biologists because it produces male
characteristics. In fact, testosterone produced in
the testes of male fetuses is said to ‘masculinize’
their bodies and brain. After adolescence and
into adult life, men’s bodies produce far more
testosterone than women’s do. Hence, in men,
there is a natural, hormonally-driven proclivity to
attain dominance and leadership” (pg. 117)
“Society has fallen apart because the family fell “For society to be remade, the family must be
apart” (pg. 69) destroyed” (pg. 48)
“Make no mistake, the widespread use of a “A growing minority of brides are also insisting on
hyphen is far more toxic to society than you might retaining their maiden names, or at least on
assume. It is an outward, if muted, symbol of inventing a hyphenated appellation that aptly
feminism’s chief goal: to generate as many rifts as describes neither bride nor groom, but which is
possible between men and women. Not unlike supposed to be a hybrid of the names of both. …
contraception, feminists use the hyphen to We are told that casting off or modifying the
separate the institution that ought to be husband’s surname represents an effort on the
superlatively unitive. A woman takes her part of brides to “hold on to their premarital
husband’s name because she assumes one flesh identities” (to avoid what feminists call anomie),
with him” (70) but what is really happening is that brides are
wittingly or unwittingly rejecting the yoke of the
husband’s headship (for, as we shall learn, the
power to name is an ancient sign of authority
over the person named) and the unity of the
marriage (since their surnames will differ in part
from those of their bridegrooms, symbolizing
incomplete union and disparity of mission).
Nevertheless, the campaign for retaining distinct
surnames as between spouses continues to
bewitch marriages to this day.” (pg. 40)
“Once this status [wife as husband’s best friend] is (Quoting Emma Drake): “You should make the
forfeited, the husband will seek his male friends home so attractive that no club can win the
for fun on the weekends, away from his home. … husband away from it in his leisure hours. You
If a home is not made into a place of enjoyment, should make it, not only a haven of rest for him,
the husband will often seek his entertainment out but a place for delightful entertainments of his
with the guys” (pg. 74) friends at all suitable times” (186)
“Today, by contrast, the world awoke to find itself “Like a thief in the night, feminism has plundered
feminist” (pg. 83) the house of Christian society, whose members
… are only just awakening to survey the
devastation” (45)

“Read: cowbell equals female bossiness, “Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of
sassiness, shrillness, imperiousness. … A sweet Facebook, laments in her book, Lean In, that
sounding song needs no cowbell at all. … And ‘From a very early age, boys are encouraged to
yet, they keep begging for more cowbell: ‘lean take charge and offer their opinions. Teachers
in’” (pg. 84) interact more with boys, call on them more
frequently, and ask them more questions. Boys
are also more likely to call out answers, and when
they do, teachers usually listen to them. When
girls call out, teachers often scold them for
breaking the rules and remind them to raise their
hands if they want to speak’” (pg. 62)
“Even St. Thomas Aquinas says women ought to “On the basis of man and woman’s bodies in
be passive. He writes on the subject: ‘In every act relation to one another, especially in the genitive
of generation there is an active and a passive organs, we may infer that the man is the active
principle. Wherefore since wherever there is principle, and the female the passive. St. Thomas
distinction of sex, the active principle is male and writes, ‘In every act of generation there is an
the passive is female; the order of nature active and a passive principle. Wherefore since
demands that for the purpose of generation there wherever there is distinction of sex, the active
should be concurrence of male and female’” principle is male and the passive is female; the
order of nature demands that for the purpose of
Footnote to: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica generation there should be concurrence of male
(New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948), Pt. 1, Q. 98, and female’”
Art. 2.
Footnote to: Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. 1,
Q. 98, Art. 2. (pg. 175)

Same exact quote. Same exact translation.

“It is an especially egregious modern paradox that “Apparently (to borrow from G.K. Chesterton for a
most women today behave more civilly to the moment, if I may), even the otherwise-orthodox
man signing their paychecks than to the man who girls of Franciscan University have been
co-signed their marriage certificates” (pg. 95) bamboozled enough that they’d rather take up
careers as stenographers at sterile, fluorescent
offices than have a loving husband dictate to
them in the warmth and dignity of the home” (pg.
5)
“Once again, no one can serve two masters: One “Yet the tension between Christianity and
can either choose to do one well or to be feminism should surprise no one. For, as our
mediocre at both” (pg. 103) Blessed Lord observed, it is impossible for a man
to serve two masters, because, inevitably, he will
love one and hate the other”
“As our Lord taught, no one can serve two
masters” (pg. 101) David Gordon
https://onepeterfive.com/bride-christian-feminis
m/ (I used this article as a major component of
my YOU CAN’T BE A CHRISTIAN AND A FEMINIST
section of my book. This quote was ultimately
edited out, but was part of my earlier
manuscripts. The OnePeterFive article even
mentions that I am writing a book on this topic.
“Women left their homes in droves to join the “Women began leaving the home for the
workplace” (pg. 97) workplace en masse” (pg. 11)

“Apparently, droves of Christian women are

numbered among the souls who have fallen for
the feminist ruse. Sadly, 70 percent of mothers of
minor-age children now work outside of the
home” (pg. 6)

“The devil is actively seeking to destroy the “The Devil’s weapon of choice for demoralizing
Christian family” (pg. 97) and ultimately routing the family is feminism” (pg.
8)
“The more that women remain in the workplace, “Feminism has wrought havoc in the West, and
the unhappier they become—and the more havoc the few benign effects that it has had are nothing
is wreaked upon their families” (pg. 97) but veniality and piffle in contrast to its
accompanying venom” (pg. 66)
“But the Church’s teaching still applies because “Prümmer writes that the wife must ‘pay careful
both household and husband need a woman’s attention to the home and to the education of
careful attention” (pg. 99) her children,’ and that ‘a woman’s chief duty is
care for the home and therefore any form of
emancipation which disrupts family life must be
rejected’” (pg. 162)
“The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly “While we know on the basis of the Church’s
states, ‘the wife should love to remain at home constant tradition and doctrine that wives and
unless compelled by necessity to go out. … In mothers are to be domestic and to love to remain
these unfortunate cases, there exists an obvious at home unless compelled by necessity to go out,
necessity for the woman to work. … In these we also know that in exigent
unfortunate situations, the mother must provide circumstances—cases of true economic
for her children in light of her husband’s absence” need—wives and mothers may leave the home
(pg. 98) and enter the workforce. Hence, what John Paul
II writes has import to these extraordinary
situations and thus represents an authentic
development (or at least application) of doctrine”
(pg. 170)
“For whatever reason, some traditional Catholics “Pius XI views women unnecessarily working as a
have deemed that staying at home to raise moral crime—a form of abandonment, not only
children is acceptable, but staying at home to of the duty to serve as helpmates to their
serve the husband is unacceptable. … Neither husbands, but also of their duties to rear their
Scripture nor Catholic Tradition support the false children and maintain their homes” (pg. 156)
distinction they make; both Scripture and
Tradition make it perfectly clear that wives must
ordinarily be at home for the sake of their
husbands” (pg. 100)
“According to the CBS News article ‘The Negative “The data on the developmental effects of
Effects of Childcare,” ‘two new studies in the daycare on children has arrived, and it’s rather
journal Child Development have rekindled the damning. Summarizing some of the recent
debate over the effects of non-maternal childcare scholarship on the effects of daycare on the
on children’s behavior. Both studies found psyches and outcomes of children, child
evidence that suggests the longer a child spends development experts Jay Belsky and David
in childcare, the more stress they [sic] may Eggebeen have observed that:
experience, and that could lead to [sic] the young
to become aggressive and disobedient. The same ‘Children who experienced 20 or more hours per
article notes the higher occurrences of stress and week of nonparental care in their first year of life
aggression found in young children who spend of the kind routinely available in the United States
long hours in day care: (often proxied by extensive maternal
employment) are at elevated risk of developing
‘The first study … found that those who spend insecure attachments to their mothers and of
long hours in childcare may experience more being more disobedient toward adults and
stress and are at increased risk of becoming aggressive toward peers as
overly aggressive (17 percent) and developing three-to-eight-year-olds than other children
other behavior problems. … The second study … [internal citations omitted].’
found that in kids younger than three, levels of
cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in In another study, teachers rated children who
the afternoon during full days they spent in day spent time in nonmaternal care during their first
care, but fell when they got home’ four years of life as having more problems in
school than their peers from traditional families,
Why on earth would their cortisol levels fall at even after controlling for child IQ and social class.
home if day care is undistinguishably It has also been found that:
accommodating to the young child’s
temperament?” (pgs. 116–117) ‘Children whose full-time care was initiated in
their first year and continued until school entry
were rated by mothers and by teachers as more
noncompliant and as getting along more poorly
with peers than other children. These 8-year olds
were also less liked by classmates, according to
peer reports, and received the poorest conduct
evaluations on their report cards. Children whose
continuous full-time care began in their second
year of life functioned almost as poorly.’

A survey of 589 kindergartners from Tennessee

and Indiana found that those children who ‘spent
more time in any kind of child care during their
first 5 years of life showed more negative
adjustment (i.e., teacher rated behavior
 problems, peer-rated aggression, peer dislike,
observed aggression) than children with less child
care experience.’ One study even links daycare
with significantly elevated levels of the
stress-hormone cortisol as compared with levels
of the hormone observed in children in the home
environment” (pg. 59—note that this section is
coincidentally right after the two-income section
in my manuscript as well as the other author’s)

“When I argue below that “scripture forbids the “We will look at the scriptures, the tradition of
centerpiece of feminism, ordinary wifely work the Church, and the Magisterium to prove that
outside the home,” my meaning is self-evident to the sacrosanct feminist ideal of the working wife
all: the Bible contains several passages is incompatible with the Christian mode of living.
disallowing wifely careerism. No one denies this As absolutely central as the idea of women’s
reality, although many will stomp their feet in careerism is to the feminist movement, if we can
defiance” (pg. 129) rebut the liceity of the pin-money worker under
the Christian moral framework, then we will have,
in so doing, rebutted the idea of Christian
feminism altogether. Since the starting point of
the widespread blurring of sex-roles was the mass
foray of women into the workforce, the starting
point for abnegating the cancer of androgyny is to
underscore the Church’s condemnation of
gratuitously working wives and mothers” (pg.
145)
Cites Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy to show women’s Cites Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy to show women’s
domesticity is revealed domesticity is revealed
Cites exact same scripture passages that I do to Cites Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 1
establish male headship: 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 1 Corinthians 11:3–7; 1 Corinthians 14:34–35;
Corinthians 14:34–35; 1 Corinthians 11:3–7; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2: 3–5; Ephesians 5:22–29;
Ephesians 5:22–30; 1 Peter 3:1–6; Genesis 3:16; 1 Peter 3:1–7.
Colossians 3:18
“This familial hierarchy [set forth in 1 Corinthians “It’s worth pausing here [after 1 Corinthians
11:3–7], which turns out to be called ‘headship’ 11:3–7 is cited] to note that the practice of veiling
… unexpectedly explains the Christian practice of during liturgical functions is directly connected by
veiling, which is far more theologically relevant the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ to man’s authority
than mere traditional practice” (pg. 145) over woman. ‘Paul reprobates [women’s failing to
veil] as unbecoming . . . because God has
established a hierarchy, in both the natural and
religious spheres, in which the female is
subordinated to the male sex. . . . The veil is a
symbol of this subordination.’ Because the man is
the woman’s head, it is symbolically apropos that
women should cover their heads in church, as
acknowledgement of their subjection to their
husbands and the priest” (pg. 123)
“Stop trying to contest this basic moral fact of “This confusion of roles served as the gateway by
nature [male headship]. It constitutes a rebellion which sin and death entered into the world. It
against God” (pg. 149) was the initial disorder that set the stage for
active rebellion against God” (pg. 177)
“Women must accept that it is husbands who are “[God] took the labor that was natural to man
charged with providing for their families. and woman (i.e., providing the necessities of life
Remember, manual labor was Adam’s curse; (man) and raising children (woman)) and cursed
birthing labor was Eve’s curse” (pg. 149) it, rendering it an occasion of suffering. Since
working the soil to earn a living is natural to man,
toil was put into work, so now man must exhaust
himself to make the soil cooperate in bringing
forth the things requisite and desirable for the
maintenance of life. As for the woman, God
punished her by putting pain in childbirth” (pg.
149–150)

“We falsely believe that childrearing by daycare “DAYCARE SURROGACY AND DEVELOPMENTAL
strangers is just as good as childrearing by a PROBLEMS
loving mother at home” (pg. 104)
The celebrated economic viability of two-income
families who have monetized wife and mother
has come at the expense of domestic life and,
particularly, at the expense of children, whose
cravings for a mother’s loving presence at home
are widely going unsatiated” (pg. 58)
“Without some set of emergent circumstances, “Parents who without sufficient need commend
childrearing by strangers … is disordered” (pg. the greater portion of their children’s upbringing
104) to the hands of disinterested strangers are,
beyond a doubt, failing grievously to render the
love to which their children are entitled” (pg. 58)
“Simple housewives shape the course of history “By cultivating knowledge and appreciation of
by raising the next generation” (pg. 18) goodness through a well-ordered domestic life,
women do more than they could ever do in the
labor force. ... They shape the lives of a whole
new generation: a generation that will go on to
shape and rebuild the world. (pg. 188)
“The greatest achievement a Catholic … “The greatest power inheres in remaining in the
laywoman can attain is being a faithful wife and bosom of the home, raising future saints, leaders,
mother” (pg. 18) husbands, and fathers” (p. 188)
“The less [sic] women who enter the workforce, “Women’s unnecessary mass influx into the labor
the easier it is for men (along with single women) market … has made men’s already-arduous tasks
to find work. Too, the unemployment rate would of securing a job and providing for a family all the
plummet since it only involves those actively more difficult. …
seeking jobs” (pg. 106) Yet, while the number of women in the
workforce has been steadily increasing over the
course of the past decades, the share of
prime-age men in the labor force has plummeted
 from its zenith of 98 percent in 1954, to about 88
percent today” (pg. 55)
“Without so many women in the workplace, “First, it should be admitted, as a matter of sheer
heads of households would find employment arithmetic, that there is no way to multiply labor
more easily, no longer having to compete with force participation rates without drastically
most women” (pg. 106) increasing competition for a relatively static, finite
number of jobs” (pg. 55)
“The rise among working mothers has been the “As of 2016, however, 65.3 percent of mothers of
second most steep among mothers of children children under age six were in the workforce” (pg.
aged zero to six” (pg. 107) 58)
“Notwithstanding all the new semi-orphans after “Women’s desertion of the home has created a
1976 (those with moonlighting moms), the generation of weekday orphans” (pg. 58)
sufferers … are the male heads of households”
(pg. 107)
“If married women simply returned home, their “So as soon as there is a large-scale withdrawal of
corresponding heads of households would be women from the workforce, wages and benefits
able to land better-paying jobs to provide for their will increase, and needless family expenditures
families, leaving employment spots open so the specific to the working woman’s household will
father may easily find jobs to provide for his evaporate” (pg. 58)
family. In turn, this fact would nullify the next
objection on the list. [My husband doesn’t make
enough money to support us. I have to work]
(pgs. 107–108)
“If more women took themselves out of the “Because more women are declaring their
workforce, then it would be easier for your (and candidacy for a limited number of jobs in a finite
others’) heads of households to find jobs that pool, men’s difficulty securing jobs has increased
provide competitive wages. Transitioning from a (since scarcity ensues when supply stagnates and
two-wage lifestyle to a one income household is a demand proliferates). …
moderate challenge. But it’s eminently doable” Regardless, the assertion that a second income
(pg. 108) is practically required for the minimum
sustenance of a household remains patently false,
even in today’s economy. Given deliberate
spending and a healthy commitment to a frugal
lifestyle, a modern family can still afford the basic
components of first-world life on a single,
entry-level salary” (pgs. 55, 57)
“They accomplished ‘impossible’ feats such as “Given deliberate spending and a healthy
moving to a more affordable location, fining a commitment to a frugal lifestyle, a modern family
smaller home, selling needless possessions, can still afford the basic components of
cutting creature comforts such as cable TV, first-world life on a single, entry-level salary,
economizing meal preparation and simplifying despite the fiscal havoc wrought by the
family vacations” (p. 109) normalization of a second income. …
While it often requires a commitment to
bare-bones living and can entail a degree of
sacrifice and detachment from certain worldly
pleasures, the father-breadwinner mode of family
 life remains readily attainable to those who put a
premium on it” (pg. 57)
“When my husband was in law school, we lived in “Indeed, to draw on personal experience, one
a two-bedroom apartment, drove one car, and ate co-author of this book [David] provided for his
frozen pot pies multiple nights of the week so wife and two children on a judicial law clerk’s
that I could remain at home with our growing salary (around $40,000 per year) immediately
family. In other words, we lived simply in order after law school—and had some discretionary
for me to remain at home” (pg. 109) money left over in the bank every month. The
other co-author [Tim] provided for his family for
the better part of a decade on a teacher’s salary”
(pg. 57)
“After all, is the meager sum left over after paying “Ironically, all things considered, women’s
exorbitant childcare costs worth the abject failure careerism has done little to actually enhance their
to discharge your home duties? Shockingly, “a families’ economic bottom lines. In fact, the
new research paper from the Economic Policy widespread addition of a second income has, in
Institute, a worker advocacy group, finds that practice, often proved a hindrance to the
caretaking costs have become so exorbitant that denizens of the middle class achieving financial
in most parts of the U.S., families spend more on security. The data shows that, instead of saving
childcare than they do on rent” (pg. 113) the money earned by wives, two-income families
spend their excess money on houses in the most
desirable neighborhoods, on second cars, on
childcare, on college tuition, and on various other
luxuries” (pg. 56)
“On the distortion of Church teaching to satisfy “Nor are feminists free to re-vision, and distort
one’s personal judgment, the Council of Trent biblical passages that are problematic for their
states: ‘To check unbridled spirits, [this Council] worldview through critical scholarship and
decrees that no one relying on his own judgment eisegesis. The meaning of scripture is objective,
shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to not relative, and it is the unique prerogative of
the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the the Church to interpret what the author of the
Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own sacred page, the Holy Spirit, deigned to make
conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary known to mankind. The Council of Trent made
to that sense which holy mother Church, to this abundantly clear, declaring: ‘To check
whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and unbridled spirits, [this Council] decrees that no
interpretation, has held and holds, or even one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters
contrary to the unanimous teaching of the of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of
Fathers, even though such interpretations should Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in
never at any time be published.’ Modern society accordance with his own conceptions, presume to
is attempting to amend Holy Scripture to meet interpret them contrary to that sense which holy
the cultural preferences of the day, which at the mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of
same time undermines the longstanding Catholic their true sense and interpretation, has held and
teaching on working wives” (pg. 128) holds, or even contrary to the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, even though such
Footnote to: Council of Trent, Session IV, “Decree interpretations should never at any time be
Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred published.’ By the solemn declaration of the
Books,” April 8, 1546, my emphasis Tridentine Fathers, feminist theologians are
forbidden from doing violence to the text of
scripture to arrive at pre-ordained, egalitarian
Same exact footnote form. Note also that this conclusions about the meaning of passages that
Tridentine decree has absolutely nothing to do don’t facially conform to their ideology. In that
with feminism. A curious choice in any feminism this sort of disingenuous scholarship is absolutely
book, and very suspicious to find its twin in a central to the methods and viability of feminism,
book that often mirrors my copy. “Christian” feminists must be viewed by the
faithful as the ecclesial impostors that they are”
(pgs. 104-105)

Footnote to: Council of Trent, Session IV, “Decree

Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred
Books,” April 8, 1546

“To live outside scripture is to invite misery into “Fulfillment eludes those who take on roles for
one’s life” (pg. 151) which they were not designed” (pg. 64)

“A study by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic “In a groundbreaking study entitled ‘The Paradox
Research found that in America, women’s of Declining Female Happiness,’ University of
happiness had fallen ‘both absolutely and Pennsylvania public-policy scholars Betsey
relatively to that of men’” (pg. 151) Stevenson and Justin Wolfers demonstrated that
in the 35 years between 1972 and 2007, the
Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, “The subjective well-being of American women fell,
Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” “both absolutely and relatively to that of men,”
American Economic despite a rash of social changes that superficially
Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic appeared to favor women”
Association 1, no. 2 (August 2009): 190–225.
Footnote to: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers,
“The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,”
American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 1, no. 2 (2009): 190,
190–191, www.jstor.org/stable/25760045.

Note, her quotation starts and ends at the same

points as mine—however, her citation, which is
similar to mine except for the pinpoint page
citation, does not list the page where she found
the information quoted. Curiously, this citation is
also different in form than her earlier citation to
the same study.
“And like Sacred Scripture, Magisterial tradition “The Church Fathers unite their voices to the
also admonishes against wifely work outside the scriptural tradition on the matter of [women
home” (pg. 155) working]” (pg. 150)
“Today, married women seek leadership roles in “They have jumped headlong into the rat-race of
the workforce instead of submitting to the the workaday world; they have demanded
rightful leadership of their husbands” (pg. 159) admission to leadership roles in which they’re
destined to fail or burn out” (pg. 64)
“While these wives fruitlessly seek manly honor “They would leave for themselves the impossible
at a job, they too often fail to count the task of convincing a skeptical world
opportunity cost: flourishing with their feminine that—contrary to the conclusion reached by
virtues in the home. That is, nature built them for
every other society in history—woman (rather
the homeplace, where they would thrive easily, than man), with her diminutive frame and
and yet they remain oblivious to this reality. … It
predisposition to emotion rather than reason, is
should follow rather closely, then, that men are better suited for a highly visible, external role in
better suited for some things and women are an often ruthless world than she is for a modest,
better suited for others” (pg. 159) internal role, reigning lovingly over home and
children as queen” (pg. 60)
“We must unlearn this anti-complementarist “Because men are stronger, faster, and more
propaganda and re-train our minds to accept durable than women, they are in the best
truths as simple as ‘only women can have babies position to leave the home and go into an
and menstrual cycles’ and ‘the average man’s uncontrolled environment without being
muscles and brain are anatomically purposed to seriously harmed. … On the flipside, the female
different ends than the average woman’s.’ All the anatomy, physiology, and psyche are themselves
biology points us to a clear truth: a woman’s suggestive of women’s special penchant for
place is that of partner and helper to man” (pg. domestic caretaking and nurturing. The fact that
161) women’s bodies have a built-in mechanism for
nourishing children through breastfeeding
demonstrates that they have a role in the world
that is uniquely connected with home life. Even if
a family has no offspring of suckling age, the
woman’s anatomical connection with nursing
proves that she has a specialized role in giving
food and nourishment to her family. … It is
unavoidable that God, either through a series of
biological mutations, or through an instantaneous
act of creation, created the minds and hormones
of women to complement and enable their
domestic role” (pgs. 146-147)
“Consider the words of St. Thomas Aquinas on “Aquinas sees the fact that woman was made
the topic: ‘I answer that, it was right for the from the rib of man to be salient in
woman to be made from the rib of a man. First, to demonstrating her lower status in the natural
signify the social union of man and woman, for hierarchy of being: ‘For the woman should
the woman should neither use authority over neither use authority over man, and so she was
man, and so she was not made from his head; nor not made from his head; nor was it right for her
was it right for her to be subject to man’s to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave, and
contempt as his slave, and so she was not made so she was not made from his feet’” (pg. 135)
from his feet’” (pg. 161)
Footnote to: Ibid., Pt. 1, Q. 92, Art. 3.
Footnote to: ST I q. 92, a.3.
Quotes Casti Connubii, section 27 (pgs. 162-163) Quotes Casti Connubii, section 27 (pg. 138)
“St. Augustine of Hippo insisted rather strongly “St. Augustine taught that woman’s proper role is
that women must assist their husbands in the to help man in the work surrounding procreation
ways altogether unique to their sex—that is, not (i.e. managing children and household), because
as equals to men but as complements to them: ‘I in other matters (such as earning a living), due to
don’t see what sort of help woman was created man’s natural facility in labor, a male helpmate
would be more effective and useful than a female
to provide man with, if one excludes helpmate. He remarked, ‘I do not see in what
procreation’” (pg. 163) way it could be said that woman was made as a
help for man, if the work of childbearing be
Footnote to: St. Augustine, De genesi ad litteram, excluded’” (pg. 151)
9, 5-9
Footnote to: Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram,
Lib. IX.
“The Church Fathers are just providing us with “It’s clear, then, that the Patristics (and later, the
what we know to be true already. In short, a Scholastics) held that woman’s identity as man’s
husband does not need a wife to plow a field or helpmate is rooted in her having a function that is
to provide him with protection. He does, set apart from his. This function is to conceive
however, need a wife to provide him with and raise offspring; it is to care for the home
children and a comfortable, welcoming home while the husband is doing his part to provide for
when he returns from a day’s labor. … So much the family. And this stands to reason” (pg. 152)
of Christian teaching is based on common sense”
(pg. 164)
“Pope Leo XIII (AD 1810-1903) concurs with St. “Pope Leo XIII would later expound upon
Jerome that women are made for childrearing woman’s duty to ‘love to remain at home,’ writing
and ‘home-work:’ ‘Women, again, are not suited in his encyclical on Christian labor, Rerum
for certain occupations; a woman is by nature Novarum, that ‘Women, again, are not suited for
fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted
adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to for home-work, and it is that which is best
promote the good bringing up of children and the adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to
well-being of the family’” (pgs. 164-165) promote the good bringing up of children and the
well-being of the family’ (emphasis added)” (pg.
Footnote to: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum 153)
Novarum (May 15, 1891)
Note that the italics added in the quote here
reflect the wording (“home-work”) in the
introduction to the quote in Ask Your Husband.

Footnote to: Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, § 42.

“Pope Leo XIII explicates the distinct duties of “In his encyclical, Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII treats
each spouse in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae: the matter in some detail, adding his voice as
‘Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife prince of the Church to the litany of faithful voices
have been defined, and their several rights that have endorsed Christianity’s pious patriarchy:
accurately established. They are bound, namely, ‘The husband is the chief of the family and the
to have such feelings for one another as to head of the wife. The woman, because she is
cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be
faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one subject to her husband and obey him; not,
another an unfailing and unselfish help. The indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that
husband is the chief of the family and the head of her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor
the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ,
flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to and since the wife represents the Church, let
her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a there always be, both in him who commands and
servant, but as a companion, so that her in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding
obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor both in their respective duties. For the husband is
dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the
since the wife represents the Church, let there Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to
always be, both in him who commands and in her Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all
who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in things.’ [Internal quotations omitted.] Pope Leo
their respective duties. For the husband is the XIII goes on to excoriate those who attempt to
head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the subvert the dynamic between the sexes” (pg.
Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to 137)
Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all
things.’” (pg.165) Footnote to: Leo XIII, Arcanum, § 11

Footnote to: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum

Divinae (February 10, 1880)
“St. Thomas Aquinas also weighs in and hits “So, affirming male headship even in the
egalitarianism head on: ‘Good order would have prelapsarian state, Aquinas reasons: ‘For good
been wanting in the human family if some were order would have been wanting in the human
not governed by others wiser than themselves. family if some were not governed by others wiser
So by such a kind of subjection woman is than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection
naturally subject to man, because in man the woman is naturally subject to man, because in
discretion of reason predominates’” (pg. 167) man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor
is inequality among men excluded by the state of
Footnote to: ST I, q.92, a. 1, ad 2 innocence’” (pg. 134-135)

Footnote to: Thomas Aquinas, Summa

Theologica, Pt. 1, Q. 92, Art. 1
“Popes have been commenting on the proper role “Pope Clement I (35–99 AD), in his first epistle to
of women since the very beginnings of the the Corinthians, praised the habit of grooming
Church. Pope Clement I (AD 35-99) advises the women to be domestic: ‘The wives you enjoined
following to married Christian women just a few to discharge all their duties with a conscience
decades after the death of Christ: ‘The wives you pure and undefiled and to cherish a dutiful
enjoined to discharge all their duties with a affection for their husbands; you taught them
conscience pure and undefiled and to cherish a also to stay within the established norm of
dutiful affection for their husbands; you taught obedience in managing the household with
them also to stay within the established norm of decency and consummate prudence’” (pg. 151)
obedience in managing the household with
decency and consummate prudence’” (pg. 168) Footnote to: Pope Clement I, First Epistle to the
Corinthians, § 1
Footnote to: Pope Clement I, First Epistle to the
Corinthians, § 1, my emphasis Note the same exact footnote, including the
section symbol, which she does not tend to use
for other footnotes with sections. Suggestive of
copy and paste.
“Pope Pius XI states that the household without “Embracing this inequality as it pertains to the
the constant occupancy of the mother causes the respective roles of men and women, Pius XI
family ‘great harm.’ In Casti Connubii, Pius XI puts concludes that it is to ‘the great harm of the
it this way: home’ if the mother of the family is ‘compelled to
go forth and seek a living by her own labor’” (pg.
156)
‘If, however, for this purpose, private resources do
not suffice, … if even the mother of the family to Footnote to: Ibid., § 120.
the great harm of the home, is compelled to go
forth and seek a living by her own labor’” (pgs.
171-172)

Footnote to: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti

Connubii (December 31, 1930)
“Consider the following excerpts in Casti Connubii “Pius XI inveighs that, ‘The same false teachers
and say a prayer in thanksgiving for the clarity in who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and
which Pope Pius XI articulated the immutable purity do not scruple to do away with the
truths of our Holy Mother Church. On wifely honorable and trusting obedience which the
obedience and the neglect of her womanly woman owes to the man. Many of them even go
charges: ‘The same false teachers who try to dim further and assert that such a subjection of one
the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not party to the other is unworthy of human dignity,
scruple to do away with the honorable and that the rights of husband and wife are equal;
trusting obedience which the woman owes to the wherefore, they boldly proclaim the
man. Many of them even go further and assert emancipation of women has been or ought to be
that such a subjection of one party to the other is effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be
unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in
husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they the administration of family affairs and in the
boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has rearing of the children. . . . This, however, is not
been or ought to be effected. This emancipation the true emancipation of woman, nor that
in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the
the domestic society, in the administration of noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is
family affairs and in the rearing of the children. rather the debasing of the womanly character
…’ He goes on to comment on how the dignity of and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the
motherhood is also adversely affected when the whole family, as a result of which the husband
mother follows a diabolical inversion of liberty suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their
and emancipation: ‘This, however, is not the true mother, and the home and the whole family of an
emancipation of woman, nor that rational and ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false
exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is
of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the
debasing of the womanly character and the woman descends from her truly regal throne to
dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole which she has been raised within the walls of the
family, as a result of which the husband suffers home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be
the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in
and the home and the whole family of an ever appearance, certainly in reality) and become as
watchful guardian. More than this, this false amongst the pagans the mere instrument of
liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is man’” (pg. 138-139)
to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the
woman descends from her truly regal throne to Footnote to: Ibid., §§ 74–76.
which she has been raised within the walls of the
home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be
reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in
appearance, certainly in reality) and become as
amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man’
Footnote to: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti
Connubii (December 31, 1930)

Note there is no pinpoint citation given.

“Pope Pius XI also addresses the ramifications of “Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical, Quadragesimo
women who work outside the home. As to be Anno, reiterated the teaching of Leo XIII that men
expected, he speaks bluntly. In his encyclical are entitled to a living wage, so that they can
Quadragesimo Anno, dated May 15, 1931, Pius preserve the integrity of their families by having
makes mention that the husband ought to be their wives remain in the home: ‘In the first place,
paid a fair and just wage so that the household the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to
doesn’t suffer an ‘intolerable abuse’ by the wife support him and his family. That the rest of the
working away from the home to compensate for family should also contribute to the common
her husband’s low wages: ‘In the first place, the support, according to the capacity of each, is
worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support certainly right, as can be observed especially in
him and his family. That the rest of the family the families of farmers, but also in the families of
should also contribute to the common support, many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to
according to the capacity of each, is certainly abuse the years of childhood and the limited
right, as can be observed especially in the families strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers,
of farmers, but also in the families of many concentrating on household duties, should work
craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity.
the years of childhood and the limited strength of It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at
women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating all cost, for mothers on account of the father's
on household duties, should work primarily in the low wage to be forced to engage in gainful
home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an occupations outside the home to the neglect of
intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, their proper cares and duties, especially the
for mothers on account of the father's low wage training of children. Every effort must therefore
to be forced to engage in gainful occupations be made that fathers of families receive a wage
outside the home to the neglect of their proper large enough to meet ordinary family needs
cares and duties, especially the training of adequately. But if this cannot always be done
children. Every effort must therefore be made under existing circumstances, social justice
that fathers of families receive a wage large demands that changes be introduced as soon as
enough to meet ordinary family needs possible whereby such a wage will be assured to
adequately. But if this cannot always be done every adult workingman’” (pg. 155)
under existing circumstances, social justice
demands that changes be introduced as soon as Footnote to: Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, § 71
possible whereby such a wage will be assured to
every adult workingman’” (pgs. 177-178)

Footnote to: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical

Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931)

Note there is no pinpoint citation given.

“In his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, dated March “In Pius XI’s encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, which
19, 1937, Pius blames communism for breaking was dedicated to repudiating communism and its
the natural bonds a mother has for her children attendant errors, the Holy Father observed that,
and enticing her to abandon them to the care of ‘Communism is particularly characterized by the
others as she pursues the ‘public life.’ rejection of any link that binds woman to the
‘Communism is particularly characterized by the family and the home, and her emancipation is
rejection of any link that binds woman to the proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn
family and the home, and her emancipation is from the family and the care of her children, to be
proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn thrust instead into public life and collective
from the family and the care of her children, to be production under the same conditions as man.
thrust instead into public life and collective The care of home and children then devolves
production under the same conditions as man. upon the collectivity’ (pg. 156)
The care of home and children then devolves
upon the collectivity’ (pgs. 178-179) Footnote to: Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, § 11

Footnote to: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini

Redemptoris (March 19, 1937)

“Shockingly to most traditional Catholics, it is not “The Second Vatican Council also weighed in on
only heroes of tradition such as Pope Pius who the role of wives and mothers in society. In
champion the unfashionable truth but also the Gaudium et Spes, the Vatican II Fathers
Second Vatican Council held in 1965 that tackles authoritatively reassert the timeless teaching of
the issue of working mothers. It is stated in one of the Church: ‘The family is a kind of school of
the four constitutions of the Second Vatican deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve the full
Council, Gaudium et Spes: ‘The family is a kind of flowering of its life and mission, it needs the
school of deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve kindly communion of minds and the joint
the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking
the kindly communion of minds and the joint cooperation of parents in the education of their
deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking children. The active presence of the father is
cooperation of parents in the education of their highly beneficial to their formation. The children,
children. The active presence of the father is especially the younger among them, need the
highly beneficial to their formation. The children, care of their mother at home. This domestic role
especially the younger among them, need the of hers must be safely preserved, though the
care of their mother at home. This domestic role legitimate social progress of women should not
of hers must be safely preserved, though the be underrated on that account.’ [Emphasis
legitimate social progress of women should not added.] The Vatican II Fathers again channel the
be underrated on that account.’ After all, the language of the Patristics that the woman has a
notion that a woman cannot be fulfilled by her ‘domestic role’ which must be safely preserved.
domestic duties and therefore should occupy her It’s a matter of safeguarding the deposit of faith:
valuable time with other endeavors is a relatively woman’s role cannot change because providence
new one” (pgs. 179-180) willed her to be man’s complement and helpmate
from the beginning” (pgs. 159-160)
Footnote to: Second Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et Spes, promulgated by Footnote to: Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et
Pope Paul VI (1965) Spes, § 52
“On wifely work, feminists find refuge from the “On the issue of women’s domesticity, John Paul
onslaught of anti-feminist Tradition in these two II wrote, in Familiaris Consortio, that women’s
passages from Pope St. John Paul’s Familiaris ‘professions should be harmoniously combined’
Consortio, a post-synodal apostalic exhortation with their maternal and family roles. He also
published in 1981. He states the following: ‘In the lamented that ‘widespread social and cultural
specific area of family life a widespread social and tradition has considered women's role to be
cultural tradition has considered women's role to exclusively that of wife and mother, without
be exclusively that of wife and mother, without
adequate access to public functions which have adequate access to public functions which have
generally been reserved for men. …There is no generally been reserved for men’” (pg. 166)
doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of
men and women fully justifies women’s access to “In his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris
public functions: … the true advancement of Consortio, the Holy Father admonishes that ‘the
women requires that clear recognition be given to true advancement of women requires that clear
the value of their maternal and family role, by recognition be given to the value of their
comparison with all other public roles and all maternal and family role, by comparison with all
other professions’ (pgs. 180-181) other public roles and all other professions’
(emphasis added)” (pg. 161)
Footnote to: Pope John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1982) Footnote to: John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, §
23
“Pope John Paul II adds a gloss to his earlier “Furthermore, John Paul II wrote, in his 1995
statements in his 1995 Letter to Women when he letter to women, ‘Thank you, women who work!
writes: ‘Thank you, women who work! You are You are present and active in every area of
present and active in every area of life—social, life—social, economic, cultural, artistic and
economic, cultural, artistic and political. …’ Many political.’ Considered apart from the lucid
feminists argue that Pope John Paul II, in these witness of his predecessors (and even from his
remarks, gives his blessing for wives to work own magisterial teachings), the foregoing
(even though he makes no specific reference to declarations of Pope John Paul II seem to suggest
working women who have husbands or children that a moral equivalency exists between the
in these passages). (pgs. 181-182) choice of wives to work within the home as
housewives versus without the home as
Footnote to: Pope John Paul II, Letter of Pope careerists” (pgs. 166-167)
John Paul II to Women (Washington, D.C.: United
States Catholic Conference, 1995) Footnote to: John Paul II, “Letter to Women,”
June 29, 1995
“On wifely work, feminists find refuge from the “Pope John Paul II famously referred to himself as
onslaught of anti-feminist Tradition in these two the ‘feminist pope.’ In keeping with this dubious
passages from Pope John Paul’s Familiaris title, through his ordinary magisterium, John Paul
Consortio, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation II made certain assertions that, when examined in
published in 1981” (pg. 180) isolation from the totality of the Church’s
teachings on the role of women, seemingly
undermine or contradict the doctrine on both
male headship and the duty of wives and mothers
to be domestic” (pg. 165-166)
“However, anytime a pope contradicts the “Of course, we know that such a position [from a
thousands of years of Tradition and/or Scripture, pope] contradicts scripture, tradition, and two
he is not speaking with authority. He cannot be millennia of prior magisterial statements” (pg.
doing so” (pg. 182) 166)
“Popes can err and even contradict themselves. “There are, generally speaking, two ways to
That is why we must look to Scripture and approach those teachings of the contemporary
Tradition when papal discrepancies occur rather Magisterium that appear to contradict the
than trusting our own biases” constant teachings of their spiritual forebears.
First, we have a duty to conscientiously interpret
(pg. 184) dubious or problematic-sounding teachings in a
 hermeneutic of continuity with the prior
teachings of the Church”

(pg. 167)
“Pope Leo XIII provides such women who pick and “Pope Leo XIII, with a great sense of urgency,
choose what scriptures suit their lifestyle best once admonished Christians of the dangers of
with a scathing admonition: ‘But it is absolutely conceiving of a limited scope of biblical inerrancy:
wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration ‘But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either
to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy
that the sacred writer has erred. For the system Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has
of those who, in order to rid themselves of these erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid
difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to
inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, concede that divine inspiration regards the things
and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because
think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth
passage, we should consider not so much what or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not
God has said as the reason and purpose which He so much what God has said as the reason and
had in mind in saying it—this system cannot be purpose which He had in mind in saying it—this
tolerated. For all the books which the Church system cannot be tolerated. For all the books
receives as sacred and canonical, are written which the Church receives as sacred and
wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all
dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and
being possible that any error can co-exist with so far is it from being possible that any error can
inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only
incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects is essentially incompatible with error, but
it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible excludes and rejects it as absolutely and
that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself,
that which is not true. This is the ancient and the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not
unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of
in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of
finally confirmed and more expressly formulated Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and
by the Council of the Vatican’” more expressly formulated by the Council of the
Vatican’”
Footnote to: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical
Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) Footnote to: Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus
Deus, § 20.
(Pg. 187)
(pg. 104)
“Shamefully, family time is being systematically “Kids are clamoring for, and finding themselves
eradicated in favor of busying the kids with pushed towards, an ever-increasing number of
outside activities. Hopefully, now my reader pointless activities, which end up consuming the
understands the problem: how do husbands and precious days of youthhood that, in a more
wives find time to spend with one another as wholesome age, were dedicated to that salutary
they’re each carting around a divided group of activity of doing nothing, to imagining, to making
their kids from one activity to another? (Honestly, believe, to embracing those dog-days of summer
I’ve asked my kids what they prefer, and they that are irreplaceable in the journey towards
regularly report to us that they would rather well-adjusted adulthood. … Kids are missing
partake in family activities)” (pg. 225) organic camaraderie, and as a cheap substitute,
 they are being placed in organized activities in
droves, which, siphons them from their homes
and robs them of their childhoods” (pg. 47-48)
“[Tolkien explains] ‘A young woman, even one “(Further elaborating on the irony, J.R.R. Tolkien
“economically independent”, as they say now (it jested that even an ‘economically independent’
usually really means economic subservience to young woman is almost invariably in a state of
male commercial employers instead of to a father ‘economic subservience to male commercial
or a family), begins to think of the “bottom employers instead of to a father or a family.’ )”
drawer” and dream of a home, almost at once. If
she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really Footnote to: J.R.R. Tolkien, “Letter to Michael
end on the rocks.’” Tolkien, 6–8 March, 1941,” in The Letters of J.R.R.
Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter (Boston:
Footnote to: The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Houghton Mifflin, 1981), 51.
Humphrey Carpenter (New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1981), p.48 (pg. 5)

(pg. 313)
Headings in Ch. 7: “CHAPTER 5: AUTHENTIC FEMININITY
“Authentically Feminine Women Are The antidote for the specious
Indispensable As Mothers” (pg. 236) womanhood of feminism is the authentic
femininity elucidated by theological anthropology.
“Authentically Feminine Women Are What is it to be truly and authentically feminine?
Indispensable As Wives” Natural reason, holy writ, the doctors of the
Church, and the Magisterium provide the answer
“Authentically Feminine Women Are to this question. First and foremost, to be
Indispensable As Friends” feminine is to be receptive: it is to be passive”
(pg. 173)
“Authentically Feminine Women Are
Indispensable As Daughters”

“An authentically feminine wife pours her heart “In his own work on Catholic home economics, Fr.
and soul into tending her home—even the Raoul Plus concurs, recounting the counsel of a
unpleasant tasks—such as to present her 14th-century spiritual director to his penitent
husband with a tranquil place to rest his head at regarding the importance of a wife’s duties at
the end of a difficult day” (pg. 250) home: ‘You ought to be attentive and devoted to
the person of your husband. Take care of him
lovingly, keep his linens clean and orderly because
that is your affair. Men should take care of the
outside business; husbands must be busy going
and coming, running here and there in rain, wind,
storm, and sleet; they must keep going, dry days
or rainy days; one day freezing, another day
sweltering, badly fed, badly lodged in poorly
heated houses and forced to rest in
uncomfortable beds’” (pg.186)
The No Christian Feminism manuscript goes directly from the section on two-incomes to daycare, as
does Ask Your Husband. Almost every single idea in each of my sections are paraphrased in Ask Your
Husband.