The Editors’ Quote of the Day:

“A woman is not property, and husbands who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld.” – Robert Heinlein

Bookmark the permalink.



12 Responses to The Editors’ Quote of the Day:

  1. GoneWithTheWind says:

    A woman is not property the man is and any husbands who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld.

  2. Robert says:

    Love your blog. Love all your books. We’ve bought and read almost all of them. But you have some feminism in you that you are blind to. It shows up in your books and this…why post this? Virtue signalling? That’s the best case scenario. It’s the only thing I’d love to see be throttled down.

    • Mrs. RLB says:

      I’m curious as to why this quote is equated to feminism for you? Do you think women are property of their husbands?

      • Robert says:

        Property in the sense that they should be under their husband’s authority? Absolutely. Property in a the sense you can trade them for a donkey, Mazda hatchback and and Elvis vinyl, hmmm…no.
        Do I think the Bible and the Constitution, the two sources JWR holds most true are in absolute agreement with me. Most definitely. Which is why 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5 and numerous other NT passages read the way they do, which is to say nothing of the OT. It is also why women did not vote for the first 150 years of this country.

        For the record, married twenty years to an amazing woman who will agree with absolutely everything I just wrote…and not just because I told her she had to! I also believe in a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church and living with her in an understanding way- because that is scriptural.

        Take away men’s ownership of his wife and family is a huge part of the mess we are in today. Man over the long haul will not sacrifice or fight for something he does not own.

        • Mrs. RLB says:

          Authority? Ownership? So now you are saying JWR agrees with you? Your wife agrees with you? You have no authority if you need to say someone agrees with you.
          Yes, the constitution did not originally give women the right to vote, nor black men. Are you saying black men should not have the right to vote, or should be under your authority or ownership? Not everything that was constitutional back then was morally right, but our forefathers did make provisions for constitutional amendments.
          The “mess” is about many things, not ownership. I suspect what you are referring to is lack of commitment, like people who think it is alright to live together first before marriage (research shows this a good predictor of divorce later). Commitment goes both ways, and it is a choice by both to make a relationship work. The problem is that I have seen that many men carry these “authority” beliefs to the outside of marriage in how they interact with other women – not Biblical at all. That would be just like saying “women can’t vote.”
          Now, if you want to embrace the Old Testament, there are plenty of other rules you should be adhering to in your marriage that I doubt many men follow. You can’t pick and choose according to what is convenient for your argument.
          This is why Jesus wrote the law into our hearts and I think many more men (and women) should be examining theirs.
          Romans 14 discusses stumbling blocks. If ever there was a stumbling block for many women it is this mindset of Christian men who go too far with Biblical interpretations that exert these authority beliefs on other women who are not their wives. And if a woman doesn’t agree she is maliciously a labeled a feminist for not knowing her place. You also threw that word out at the editor who posted the quote. What a couple chooses for their own marriage is between them and God. But outside of that, male “authority” or “privilege” is just another stumbling block. (yes, a liberal term, but it really fits.)
          No, I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Bible that gives you ownership. I see a little virtue signaling in your own response. I think you feel much stronger about the property idea and you’ve backed off a little saying the wife is ok with it.
          I’ve been married for 36 years free from marital ownership and authority, praise God! I am truly blessed.

        • Robert says:

          Mrs. RLB,
          I have not backed off anything. I stand by what the Bible teaches, even unto Sara calling Abraham lord and Peter teaching Christian wives to do likewise.

          Do I think women should vote? No, absolutely not.

          Do I think black men should vote? Yes, but only if they own land. Which is exactly what I believe about white men. But diversity will divide our country- along race, political and theological lines soon.

          Does the person with authority not have authority if those under him do not agree to it? Absolutely not. As long as the authority comes from the Lord. But it sure does make it easier if those under him agree.

          Do I think that some men can abuse their authority? Absolutely. Which is why I added the responsibilities of husbands to love their wife as Christ loved the church and to live with her in an understanding way.

          Do I think JWR believes a wife is under her husbands authority. Yes, I do. But I also believe he has a blindspot in actually what that means and women in general, which was the reason for the comment. I’m very fond of JWR and mention him on occassion in my prayers. But he has blindspots as we all do. If he was willing to prayerfully consider that is absolutely absurd in the church and culture at large to post such a quote when husbands are openly mocked, ridiculed and held in such low esteem to even consider that their are men in this country not bowing down to Allah who believe the quote.

          I’m as “hard right” for lack of better phrase in this regard as you will find in this country- to the point of being semi famous to the feminist crowd. And yet my wife is as loved, cared for and happier than all the feminists broads with their cats around. Do I consider her mine? Yes. Just like I do my children. Which is why they get my all. My prayers, my sweat, my blood, my waking and my sleeping to the point of denying myself for them and Him. I will stand by that ownership all day long and advise my brothers in Christ to do the same. Respectfully in Christ our Lord-

          • Mrs RLB says:

            Authority in the bible verses you mentioned are about spiritual leadership. The same with “submission” in the wife leading through her behavior.

            I am glad you are trying to be a good husband. I am lucky to have a husband who will do the same for me without all the bluster about property, ownership and authority. I do the same for him. We would literally take a bullet for each other.

            I do not mock my husband because I deeply respect him. You believe husbands are being mocked? Women have experienced this for years under twisted interpretations of the Bible and for other reasons. You obviously have a very low opinion of women that you think they shouldn’t even vote, and I think that probably goes further back for you than your Bible reading. I think Jesus doesn’t mind me voting, especially when I vote conservative.

            I own cattle, and they get “my prayers, my sweat, my blood and my waking and sleeping to the point of denying myself for them” –
            especially during calving season! Doesn’t mean much except that they are my property that I am invested in. Just last night I was praying that one wouldn’t deliver in the middle of the cold night because I didn’t want to wake up and find a dead calf. It was a really cold night. But sometimes I have to ask God to look after them when I need to get some sleep. Seriously, your family aren’t cattle, but what you model for your sons and daughters will get passed on. Do you really want daughters growing up learning that they are less than men in your eyes? As a parent with grown kids, I can say kids remember those things you think they didn’t notice.

          • Robert says:

            Maam,
            So far you have disagreed with the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, amongst others.

            I’m glad you and your husband are happy. But I’m not talking about one couple being happy. I’m talking about the church and society being healthy and thriving.

            As far as “bluster” goes, the only thing I have done in your direction is answer your questions straightforwardly directing you towards the Bible and the Constitution- both of which you as a “conservative woman” have told me the intrepration that was held for 1900 years in the case of the church and 150 in the case of our country, were wrong. I’m humbled to stand with Peter, Paul, George, Thomas and Benjamin and be guilty of all the faults you accredit to me.

            As far as my wife and daughter, I believe what I believe because of the sources I have cited- scripture and our founding fathers. But rest assured, I am very “happy” with the fruit of my beliefs, as are they.

            I will let readers decide from here on as these are my final words. They can read the words of Peter, Paul and the founding fathers and weigh them to see the truth in them while examining what the church & society looked like before we let “conservative women” vote and “be free.”

  3. Mrs. RLB says:

    Robert Heinlein also said, “Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.” 🙂
    As it should be in a free society, from a free woman with cats and who honorably served her country.

  4. Bax767 says:

    Wow. Interesting discussion! I don’t usually weigh in on posts from Survival Blog but I’m pretty astonished to find a reader who would think that women should not be allowed to vote!

    Last time I ran into that kind of thinking was in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. The funny thing was, at the time I was flying Navy jets in a squadron that had plenty of women proudly serving and fighting along side our men. And even though we were helping to save the Saudi’s butts from Saddam, it still drove the Saudi Arabians nuts that we would allow women to fly jets, drive vehicles, ride in the front of crew busses, and yes, even vote!!! The Saudi’s also consider women “property.”

    Many fringe beliefs fall back on religion as a justification for otherwise indefensible positions, be it polygamy, oppression, Jihad, or whatever. Using a distorted interpretation of passages from the Bible, the Koran, or any other ancient text doesn’t make it right.

    I was proud to serve alongside many honorable and heroic women during my 20-plus year military career. As a father, husband, Christian and veteran, the thought of denying these women any rights, or thinking of them as “property” merely because of their gender is revolting and quite honestly un-American.

    • Hugh James Latimer says:

      @Bax767
      The concept of “women not voting” is not really supposed to be framed in the light of women’s votes. (otherwise you do end up with something like Saudi Arabia.)
      The issue is that men and women think differently. There are exceptions, but in general a woman is more compassionate and a man is more authoritarian. As a result, those two votes often cancel each other out (not always, but in the majority of the time.) In a Democracy, this is an accepted practice. In a republic, it quite often defeats forward motion.
      Consider instead a “family vote” where the head of the household casts the vote for the family. The family discusses what their core beliefs are, comes to a resolution and then their vote represents their desire “as a family”. Traditionally, the head of the household is the man and he would cast the family vote.
      Land ownership is the traditional method of determining head of household status. I’m not sure how that would apply in today’s western culture (more women independent of family, renting instead of owning, etc…)
      This is what voting in a republic was supposed to represent. Modern feminism has twisted that so the concept of the “family” is entirely lost and it becomes about individual rights. With militant feminism who’s only desire is to make sure you “hear” them and what they want, along with a man who does not vote as a representative of his family, it devolves into a worthless selfish democracy. Remember, democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
      It’s part and parcel for the destruction of the family that our society is so bent on. Democracy will always tend towards selfish desires. Republic’s can also do that if the representative casting the vote does not truly represent the family, but democracies get to the selfish point quicker and usually with more violence and/or controversy. As far as I have read in history, democracies never recover. Republics occasionally recover.

      • Robert says:

        HJL, I would disagree with your two sentences: “The issue is that men and women think differently. There are exceptions, but in general a woman is more compassionate and a man is more authoritarian.”

        The difference is that women are more comfortable with government (what they view as security) and men are more comfortable with liberty.