A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.The history is a bit murky, but the imagery became popular by 1976 when Gloria Steinem used it in speeches. She has credited an Australian, Irina Dunn, with the quote. There's no solid proof that Dunn came up with it, but she claimed that she vandalized a public bathroom by writing that statement on the wall.¹ 'Sounds like something a belligerent clod might do.
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
No matter whose voice was used, the concept originates from spiritual rebellion against God. And KatieLyn's (the runaway bride's) family is filled with a deceptive form of feminist rebellion where they play roles that do not match the desires of their hearts.
But let me back up a bit. A couple days ago, I was asked about Genesis 3:16. God is speaking to Eve, and the verse ends with, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Remember that the Lord said this to Eve before there was a long-established world culture. If we look at this through the eyes of a 21st century romanticist, we are going to get it wrong.
The Expanded Bible, a translation which puts comments about nuances in brackets, delivers that part of Genesis 3:16 this way:
You will greatly desire [the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband,The 4:7 refers to the next chapter where the same Hebrew word for desire is used. In that passage, the brothers Cain and Abel have just given offerings to the Lord. The Lord accepted Abel's gift but 'did not look with favor' on Cain's. When Cain throws a hissy fit, the Lord asks Cain to reflect, "Why are you angry?"² The Lord continues to speak:
but he will rule over you.
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; you are its object of desire, but you must master it.Desire, in both verses, implies longing and craving. There is no argument among the commentators that in 3:16, the woman desires the husband. But for 4:7, one finds several conflicting views. The differences stem from dissent over how literal, metaphorical, anthropomorphic, or esoteric "sin crouching at your door" is.
In Cain's case, 4:7, I think that there was some unseen, but very real spiritual entity that was close enough to attempt to influence him, but not possess him, hence "positioned at the entrance way" to his soul. This was not a sexual-seduction desire, but it was the desire of the Sin-entity to gain control over Cain. At least, that is what makes the most sense to me, and it dovetails with the 'desire for control' interpretation for Genesis 3:16.
Some respected commentators, however, regard this as just a Cain and Abel dispute, no evil spirits attached, and therefore it means that if Cain "does well," perhaps by repenting with a sin offering, then he can regain the his elder-brother authority, paralleling the Adam-position of a husband's authority, and that Abel would look up to him and respect his first-born rights in the same manner that a woman looks up to, respects, and desires her husband. 🤔 Got that?
My problem with this is that for the meaning of "desire" to be consistent across the two uses of the word, then a husband carries a great deal of responsibility for keeping his wife from becoming bitchy in her second-position role, just as Cain would be expected to behave in a way that would keep Abel from becoming jealous in his second-born status. Actually, there are some major advantages for women if this were the case: If I am a crabby shrew, it's my husband's fault! And yes, when a woman is not feeling loved, there's a strong impulse to move in that direction, so a husband certainly does have an obligation to communicate love toward his wife, however...
working our way around to its relevance to the Runaway Bride...
Cain's story may seem off-topic, but it was important to show how Sin's desire was a control issue, a desire to control. But God told Cain to man-up and rule over sin instead.
Similarly, when the woman fell into sin, along with that came a desire to control her husband. But God said that her husband would need to man-up and take some responsibility.
Throughout this blog, the Lessons have sprung primarily from the Bride, and to a lesser degree,her relationship with the Mother of the Bride. What has been barely touched on is the Father of the Bride. But having laid a foundation, it's time to have a look at the passiva pater.
In his book, The Anti-Theology of Jesus, Michael Berner writes:
With the seed of doubt sown, sin was inevitable. Eve ate the fruit and immediately shared her delight with Adam, who so blatantly violated the law of active obedience. Passivity always precedes sin.Even without any setup, the meaning is clear. If you are confused by the Law of Active Obedience, there is a parable for that; see footnote³. I used highlighter on "Passivity always precedes sin," because this is the point at which he utterly failed his daughter—and neither will admit it.
He let his wife, Gwen< run the household because ... who really knows? Because it was less work? Maybe. But based on KatieLyn's caving in to stop the fights with her mom, I'd guess that avoiding an argument was a more likely motive.
Katie's dad ought to have known God's will for his daughter. He ought to have actively stood up for GOD's WILL even though it meant (gasp) he would have to over-rule his wife on this one! But he didn't. Notice my very deliberate phrasing? The father ought to have found out God's will for his family and then actively obeyed it. I did not say that he needed to side with his daughter over his wife. Oh, I'm 99% sure that is how Gwen would have interpreted it because it would have looked that way to her. Once KatieLyn ran back home in the middle of the night, Gwen framed everything with us vs. them 'sides.' And she saw herself as the righteous victor who was noble enough to empathize pity on the loser.
The Lesson
It is about Control. And about refusing to take Control. KatieLyn's dad failed to be a father to her. He did not protect her from missing God's will. He was like Adam in the Garden, just standing by and letting it happen. And there is a BIG POOL of men out there who have NO IDEA that they are going to be held accountable for the messes they never wanted to get involved in.
If feminists insist on comparing themselves to fish, then I submit that they do need bicycles to stay balanced. They are as far off the mark as KatieLyn's father because they are equally confused about what God's plan for them is - they get stuck on raging at the world because they feel stuck in the servant role, never realizing that God has progressive promotion in mind. servant > daughter > bride.
BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF GOD INTENDED THE FATHERS TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN!
AND EVERYBODY SUFFERS WHEN FATHERS ARE PASSIVE. Feminism would go away if fathers would start acting like competent, compassionate men. Occasionally you can find one who ran into the ditch on the other side of the road—yes, there are a few bully fathers out there, ut sooner or later they usually get called on it. Today's blog post is about the ones who sit there like a lump and make excuses, often excuses that blame others, for their failure to man up.
Upon reflection, we learned that KatieLyn was afraid of masculinity, and a heap of that blame gets owned by the Father of the Runaway Bride who rarely, if ever, showed her how that works.
Footnotes
¹ Quote Investigator
² Scripture is not specific as to whether Cain ever tried to figure out the real reason he was angry. If he did, we don't know how long he struggled with it, perhaps years. In the end, he came to the wrong solution. Here is where the Lord instructs Cain on the
And the Lord looked with favor upon Abel and his offering,³ The Parable of the Vintner's Sons — read it in Matthew 21:28-32 where the father has told his sons to go work in his vineyard. One says No, but later repents and does his work. The other son says Yes, but never shows up for work. When Jesus asks which son did the will of his father, the answer, obviously, is the one who responded in active obedience, not the one who said he would
but upon Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.
And Cain burned greatly with anger, and his face fell.
And the Lord said to Cain, “Why does it make you burn with anger,
and why has your face fallen? If you mean well,
will your face not be lifted up? And if you do not mean well,
at the door couches Sin. Toward you is his longing,
and it is you who must rule over him.”
