John C. Wright: Women Must ‘Obey’ Their Husbands Because Men Are Christ-Like

The 1940s called. They want their knuckledragging sexism back.

The 1940s called. They want their knuckledragging sexism back.

Who the hell is John C. Wright? I don’t know but apparently he’s a semi-famous science fiction author. According to Publishers Weekly, he “may be this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” Apparently he’s also a complete and total right wing douchebag and a perfect example of the right’s war on women.

What would prompt me to say such a thing? One of his recent blog posts (that I came across on Pharyngula) spelled out exactly how the religious right views women:

For her part, she must vow to love and honor and obey.

And if you do not understand about that obey part, you do not understand women. She wants a leader, an alpha male, a chief, a Christ, and you must be willing to die for her as Christ was willing to die for you, or she will not feel secure in your love. If she does not swear to obey, you are not a couple, not a dyad, not a unit, but are still two sovereigns dealing with each other at arm’s length, not intimate, and she cannot trust you fully, cannot love you fully, not with a divine and self-sacrificing love. And she knows you don’t love her fully, not with a love that is more than madness, more than sense, more than the universe.

I beg to differ. I know almost no women who want to be meekly led by an “alpha male.” Maybe I just tend to surround myself with strong willed women because passivity annoys me. But maybe, just maybe, women are not the sheep that Wright thinks they should be.

Wright’s Neanderthal view of gender is hardly atypical for conservatives and is the core of the right’s war on women’s rights. The idea that women should be equal to men in our society is terrifying to them. The reasons for this are numerous and a topic for another time but the fact remains that the right, especially the religious right, is openly hostile to progress for women.

This is never more apparent than when Wright discusses sex. Spoiler alert! Sex is only for the purpose of having children (bet you didn’t see that coming!):

That is it. That is the secret. Sex is ordered toward marriage and children. Romance starting with the corniest wine and roses, dances and poetry and full moons and flowers, leads through the chapel and white gown of marriage to the wedding bower, and when you set about to fill the nursery. When you use it as sex is meant to be used, as, logically, the only way it can be used, it opens up all its treasure hordes of pleasure for you.

I have heard this now from dozens of married couples. You bachelors are screwed, and you couples who want no kids. Your love-lives are second-rate, cheap copies, and pathetic compared to what we have.

That is the pure contempt for other lifestyles that can only be achieved by the profoundly arrogant. I would pay good money to know if his wife uses birth control now that she’s had 4 kids and is in at least her 40s (Wright is 53). Will they stop having sex when she reaches menopause? After, it’s illogical to have sex if she can’t get pregnant. Perhaps Wright will take a younger mistress so he can keep having fruitful sex. It wouldn’t surprise me. The most pious are often the most hypocritical.

The idea that people, particularly women, can have sex without consequence drives pigs like Wright absolutely insane. You are going against the will of God by having the pleasure without the unwanted burden! This is the real reason they oppose abortion. Further, even if they managed to outlaw abortion, they would immediately pivot to trying to outlaw contraceptives.

It’s important to remember that before the Supreme Court made abortion legal in Roe v. Wade, religious conservatives spent all of their time trying to make contraceptives illegal again. Before 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut decision, married couples were not allowed to use contraceptives of any kind. It took another 7 years for contraceptives to be made legal for everyone regardless of their marital status (Baird v. Eisentadt, 1972). The religious right never got over this affront to their world view and they’re still trying to put sex and women back in their place today.

 This article was originally posted at