A brief history of Feminism
". . . ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16
Introduction
A couple of weeks ago I posted the first part of a study of the Feminist movement from a biblical perspective (The feminist revolution considered in the light of biblical teaching). There I asserted that Feminism was contrary to Christianity and had produced bad fruits.
Since the subject is far too complex to be dealt with in a single article, I would like to devote three or possibly even four more Substacks to this important religious and social topic.
My motive in doing this is not to change the world, turn back the clock, or make myself feel better by expressing my frustrations and resentments. Rather, my purpose is to exhort Christians who say they believe in the Bible, and want to live by the Bible, to give more heed to its teachings in this critical area. I want to encourage them – both men and women – to reject the false philosophies of the world so that we might have a deeper experience of Christ, and so that we might represent his truths more effectively to a world that is rapidly descending into ever deeper levels of sin and degradation.
There are many Bible verses on the subject of women that could be quoted, but just presenting some verses without adequate preparation or contextualization seems inadequate. This is not to deny that many Bible verses by themselves do have the power to communicate truth effectively – and, yes, there is such a thing as truth – but there are also times when some groundwork needs to be laid. For example, in the beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul does not simply state the fact of the sinfulness of fallen human nature, but also gives a lengthy catalogue of human sins to show what that really means.
Thus, before I make some assertions that Feminism is contrary to scriptural Christianity, and that the failure to recognize this has been detrimental to the cause of Christ, I feel that some background information should be given.
To that end, I would first like to present a general overview of the origins and development of the Feminist Revolution – and it truly is a revolution. This revolution has not been achieved by fighting on the barricades or by dramatic battles with men fighting against women in deadly combat. It has rather been achieved by a slow and gradual but rapidly increasing spiritual revolution – a process that has resulted in dramatic and far-reaching changes in every area of life.
To demonstrate this process, I would like to first briefly review the status of women in 17th century England. Having done that, we can then consider the status of women (also briefly) in ancient Greece and Rome, and in the Old and New Testament eras (the substance of this week’s cogitations). Then, next week – God willing – we can fast forward to the first stirrings of modern Feminism in the French Revolution, and in England in the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft. This will be followed by an examination of the changing roles of women in the Victorian era. It was then that the growing Industrial Revolution provided the necessary conditions for the ascent of Feminism – “the Woman Question” as it was then called – to a central position among the great social issues of the day.
From thence, we will consider the bifurcation of feminism into two main streams: first, democratic liberal Feminism, which sought more rights for women within the existing system, and second, radical left-wing revolutionary Feminism, which sought to emancipate women through the destruction of capitalism, and the abolition of conventional moral restrictions as well.
Possibly, by studying other times, we can more thoroughly understand our own.
Women in 17th-century England
Some years ago I came across a general cultural history of England in this period. I no longer remember the title or the author’s name, or its exact contents. I suppose it had chapters on the economy, the literature, and the domestic and foreign politics of that era. It also had an entire chapter devoted to women – and this was written in the old days, and was intended as a factual historical description of the way life actually was back then, not as a platform for modern feminist propagandizing.
Not being particularly interested in women’s studies of any sort, I approached the chapter dutifully, but with no great interest. To my surprise, however, I found it to be one of the most interesting chapters of the book. It literally caused me to see our own time in a different light, at least with regard to the Woman Question.
(1) To begin with, the 17th century preceded the industrial revolution. Therefore, while that period was closer to us chronologically, it was in significant ways much closer spiritually to the ancient world than to our own day. One particularly significant aspect of that is, that nearly all of the jobs that today’s women rely on to establish their independence and their social equality with men did not even exist.
The modern industrial system had not yet been invented. Today’s plenteous jobs in communication, education, government, manufacturing, advertising, medicine, entertainment, tourism and travel did not even exist. Women did not occupy themselves with traditionally masculine professions, and occasional women rulers such as Queens Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne came into their positions by birth. Theatrical openings were limited were limited or non-existent, at least until the restoration in 1660, and even then were frowned upon as not suitable for decent women. Hence, the vast majority of women saw marriage and family as the natural choice and outlet for their human aspirations.
This was not because of any oppressive patriarchy. Both men and women wanted and needed children, and marriage was considered to be the normal, natural, right and acceptable thing for a woman to do. There was no modern birth control, and people typically just took children as they came. Because of the higher rates of infant mortality, and shorter longevity for people in general, more children were welcomed and desired.
Once there were children, it was rational, logical and normal for the mothers to stay at home and take care of them. That the men should support the family by their work outside the home, while the women supported the family by their work inside the home was considered, quite simply, to be just the way things were. Moreover, this was the case throughout human history in all areas of the world (allowing for odd exceptions). Women were, after all, biologically suited for child bearing and child nurturing – and a woman who devoted her life to home and family was not considered, in old age, to have wasted her life. It was the ordinary, normal thing to do.
Several points have to be made for clarification. (1) Running a home in the 17th century was not an easy task. All of the advanced labor saving devices we rely on did not exist. Many things had to be done by hand, and there were many basic survival skills such as making soap and candles and even herbal medicines that are largely lost today. It was hard, demanding and essential work – and there were also women who could afford servants (though that became more common with the advanced wealth of the Victorian era).
(2) Also, it should be pointed out that there were many small scale opportunities for work apart from homemaking. Individual poultry and animal husbandry was much more common, and women would have ample opportunities to supplement the family income in local markets. Women who were skillful in collecting herbs or some handicraft would be able to put those skills to use. Women could also assist in the management of local inns (the evangelist George Whitefield helped his mother run an inn after her husband’s death). So, it was by no means a situation in which women were confined exclusively to the home. They could also be involved in agricultural work.
(3) Childbirth was also harder and more dangerous for women in those days, and yet that, too, was accepted as a part of life that women were go through for the sake of children. So life was in many ways harder for women, but life was not exactly a piece of cake for the men either. Many men did hard manual work of various sorts for minimal pay, and where there were successful lawyers, merchants or politicians, their wives were sure to benefit.
When we consider the art, literature and social history of that period, we don’t see a lot of suicide, mental illness, or people dying in the streets of hunger. There were of course none of the many extensive welfare programs we have today, and people were compelled to sink or swim. Mostly, they swam, with the help of the local church, and community and family ties.
The purpose of all this is not to look back nostalgically on the good old days. It is only to describe factually (if superficially) a very different system of values than what we see today. This, moreover, was in many ways similar to what we see in the ancient world.
Women in the ancient worlds of Greece and Rome
Some Christian feminists (both male and female) seem to have the idea that Jesus Christ came to earth (at least in part) to emancipate women. They claim that before the advent of Christ women were non-persons, scarcely even human beings, and then Christ elevated them to new positions of dignity and self-respect. But that is very far from the case. Aristotle may have referred to women as defective men, but not everyone in the ancient world was an Aristotelian philosopher. The Greeks and the Romans, both men and women, placed a high value on having children. Women were the only ones who could bear and nurture them, so it was normal for them to be focused on that task, but there is ample evidence in ancient literature that men had natural affection for their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters.
The Greek philosopher and historian Plutarch wrote a treatise In Consolation to his Wife to comfort her in her grief over their daughter’s death. The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero also expressed grief over the death of his daughter in the introduction to his famous work On the Nature of the Gods. The epic poems of Virgil and Homer assign major parts to serious and believable women characters, and women frequently appear in Greek tragedies (one thinks of Antigone, Iphigenia, Medea and Electra). Seneca also refers to women in Roman history (Octavia, Livia and Lucretia), and wrote a serious treatise to his mother as an educated reader with a refined intellect.
Yet, it was very much a man’s world, and the great majority of women occupied their traditional roles – and again, this was not the result of patriarchal repression. Children were wanted and needed, and raising them was considered to be a useful and important work – one with many spiritual, psychological and emotional rewards.
There is real beauty in the divinely appointed scheme of a man and a woman joining themselves to each other for life; bringing new life into the world; nurturing, caring for and training that new life; and having faithful and loyal children and grandchildren to support and honor them in old age.
Unfortunately, sinful human nature being what it is, not all marriages were successful. There were cold, unloving, absent or even harsh husbands; there were unfaithful women too, like the villainous Queen Clytemnestra in the play by Aeschylus. She was unfaithful to her husband Agamemnon, and conspired with her lover to have Agamemnon murdered.
There was, has been and will be much evil in the world, but still, the family unit of husband, wife and children – hopefully with a supporting network of extended family – is the ideal. For thousands of years, in countless different societies, it has also been the general norm. When we reject that norm – which is in fact God’s norm, designed for our benefit – when we despise it, and trample it underfoot, and seek to replace it with hopelessly inadequate substitutes, then we get the social chaos that we see engulfing our own societies.
Women in the Old Testament
When we come to the Old Testament era, we find a very similar situation. Children were wanted and needed, and since the men could not bear them and nurture them, and since life outside the home was often physically demanding and difficult, the result was inevitable. In the months preceding childbirth women would also be in a very vulnerable position, necessarily relying on men for security and protection.
Once again, in the Old Testament period as in ancient Greece and Rome, as in 17th-century England, and in many different cultures at various times all over the world, we see clear divisions between masculine and feminine roles and appearances. This was the natural and healthy result of innate, divinely created differences between men and women, and not the result of the imaginary patriarchy of hostile, angry and bitter feminists.
In the Old Testament narratives, however, we do not find that women were despised as nothing. On the contrary, we find many evidences that men had natural feeling for the female members of their families. When Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, was raped, her brothers were so furious that they not only killed the man who did it, they wiped out the entire village (an act of excessive wrath that was condemned by Jacob).
Isaac mourned his mother Sarah’s death, and took comfort in his wife Rebekah. When Naomi returned from Moab after the death of her husband Elimelech, the city of Bethlehem knew of it. Her daughter-in-law Ruth was publicly known as a righteous woman and praised as such by her future husband.
The story of Esther is well known, as are the narratives of Hannah, the mother of Samuel the prophet, and of Abigail, the wise wife of the foolish man Nabal. And, there are women villains too, like King Ahab’s wife Jezebel, and the wicked queen Athalia. We even read of ordinary women taking part in combat, like the woman in the besieged city of Thebez who threw a stone from the top of a wall and broke the skull of Abimelech (Judges 9).
I suppose the men and the women of that day were in many ways considerably tougher than many people of today, given the simplicity of their lives and the daily rigors they had to endure. Because greater physical strength was required in many areas of activity – building, carpentry, warfare, travel and architecture – it was only natural that the men and women should gravitate into different fields of activity. So, the Old Testament is in no sense a feminist manual. Clear distinctions between men and women were maintained. For example, only men could be priests – but men from one tribe only, the Levites. Thus, many men were also automatically excluded from birth by that position. All of the prophets were men, and we read much about Moses, David and Abraham, but little about their wives. There are references to Sarah, Zipporah, Rachel and Leah and others, but we do not read that Moses got his wife’s permission to return to Egypt or made her a partner in his ministry.
Deborah was a rare exception, but even she was not appointed by God to lead troops into battle. A man, Barak, was necessary for that task. Still, while Deborah was appointed as a unique exception to fill a divinely appointed role (not a self-chosen role), her example should not be used to undermine or supersede New Testament teachings about women in leadership.
In the same chapter as Deborah we read about Jael, the woman who assassinated a fleeing enemy of Israel while he was sleeping in her tent (Judges 4). This example does not give Christians in the New Testament age to kill the enemies of the church. The Old Testament has many wonderful teachings, but we have a fuller revelation in Christ and the New Testament.
Women in the New Testament
The situation of women in the New Testament was not essentially different from what we have seen up to this point. The traditional gender roles were very much intact, and attempts by women to take on masculine roles such as we see today were unknown.
Again, this does not mean that women were non-entities. When Jesus asked the Samaritan woman to give him a drink from the well, she wondered how it was that he, a Jew, would ask for a drink from a Samaritan. Her mind was on the Jewish/Samaritan divide, not on male/female distinctions. Then, when the woman went into the city and told the men what had occurred, they were interested in what she said and went to see the man she was talking about. They did not ignore her because as a woman she was considered to be a non-person. When Christ went to heal the ruler’s daughter there was a crowd of people mourning her death (Matthew 9). She was surely important to her family, and to their friends and acquaintances.
Sometimes a rabbinic prayer is quoted in which thanks is given for not having been born a woman, yet we read in Luke 18 of a Pharisee who gave thanks to God that he was not like other men. The strictness of the Pharisees was by no means representative of the entire culture of that place and time.
There are a couple of godly women mentioned in the New Testament who, as far as I can see, do not enter into contemporary discourses on the roles of women according to Scripture. One of them is the aged prophetess in the gospel of Luke - Anna, the daughter of Phanuel. She had lived with her husband seven years, and been a widow for 84 years, which means she was well over 100. When she entered into the temple where the baby Jesus was, she knew him, and spoke of him to all those who were waiting for God’s redemption of Israel.
Anna was a deeply spiritual woman, and a certified prophetess, but she only served God with fastings and prayers in the temple, and so is not considered a suitable role model for ambitious young Christian women today.
The same could be said of Dorcas in Acts 9. Seven verses are given to her story – more, if I am not mistaken, than to any other woman in the book of Acts. She was raised from the dead in a miracle that was known throughout the entire city, and at her death she was mourned by many – but she did not have a spectacular leadership ministry. All that she did – apart from believing in God – was to make clothing for the poor. That was no small thing back in the days when there were no government welfare programs and you could not get cheaply made Chinese shirts in Walmart – but again, she is not considered an icon of Christian feminism. She was, humanly speaking, just an ordinary woman.
Similarly, concerning the Virgin Mary, there is no evidence that she was ever anything more than a wife and a mother after the birth of Christ. She is was and is greatly honored, but what made her truly significant were her spiritual qualities of faith, love, holiness and obedience. Such qualities are not much valued these days and have nothing to do with modern feminism.
Some women in the New Testament have been used to unjustifiably advance the cause of women’s liberation. For example, the fact that women were the first to come to Christ’s tomb has often been used to show the superior faith and courage of the women. The fact that they went in unbelief, expecting to find the dead body of Jesus, and hence were not strong in faith at all, is somehow overlooked.
It should also be mentioned that if Christ had revealed himself first to Peter or to John, there would have been irresistible temptations to use that for self-glorification. But, by revealing himself to women first, who occupied a less commanding position in the Christian community, Christ removed all occasion for human glorying in anything other than himself.
There are some specific verses about women in marriage and in the church, but they require more careful examination. I hope to do that later in this series. For the present, it suffices to say that we find nothing in the New Testament that fits the agenda of modern feminism, except for the oft-quoted passage in Galatians 3:28:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This teaches something very different from current ideas of unisex. First, it applies to people who are in Christ, and many people are not in Christ. Secondly, when it comes to masters and servants (“bond and free”), we find from instructions elsewhere in Paul’s letters that their relationship has not been dissolved or erased in Christ, to the extent that the masters take on servants’ roles and do servants’ work, and the servants or slaves assume their masters’ positions. The traditional places are maintained, but humanized by Christian love and charity. The same is true of relationships between the genders.
Significantly, the male/female dichotomy is omitted from a similar passage in Colossians 3:11. There the spiritual unity of different groups is referred to (Jew and Greek, bond and free, circumcision or uncircumcision), omitting the male/category. So, that is important, but not of primary importance.
[These and other related topics are discussed in much greater depth in my self-published book Against Feminism: The Worldly Movement of Women's Liberation in the Light of Scripture. https://books2read.com/b/against-feminism. I don’t know if there is a stigma in some quarters against self-publishing, but I do not believe there is a Christian publisher that would be willing to publish a book that asserts that Feminism is a modern error, and that the apostle Paul’s teachings on women in the home and in the church reflect God’s will and purpose for us today.]
From the book description:
This careful analysis of women in the Old and New Testaments reveals something very far from modern ideas of unisex and role reversal, first advocated by open opponents of Christianity. Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, Betty Friedan - their and others' teachings are studied and found to be very far from the cross and from the straight and narrow way of Jesus Christ.
Biblical Christianity offers women what the world does not see or know: forgiveness of sins; the Spirit of God; a constructive life of service to Christ (whether inside our outside of marriage); and eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. He says to those in the Church: "The world offers something very different - let's not make the wrong choice."
First of all, let me say I hope your book AGAINST FEMINISM is a terrific success.
Of course, like a sex mad salmon fighting his way past Grizzley Bears and up waterfalls, the current is not in your favor.
While I enjoyed A brief history of Feminism and found it thought-provoking, some of the thoughts it provoked were unsettling. Is Christianity the most patriarchal and bigoted religion in the world? Yes, stability requires that people know their place in society and that we don't rock the boat; but the Western world is on a oarless raft about to hit the rapids.
Two thoughts: (1) "Sometimes a rabbinic prayer is quoted in which thanks is given for not having been born a woman, yet we read in Luke 18 of a Pharisee who gave thanks to God that he was not like other men. " I don't know if you added this as a joke; but clearly it has nothing to do with sexuality.
(2) The "war" between men and women is recorded in the book of Genesis and history tells of a tribe of Amazons who dominated Turkey and the Steppes centuries ago. C.G. Jung writes of the anima and the animus and how all of us have male and female traits. It is a battle taking place within all of us and not even praying to Mary the mother of God will stop the turmoil. It is simply a fact of life. Like getting cancer.
The struggle for power is the basis of human psychology. The United Methodist Church ordains female pastors and the Catholic church (searching in vain for young men not addicted to Porn Hub) has recruited nuns to take up the duties of their self-flagellating brothers.
Ironically, those who have been fighting for women's rights since the early sixties have now been erased by the perverts who believe women are just men without dicks.