When reading a book about the life of St Thomas Moore, the thing that struck me most and which I will never forget is that his daughter was considered the most clever woman in England because she knew how to read; according to the book, she was the only woman in England who knew how to read. Thomas Moore instructed her as a kind of experiment: his friends looked on with great interest, and when it became clear that she was totally capable of reading, everyone was amazed.
This event pre dated feminism by at least a couple of hundred years: feminists cannot take credit for it-and actually, now that I think of it, feminism became a thing at around the same time, or shortly after large numbers of girls started being taught how to read. There is certainly a connection between women knowing how to read and feminism, but feminists did not, and could not have initiated the process of teaching women how to read. Men-some men, anyway-did that. And Thank God they did: Thank God for men like Thomas Moore. Where would we be without them?
On another thread, Hypatia asked me what I think of old fashioned feminism. The answer is, I agree with most of what the old fashioned feminists did, but I vehemently disagree with how they did it. There was a time in America when men always gained custody of the children after a divorce, regardless of the reason for the divorce or who wanted it. There was a time in America when the only option for most unmarried women was to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in a factory: if the unmarried woman was fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family, then she would be at the mercy of her closest male relative and his hopefully not resentful wife. Everybody knows that I could go on and on about how tough life was for women in the past. Thank God we don’t live in those times: living in a society where women have no or very few rights is no joke: feminism played a huge role in setting women free, and I am eternally grateful to them for that. Really I am.
But-But, But, But, But, But 🙂 I am even more grateful to men like Thomas Moore, because feminists didn’t and couldn’t have done it on their own. Feminists asked men to make incredible sacrifices, and eventually, men agreed to make incredible sacrifices. I am thankful to both feminists and men, but between the two groups, I am more thankful to men: I am more thankful to those who did the giving than I am to those who did the demanding. The first thing feminists should have done when they were given the right to vote was to thank the men who gave them the right to vote, and the thanking should continue forever, but as far as I know, it didn’t even happen once.
Both old time feminists and modern feminists seem to find it impossible to give men the credit they deserve, or to give them credit for anything, really. It is much easier to forgive old time feminists for this, because they lived in a much harsher world than we do, but the fact that they did not seem to overflow with gratitude towards the men who set them free is not in their favor, to my way of thinking. The way I feel about the suffragettes is similar, in a way, to how I feel about the Founding Fathers: they were great people who did incredible things. They were also flawed and maddening human beings who effed up some things up in a very big way. They should not be canonized, they should not be demonized either: they were the most brilliant people who have ever lived. We are the most fortunate people who have ever lived because we inherited what they created, and what they created was mostly very very good, but they also left behind a few messes for us to clean up, and that’s ok: that is life in the human race, and God knows we will leave at least a few messes for those who come after us to clean up. The suffragettes were not perfect angels, and that’s ok, as long as we realize that.
The problem is, a lot of people don’t. A hundred years after the 19th amendment, young women tell me that the suffragettes fought evil men to gain women’s rights, and won: they seriously believe that women defeated men. They seem to think that any woman who questions the original feminists-or any feminist-even a little is guilty of hating women and herself. It scares me that so many women have a view of reality that is so at odds with reality, and yes, it causes me to seriously question whether women ought to be voting. I don’t say that lightly: the idea of living in a society where women have no political power whatsoever and are totally at the mercy of men scares me out of my mind, but living in the world that feminists want to create scares me more.
In my perfect world, women would be able to vote, and they would do so with respect and gratitude towards the men who allow them to vote. No doubt, that describes a lot of women who are alive right now, but not enough of them. And even many conservative women remain totally silent about issues like affirmative action and women in combat-those issues don’t even seem to be on their radar, and that is a problem, because those two issues alone are destroying, or have the potential to destroy America. The feminists who are pushing both those issues are driving America off of a cliff. I don’t want to give up all political power, but I don’t want to be driven off of a cliff either. The 19th Amendment is not a suicide pact. America can easily survive without women voting: it is not at all clear that we can survive feminism in the long run. An America in which women couldn’t vote would never be my idea of a perfect world, but it would be a better world than the one that feminists want to create.
ST UnWoked & UnVaxxed! 
“America can easily survive without women voting: it is not at all clear that we can survive feminism in the long run.”
The more women vote the more America resembles a euro nanny-state. Girl Power!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The euro-nanny states only survive because America protects them: what happens if feminists get what they want and America can no longer protect the free world? I don’t want to know what happens then: I want feminism to be stopped before it gets to that point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I want feminism to be stopped before it gets to that point.”
The ‘seculars’ do not have the balls to stand up to them. Christians have been neutered. Thank you Jerry Falwell, Jr. very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know that the Catholic Church is hopeless when it comes to standing up to feminism, but I had hope that maybe Protestants would be more up to the task. What did Jerry Falwell Jr. do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He got fired from his day job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judy,
Presbyterians (Calvinists) simply ignore them and keep on working. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, I googled it. Jerry Falwell Jr. posted a photo of himself on instagram in which his pants were unbuttoned, his arm was around a woman who wasn’t his wife, and he was drinking alcohol. Part of me says, wow. The other part of me says, who cares?
Some ministers mess up: some of them are just out and out frauds. It’s always been that way, it always be, and what does any of that have to do with anything?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What does any of that have to do with anything? OMVVG gf! Repeat after me: Christians have been neutered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By who? By the leftists who worship Bill Clinton? Are you kidding? Christians are worried about being called hypocrites by the leftists who worship Bill Clinton? A couple of ministers here and there get caught with their pants down and all Christians are neutered by this? Why? How does that work?
I totally agree with you that Christians have been neutered, but they neutered themselves. Jerry Falwell Jr is not the problem: the problem is that most Christians see no real problem with radical feminism.
The good news is, Christians can un neuter themselves any time they want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus was the only perfect man. In today’s America if a Christian sins, he is a hypocrite. I say again, Christians have been neutered in the good ole US of A. I suppose a lot of them then just decide to hell with it all and give unto Caeser what is Caeser’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judy , it seems like you think “old time feminism” was a creation of magnanimous, enlightened men, and women should have waited around trying to beguile more and more concessions out of them. Maybe you’re saying the same thing I was saying about the Zeitgeist. As life became easier, childbirth less mortally perilous, and the need for a sex-based division of labor less pronounced, it would’ve occurred to humanity as a whole that there was no reason for women not to be educated and with that, no reason why they shouldn’t participate openly in public life. You say you don’t agree with “how” old time feminists accomplished their goals. In England, the suffragettes were domestic terrorists, , there’s no doubt about that. If they hadn’t done those reckless and violent acts, it’s hard now to imagine that women wouldn’t be voting today anyway, just in the course of human events. Possibly.:maybe even probably.
Right now though, we’re facing Social obliteration of the entire biological fact of sexual dimorphism. I read some commentator who compared it to apartheid, simply the idea that in our species everyone is born either as a man or a woman, with a penis or a vagina. It is now not only masculinity which is under assault, but femininity too.
And no I don’t think that is the fault of feminism. This is an attempt to obliterate individualism itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Judy , it seems like you think “old time feminism” was a creation of magnanimous, enlightened men, and women should have waited around trying to beguile more and more concessions out of them.”
Yes, I do think that when all is said and done, old time feminism was started by men. Women didn’t teach themselves to read.Female empowerment started with men. The men who originally lifted women up didn’t lift them up enough in most cases, but no matter: men are the ones who sparked feminism. Men are the ones who got the ball rolling.
I am not saying that women should have waited around trying to beguile men. In general, you do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but sometimes dishes need to be broken. More often, human beings -including myself -don’t say and do things in the most ideal way. I get that. I don’t hold it against the suffragettes at all that they broke a few dishes in the years leading up to the 19th amendment. I do hold it against them that they never thanked the men who gave them the right to vote. Even when most men voted to pass the 19th amendment, old time feminists continued to treat men like the enemy. 100 years later, after many more gains have been made, feminists continue to treat men like the enemy.
American men are the most magnanimous, enlightened men this planet has ever seen. Feminists have had 100 years to get over it and to thank the men who have given them everything they want. No feminist I have encountered has any intention of ever thanking men for anything. I cannot abide that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Im not sure what you two were getting at re Christianity, I wouldn’t defend the Church fir a moment, but: Jesus himself was very involved with women. All those Marys, starting with mom, Through Mary ‘n’ Martha, through the Marys at the foot of the Cross, through the Resurrection, where His first appearance is to Mary Magdalene. Plus, a woman is the only person who ever bests Jesus in an argument. It’s no wonder the Gnostics, who made no distinction based on people’s (corrupt, evil) physicality, had to be eradicated because of the completely equal role given to women in ministry.
I read somewhere that what drove John (the author of Revelation ) into that cave on Patmos was his horror about women actually preaching.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not sure what you are talking about here, Hypatia? My main beef with the Church-with all Christian Churches-is that they remain silent about women in combat. Lots of women’s issues, such as women preaching, aren’t a big deal. I wouldn’t get up early on a Sunday morning to hear a woman preach, but if somebody else wants to, that’s great. I don’t care. Live and let live, to each her own.
In my opinion, putting women in combat is even more egregious than abortion. Christians ought to be screaming their opposition from every rooftop. No one hears a peep from them. From what I can tell, most Christians are fully prepared to roll over and send their daughters into battle. I don’t think Jesus would do that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One hears that the 3 Abrahamic creeds are all patriarchal and anti-female. My point was, Christianity is NOT, if you look only at Jesus’ actual,words. He didn’t seem to care whether He was talking to a man or a woman, He was concerned with incorporeal souls, and souls do not have a gender (“In Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage”, f’rinstance. And in discussion the inviolability of the marriage bond, He gives a shoutout to eunuchs.):
So Judy I think you are saying Christianity should be vocal about women not becoming soldiers. I’m just saying I don’t think Jesus had anything to say about that. As I recall, some Jews came to Him and wanted Him to say they He was the Messiah, a military leader who would throw off the yoke of Rome, and He declined. He and his disciples obviously thought they’re were living in Earth’s last days and nothing mattered except staying outta jail so,they could spread the word.
What do you think: would Jesus have condemned Joan of Arc? The Catholic Church canonized her as a saint, didn’t it?
And Simon, you seemed to be saying Christianity has fallen from a time when men were men and women were women, with defined roles, into a genderless state: “neutered”. So I was just saying that at its inception, Christianity was remarkably gender-neutral. (This isn’t true for St Paul, and certainly, certainly! NOT of the Church as it morphed into the “Church Militant”.
We clear? Sorry if what I wrote turned out to be non-responsive to what you two were getting at. Please advise!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“What do you think: would Jesus have condemned Joan of Arc? The Catholic Church canonized her as a saint, didn’t it?”
According to Wikipedia’s entry on Joan of Arc:
“The extent of her actual military participation and leadership is a subject of debate among historians. On the one hand, Joan stated that she carried her banner in battle and had never killed anyone,[46] preferring her banner “forty times” better than a sword;[47] and the army was always directly commanded by a nobleman, such as the Duke of Alençon for example. On the other hand, many of these same noblemen stated that Joan had a profound effect on their decisions since they often accepted the advice she gave them, believing her advice was divinely inspired.[48] In either case, historians agree that the army enjoyed remarkable success during her brief time with it.[49]”
Joan of Arc was a farmer’s daughter and a peasant girl who managed to gain the king’s ear by correctly predicting the future. By her own account, she was never a soldier: she was a military adviser to the most powerful men in the land. Not the same thing, at all, as being a soldier. Not the same thing as a military commander, either. Joan of Arc gave advice. She did not give orders, and according to her, she never killed anyone.
According to Wikipedia, Joan started dressing like a soldier because she was traveling through enemy territory. The men she was with advised her to hide the fact that she was a woman by putting on armor and dressing like a soldier. It wasn’t her idea. Wikipedia never says it in so many words, but it seems safe to assume that the men who encouraged Joan to dress like a man were trying to protect her from being raped.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So Judy I think you are saying Christianity should be vocal about women not becoming soldiers. I’m just saying I don’t think Jesus had anything to say about that. As I recall, some Jews came to Him and wanted Him to say they He was the Messiah, a military leader who would throw off the yoke of Rome, and He declined. He and his disciples obviously thought they’re were living in Earth’s last days and nothing mattered except staying outta jail so,they could spread the word.”
Ok, a couple of things 🙂 First, Jesus’ disciples may have believed that they were living in Earth’s last days, but Jesus knew very well that He wasn’t. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus knew many things that He chose to remain silent about. I agree with you that Jesus probably would not have directly addressed the issue of women in combat, because as far as I know, He never directly addressed any political issue. There are a tiny number of Christians who take this to mean that Christians should stay out of politics and remain agnostic on political issues. Most Christians believe that we are morally obligated to be involved in politics. Jesus never said anything about abortion, but that doesn’t stop Christians from opposing it, as well we should.
To go back to Joan of Arc 🙂 It is a miracle that she wasn’t raped when she was captured. If we put young women on the front lines, we are handing our daughters over to the enemy to be raped. Young men can be raped too, and rape is an atrocity no matter the sex of the victim. It’s actually probably a lot worse for men than it is for women, but men don’t get pregnant. There is nothing our Islamic enemies would love more than making thousands of American girls pregnant with Muslim babies. Or at least, our enemies would claim that the babies were Muslim. This is a very bad idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Im not sure what you two were getting at re Christianity…”
I am confused by this. If you don’t mind, please help a brother to understand your point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See above( I hope)…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The way I feel about the suffragettes is similar, in a way, to how I feel about the Founding Fathers: they were great people who did incredible things.”
I agree and have certainly enjoyed your series on fems/suffragettes. Keep them coming; you have a devoted reader here. 🙂
One point however; my heroine Alice Paul was arrested by President Wilson’s secret service for protesting peacefully outside the WH for the women’s vote so I continue to ask:
Why is it that the Democrats who have endorsed slavery, Jim Crow and thrown suffragettes in jail are acclaimed as the great supporters of human rights?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much, Liz 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why is it that the Democrats who have endorsed slavery, Jim Crow and thrown suffragettes in jail are acclaimed as the great supporters of human rights?”
Because the democrats run the school system. They are intentionally keeping people ignorant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
O god, did you see that a buncha educators actually called for cancellation of any and all instruction in American history until It could be totally rewritten a la 1619 project?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“And Simon, you seemed to be saying Christianity has fallen from a time when men were men and women were women, with defined roles, into a genderless state: “neutered”. So I was just saying that at its inception, Christianity was remarkably gender-neutral.
Hypatia, I think we are talking past each other due to my ‘Christians are neutered’ comment. My meaning was simply that there are no longer any prominent Christians such as Oral Roberts, Aimee Semple McPherson, and Billy Graham who have influence nationally. I do believe that most of this is due to the rise of televangelism of the Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakker variety.
I did not mean to compare and contrast men to women. I mean Christian of all genders no longer have the moral high ground to take on the feminists from a ‘Biblical’ perspective and the anti-religious seculars are not interested in stopping 4th wave feminist nonsense.
I hope this comment of mine does not add to the confusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Add to the confusion?“ No worries! I think it was MY tangent, apparently not responsive to what either ST or JAC were saying, which was the 🤔factor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hypatia, if I may be so bold to speak for JAC as well as myself, you are right even when you are wrong.
☮️
LikeLiked by 2 people
S’cuz I choose truth over facts! (As Unca Joe would say..)
LikeLiked by 2 people
I totally agree with Simon. You really are right even when you are wrong, Hypatia 🙂
Apologies for not yet responding to comments today. I am at my Mom’s, on the cell phone, and it just isn’t conducive to deep conversation. I will weigh in more when I get home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Presbyterians (Calvinists) simply ignore them and keep on working.”
ST Unleashed! Comment of the Quarter!
I love the honest contempt and simplicity of this attitude towards feminists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This reminds me of those Ur-Protestants in America, the Transcendentalists. Bronson Alcott tried to set up a utopian community,”Fruitlands”. He boasted that they did not exploit the labor of any animals. “He says there are no beasts of burden,” wrote poor exhausted Mrs. Alcott, “but there is ONE, and her name is: Woman!”
LikeLiked by 2 people