I have a feminist family member who sent me an article about misogynist views of early Church Fathers. How do I answer them? I know that the Catholic Church values women and I know that just because someone is a Church Father, it doesn’t make them infallible. But how should I answer them? I personally do not understand idealists who get impatient towards people for not being imperfect. Thoughts?
I have yet to see one thing from the Church that truly shows misogynist views. I believe that most of the supposed misogynist attitudes of society from the time before Christ until 19th century are really due to feminists viewing prior conditions and viewing them through the conditions for women today.
Technology has GREATLY changed the role of women.
For example: unless the family was wealthy and had servants / slaves, women spent the entire day running the household. They would raise the children, kill the food, prep the food for cooking, clean the house, etc. This would last all day. Preparing dinner used to take several hours each day. Not to mention they were (unless they had already gone through menopause) were often pregnant.
Now some feminists would be “see, they were being kept at home to be baby factories!” But the truth is that (1) there was no contraception (2) understandings of NFP was limited or non existent (3) plus economics often dictated that the more children the better.
Unlike industrial and service based economies, in agricultural economies (which was pretty much the whole world before the industrial revolution) the more kids you have the better. Kids would help around the house and help take care of the animals, go hunting, raise crops, etc. And if you lived in a town, they could go out and make money for the family.
Plus the mortality rate for children was pretty high. Many families lost children to disease, etc. So while the mother wasn’t conscientiously replacing dead children, in a way the were.
Then, not to mention there was no baby formula. So if a mother wasn’t pregnant, she may have been nursing. Only rich families with servants or slaves had wet nurses.
So: if a women were often pregnant and/or often nursing it would make economic sense for her to work around the house while the husband was out in the farm or doing physical labor. A pregnant woman simply could not be expected to preform hard, physical labor. She would lose the baby. So the man going out to work and the woman staying home was a pure product of biology.
Enter the 20th Century: What changed? Refrigerators meant that food could be stored longer. Electric & Gas Ovens and stoves meant that cooking over a fire was WAY easier, you didn’t need to work at keep a fire going with wood. Neighborhood delis and grocery stores made food a lot easier (plus easier to get to because of cars!). Mandatory schooling for children. The invention of baby formula. Washing Machines and Dryers… Dishwashers too!
All of these things changed the requirements of women’s job at home. It was no longer as rigorous as it once was. PLUS, as society became more industrial and service based, it started to become more economical to have less children. So if a woman only had two kids who were in school all day and it only took her 45 minutes or less to cook dinner… and could keep the house clean by investing 15-20 minutes each day at minor cleaning touch ups… and maybe 1 or 2 hours a week doing laundry (which used to take a few hours each day).
The role of a woman at home changed DRASTICALLY. And I personally believe that Hollywood of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s embellished the “misogynist” of the past due to the very real misogynist views of the early and mid 20th century, which I believe came about because women were not busting their butts has hard as they used to in the centuries before due to the new technologies. So in the 20th century, women were seen as frail and fairer, probably more more so than ever before.
Finally, what about voting? Well, let’s keep a few things in mind:
- voting is pretty much a modern re-invention.
- when American was founded, only property owners were allowed to vote, so there were many men (slave or not) who could not vote
- in the grand scheme of history, American women received the right to vote within one lifetime of freed slaves and in reality were voting before many Black men in the south.
- I think it’s also makes sense that women received the right to vote once technology had already begun to make their lives easier, where they began to have time to think about issues outside the home. Without the new technology, only rich women would have time to think about issues outside the home. The rest were too busy being mothers and running their homesteads.
I don’t think there is one single thing that took place before the 20th century that can’t be explained based on the truths of how hard life used to be. Were there abuses, of course. There will always be abuse, we are a fallen people. But does that mean that society used to be misogynist? Nope.
I pray this is helpful.
BTW - to any feminists out there: I have no problem with women working. I have no problem with women making more money then men, etc. The only thing I have issue with is when mothers AND/OR fathers put material wealth, status and possessions before the well being of their children. Does that mean that one parent should stay home? No. Both parents can work and still do a great job as parents. But each family is different. Some can do it and some can’t. So don’t judge my wife because she says home (I actually wanted her to keep working, but it was her choice to stay home when my oldest child was born)
God Bless!
And certainly JP2’s Theology of the Body speaks with very high praise of womanhood and the mutual companionship and relation of men and women.