The following is the text of the comments I read to accompany my PowerPoint presentation.
Below the notes is a document containing a more extensive discussion of this topic.
Greetings. Tonight I’m going to be speaking briefly about selected topics in relation to
freethought and feminism. Before I begin, I’d like to define freethought for those unfamiliar
with the movement. Freethought is basically the philosophical standpoint that decisions
should be made on the basis of rational processes such as science and reason, not
irrational ones like tradition and religion. Freethought is generally associated with non-theistic
groups such as atheists and agnostics, though it is not exclusive to these groups.
In the first section, I am interested in exploring the role that freethought played in the early
feminist movement. Many of the early feminists shared ideas with the freethought movement.
Prominent among them was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who made the following remarks at the
1885 meeting of the National Association for Women’s Suffrage.
You may go over the world and you will find that every form of religion which has breathed upon this earth has degraded woman…. What power is it that makes the Hindoo woman burn herself upon the funeral pyre of her husband? Her religion. What holds the Turkish woman in the harem? Her religion. By what power do the Mormons perpetuate their system of polygamy? By their religion. Man, of himself, could not do this; but when he declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ of course he can do it. -Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1885
Continuing her criticism of religion, in 1895 she began publication of The Women’s Bible, an
exhaustive work of biblical scholarship in which she dissected the sexism in the Bible. Such
criticisms are well grounded in Christian scripture.
In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we learn of the Bible’s rather disturbing answer to rape: have the
rapist and raped marry each other. The woman’s opinion of the union is of no concern.
In this verse we learn of the Apostle Paul’s decidedly un-feminist attitude towards a woman’s
participation in public religious life.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-5
Earlier in this course we learnt of the role that homophobia plays in supporting patriarchy.
Pharr attempted to acquit the Bible of supporting homophobia, arguing that the word
“homosexual” does not appear in the text. This is a rather disingenuous argument, for
while true, it ignores the fact that homosexual activities clearly are referenced, as seen
in this passage.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13
Pharr may attempt to say that the passage is being misinterpreted or mistranslated.
Perhaps, but given the evidence of Jewish law from the time, it appears likely that the
psychopath who wrote this passage probably meant exactly what he appears to.
In the next passage we see the emphasis placed on obeying the parents. Control of
children is an important element in patriarchy.
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Deuteronomy 21: 18-21
Of course, Stanton’s arguments encompassed more than just the literal text of
religious scriptures, but also the practices of religions in the real world. For an
example of the harm religion can do to women, I ask that you follow the link here
to a recording of Irish singer Christy Moore’s Magdalene Laundries:
As Moore explains, the Magdalene Laundries were institutions in which the
Catholic Church would virtually imprison and enslave young women seen as
threatening the moral fabric of society. Would anyone like to guess what year
the last such institution in Ireland closed?
Unfortunately for Stanton, her criticisms of religion brought her into conflict with
Susan B. Anthony, who shared many of her views, but felt that if women’s suffrage
were to be achieved, it was necessary for secular feminist organizations like their
NAWS to form alliances with religious women’s movements, such as the Women’s
Christian Temperance Movement. As time went on, the aging Stanton came to be
increasingly marginalized within the suffragist cause, betrayed by the movement
she had been so instrumental in forming.
Another early feminist who spoke out against the iniquities of religion was Ernestine
L. Rose. As an atheist feminist of Polish Jewish ethnicity, Rose was practically a study
in intersectionality in 19th century America. She was quite well known in her own time
as a leading feminist speaker and close friend to Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A typical
example of her rhetoric is the following passage concerning the indoctrination of children
into religious beliefs, a common practice in religious households.
“… a child may be made to believe a falsehood and die in support of it, and therefore
there can be no merit in a [mere] belief. We find in the various sects in Christendom,
among the Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in fact, throughout the entire world, that
children are made to believe in the creed in which they are brought up …”
Ernestine L. Rose, 1853
Following her death, Rose became a largely forgotten figure. The reasons for this are
two-fold. Although civil rights activism would become a common pursuit of secular Jews
in the 20th century, in the late 19th century American Jews were by and large wary of
political activism, lest they jeopardize their position in an unusually tolerant society. For
this reason, the Jewish community of the time did not see her as (quote) a credit to the
Hebrew race (unquote), and Jewish archivists made little effort to preserve her memory.
The 19th century suffragist movement was also wary of how an association with the
atheist Rose could affect its ability to form alliances with Christian suffragists, and so
feminist historians working after her death largely ignored her. Like Stanton, for being a
freethinker she was betrayed by the movement she had devoted herself to.
For the second section of my talk I’ll be exploring how women were viewed within the late
19th century freethought movement. The fundamental problem for the freethought movement
was the observation that women made up the bulk of the church-going public, and hence
appeared to display a greater propensity for irrational behavior, clearly rational woman like
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine L. Rose notwithstanding.
To explain the perceived greater irrationality of woman, two primary camps arose within the
freethought movement. One camp, the biological determinists, held that woman were inherently
predisposed towards irrationality due to largely immutable biological factors. In an age of rising
interest in genetics, it is easy to see the appeal of such thinking. The opposing camp, the historical
constructionists, held that female irrationality was the result of traditions of social conditioning
going back centuries. In essence, the social constructionists were proposing a notion of gender
as socially constructed, in which thinking they were ahead of their time. The debates between the
two camps raged through freethought publications with social constructionists having largely won
by the close of the century. With social constructionists triumphant, the consensus view within
freethought evolved towards seeing women as an oppressed group deserving of justice.
The application of this consensus to contemporary political challenges, though, was often a
thorny matter for postbellum freethinkers, as illustrated in the rancorous freethinker debates
over women’s suffrage. As a means towards granting women the justice they deserved, it seemed
that the pro-suffragist standpoint would be the obvious viewpoint for freethinkers, were it not for the
problem of the greater religiosity of 19th century women in relation to men. Simply put, women’s
suffrage was seen as a threat to the separation of church and state, a vital pillar in maintaining the
freedom and safety of freethinkers. The fact that the WCTU acted as a key ally of suffragist organizations
only acted to augment such fears. The 19th century equivalent of such organizations as Moral Majority or
Focus on the (Patriarch’s) Family, the WCTU advocated not only prohibition of alcohol, but also mandatory
Sabbath observance and censorship of “immoral” literature. As the largest women’s organization of the late
19th century, the WCTU was seen by many freethinkers as a harbinger of the dangers of women’s suffrage.
To fully appreciate the degree of anxiety for freethinkers, one should remember that the Comstock laws
banning “obscene” materials were frequently used as a pretext for the arrest and imprisonment of freethought
leaders, that atheists were unable to testify in court in several states, and that several states had blasphemy
laws (never mind the clear First Amendment violation). Given such an environment, some freethinkers saw
women’s suffrage as literally endangering their lives.
The tensions of the freethought community are perhaps best illustrated by those female freethinkers who
found themselves torn between their interests as women and their interests as freethinkers.
“I am a woman and long to be recognized as man’s equal. I want to help make the laws that govern me. Before me I see the opportunity of gaining my desires, but right at the polls is a serpent ready to crush me in its deadly coils; that serpent is religion. I am willing to remain minus my right to vote yet a little longer to escape a greater evil.” Mrs. R.H. Schwartz, 1894
Nevertheless, as the debates on women’s suffrage wore on, a clear majority of freethinkers came to believe
that whatever the danger to the separation of church and state, the continued denial of women’s suffrage
represented an intolerable injustice to women. Some optimistic freethinkers even proposed that increased
political participation might lead more American women to free themselves of the church, although they
conceded that the initial impact of women’s enfranchisement would likely be detrimental to secularism.
1894 American Secular Union resolution: “the Freethinkers of America are committed to the emancipation
of woman from the bondage, degradation, and infamy imposed upon her by the barbarous theologies of a
past age, and would endow her with every right possessed by any human being.
It is a great credit to the integrity and principles of the freethought movement that its members resolved to
support women’s suffrage despite the risks it created for their own well-being.
In the two sections on this lecture we saw a recurring theme within relations between oppressed
groups: concerns within a group about how supporting another group’s cause may threaten their own.
Examples included the way the Jewish community turned its back on Ernestine Rose, the way the
feminist movement sought to downplay the role of atheists in its development, and the widespread
concerns within the freethought community that women’s suffrage would imperil their own rights and
possibly even their lives. Other examples abound in the history of various civil rights causes. One of the
more unfortunate aspects of suffragist history is the fact that some feminists employed racism in their
arguments, saying that it was unacceptable for America to grant the vote to black men while denying
it to white women. Ernestine L. Rose found that several of her feminist allies believed she should not
be granted citizenship on account of her Eastern European ethnicity, and saw their own enfranchisement
as a bulwark against the electoral influence of recent immigrants. Henry Stanton advocated the abolition
of slavery while avoiding any need to take a clear stand on women’s suffrage, as openly supporting it
might have undermined abolitionism. In all such cases it is tempting to pass judgment and condemnation,
but a humanistic approach requires that we confront the unfortunate fact that it can be very difficult to fully
support the struggles of one group against oppression when you yourself are in a position of vulnerability.
In closing, I would like to point out two books I encountered in my research that I believe are particularly
good explorations of the subjects I’ve discussed.
Before Thursday’s session I will be posting a more extensive exploration of the intersections and interactions
of freethought and feminism to the CarmenWiki site. My full bibliography will be contained in that document.
Below the notes is a document containing a more extensive discussion of this topic.
Greetings. Tonight I’m going to be speaking briefly about selected topics in relation to
freethought and feminism. Before I begin, I’d like to define freethought for those unfamiliar
with the movement. Freethought is basically the philosophical standpoint that decisions
should be made on the basis of rational processes such as science and reason, not
irrational ones like tradition and religion. Freethought is generally associated with non-theistic
groups such as atheists and agnostics, though it is not exclusive to these groups.
In the first section, I am interested in exploring the role that freethought played in the early
feminist movement. Many of the early feminists shared ideas with the freethought movement.
Prominent among them was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who made the following remarks at the
1885 meeting of the National Association for Women’s Suffrage.
You may go over the world and you will find that every form of religion which has breathed
upon this earth has degraded woman…. What power is it that makes the Hindoo woman burn
herself upon the funeral pyre of her husband? Her religion. What holds the Turkish woman in
the harem? Her religion. By what power do the Mormons perpetuate their system of polygamy?
By their religion. Man, of himself, could not do this; but when he declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’
of course he can do it.
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1885
Continuing her criticism of religion, in 1895 she began publication of The Women’s Bible, an
exhaustive work of biblical scholarship in which she dissected the sexism in the Bible. Such
criticisms are well grounded in Christian scripture.
In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we learn of the Bible’s rather disturbing answer to rape: have the
rapist and raped marry each other. The woman’s opinion of the union is of no concern.
In this verse we learn of the Apostle Paul’s decidedly un-feminist attitude towards a woman’s
participation in public religious life.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn
any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak
in the church.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-5
Earlier in this course we learnt of the role that homophobia plays in supporting patriarchy.
Pharr attempted to acquit the Bible of supporting homophobia, arguing that the word
“homosexual” does not appear in the text. This is a rather disingenuous argument, for
while true, it ignores the fact that homosexual activities clearly are referenced, as seen
in this passage.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Leviticus 20:13
Pharr may attempt to say that the passage is being misinterpreted or mistranslated.
Perhaps, but given the evidence of Jewish law from the time, it appears likely that the
psychopath who wrote this passage probably meant exactly what he appears to.
In the next passage we see the emphasis placed on obeying the parents. Control of
children is an important element in patriarchy.
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father,
or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken
unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto
the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders
of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he
die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21
Of course, Stanton’s arguments encompassed more than just the literal text of
religious scriptures, but also the practices of religions in the real world. For an
example of the harm religion can do to women, I ask that you follow the link here
to a recording of Irish singer Christy Moore’s Magdalene Laundries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubJ011RYy-I
Skip to 0.40 mark.
Lyrics: http://www.christymoore.com/lyrics_detail.php?id=119
As Moore explains, the Magdalene Laundries were institutions in which the
Catholic Church would virtually imprison and enslave young women seen as
threatening the moral fabric of society. Would anyone like to guess what year
the last such institution in Ireland closed?
Unfortunately for Stanton, her criticisms of religion brought her into conflict with
Susan B. Anthony, who shared many of her views, but felt that if women’s suffrage
were to be achieved, it was necessary for secular feminist organizations like their
NAWS to form alliances with religious women’s movements, such as the Women’s
Christian Temperance Movement. As time went on, the aging Stanton came to be
increasingly marginalized within the suffragist cause, betrayed by the movement
she had been so instrumental in forming.
Another early feminist who spoke out against the iniquities of religion was Ernestine
L. Rose. As an atheist feminist of Polish Jewish ethnicity, Rose was practically a study
in intersectionality in 19th century America. She was quite well known in her own time
as a leading feminist speaker and close friend to Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A typical
example of her rhetoric is the following passage concerning the indoctrination of children
into religious beliefs, a common practice in religious households.
“… a child may be made to believe a falsehood and die in support of it, and therefore
there can be no merit in a [mere] belief. We find in the various sects in Christendom,
among the Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in fact, throughout the entire world, that
children are made to believe in the creed in which they are brought up …”
Ernestine L. Rose, 1853
Following her death, Rose became a largely forgotten figure. The reasons for this are
two-fold. Although civil rights activism would become a common pursuit of secular Jews
in the 20th century, in the late 19th century American Jews were by and large wary of
political activism, lest they jeopardize their position in an unusually tolerant society. For
this reason, the Jewish community of the time did not see her as (quote) a credit to the
Hebrew race (unquote), and Jewish archivists made little effort to preserve her memory.
The 19th century suffragist movement was also wary of how an association with the
atheist Rose could affect its ability to form alliances with Christian suffragists, and so
feminist historians working after her death largely ignored her. Like Stanton, for being a
freethinker she was betrayed by the movement she had devoted herself to.
For the second section of my talk I’ll be exploring how women were viewed within the late
19th century freethought movement. The fundamental problem for the freethought movement
was the observation that women made up the bulk of the church-going public, and hence
appeared to display a greater propensity for irrational behavior, clearly rational woman like
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine L. Rose notwithstanding.
To explain the perceived greater irrationality of woman, two primary camps arose within the
freethought movement. One camp, the biological determinists, held that woman were inherently
predisposed towards irrationality due to largely immutable biological factors. In an age of rising
interest in genetics, it is easy to see the appeal of such thinking. The opposing camp, the historical
constructionists, held that female irrationality was the result of traditions of social conditioning
going back centuries. In essence, the social constructionists were proposing a notion of gender
as socially constructed, in which thinking they were ahead of their time. The debates between the
two camps raged through freethought publications with social constructionists having largely won
by the close of the century. With social constructionists triumphant, the consensus view within
freethought evolved towards seeing women as an oppressed group deserving of justice.
The application of this consensus to contemporary political challenges, though, was often a
thorny matter for postbellum freethinkers, as illustrated in the rancorous freethinker debates
over women’s suffrage. As a means towards granting women the justice they deserved, it seemed
that the pro-suffragist standpoint would be the obvious viewpoint for freethinkers, were it not for the
problem of the greater religiosity of 19th century women in relation to men. Simply put, women’s
suffrage was seen as a threat to the separation of church and state, a vital pillar in maintaining the
freedom and safety of freethinkers. The fact that the WCTU acted as a key ally of suffragist organizations
only acted to augment such fears. The 19th century equivalent of such organizations as Moral Majority or
Focus on the (Patriarch’s) Family, the WCTU advocated not only prohibition of alcohol, but also mandatory
Sabbath observance and censorship of “immoral” literature. As the largest women’s organization of the late
19th century, the WCTU was seen by many freethinkers as a harbinger of the dangers of women’s suffrage.
To fully appreciate the degree of anxiety for freethinkers, one should remember that the Comstock laws
banning “obscene” materials were frequently used as a pretext for the arrest and imprisonment of freethought
leaders, that atheists were unable to testify in court in several states, and that several states had blasphemy
laws (never mind the clear First Amendment violation). Given such an environment, some freethinkers saw
women’s suffrage as literally endangering their lives.
The tensions of the freethought community are perhaps best illustrated by those female freethinkers who
found themselves torn between their interests as women and their interests as freethinkers.
“I am a woman and long to be recognized as man’s equal. I want to help make the laws that govern
me. Before me I see the opportunity of gaining my desires, but right at the polls is a serpent ready
to crush me in its deadly coils; that serpent is religion. I am willing to remain minus my right to vote
yet a little longer to escape a greater evil.”
Mrs. R.H. Schwartz, 1894
Nevertheless, as the debates on women’s suffrage wore on, a clear majority of freethinkers came to believe
that whatever the danger to the separation of church and state, the continued denial of women’s suffrage
represented an intolerable injustice to women. Some optimistic freethinkers even proposed that increased
political participation might lead more American women to free themselves of the church, although they
conceded that the initial impact of women’s enfranchisement would likely be detrimental to secularism.
1894 American Secular Union resolution: “the Freethinkers of America are committed to the emancipation
of woman from the bondage, degradation, and infamy imposed upon her by the barbarous theologies of a
past age, and would endow her with every right possessed by any human being.
It is a great credit to the integrity and principles of the freethought movement that its members resolved to
support women’s suffrage despite the risks it created for their own well-being.
In the two sections on this lecture we saw a recurring theme within relations between oppressed
groups: concerns within a group about how supporting another group’s cause may threaten their own.
Examples included the way the Jewish community turned its back on Ernestine Rose, the way the
feminist movement sought to downplay the role of atheists in its development, and the widespread
concerns within the freethought community that women’s suffrage would imperil their own rights and
possibly even their lives. Other examples abound in the history of various civil rights causes. One of the
more unfortunate aspects of suffragist history is the fact that some feminists employed racism in their
arguments, saying that it was unacceptable for America to grant the vote to black men while denying
it to white women. Ernestine L. Rose found that several of her feminist allies believed she should not
be granted citizenship on account of her Eastern European ethnicity, and saw their own enfranchisement
as a bulwark against the electoral influence of recent immigrants. Henry Stanton advocated the abolition
of slavery while avoiding any need to take a clear stand on women’s suffrage, as openly supporting it
might have undermined abolitionism. In all such cases it is tempting to pass judgment and condemnation,
but a humanistic approach requires that we confront the unfortunate fact that it can be very difficult to fully
support the struggles of one group against oppression when you yourself are in a position of vulnerability.
In closing, I would like to point out two books I encountered in my research that I believe are particularly
good explorations of the subjects I’ve discussed.
Before Thursday’s session I will be posting a more extensive exploration of the intersections and interactions
of freethought and feminism to the CarmenWiki site. My full bibliography will be contained in that document.