Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer

by D. C. Bloomer

While we are willing to accept this original account of the creation and fall, we are not willing that men should add tenfold to woman’s share of sin, and put a construction upon the whole matter that we believe was never intended by the Creator. Eve had no more to do with bringing sin into the world than had Adam, nor does the Creator charge any more upon her. The punishment inflicted upon them for their transgression was as heavy upon him as upon her. Her sorrows were to be multiplied, but so too was he to eat his bread in sorrow, and to earn it in the sweat of his face amid thorns and thistles. To her no injunction to labor was given, upon her no toil imposed, no ground cursed for her sake.

But now we come to the consideration of a passage which seems to bear more heavily upon woman, and which men have used as a warrant to humble and crush her through all the ages that have passed since our first parents were driven from the Garden of Eden: ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’

This Mr. Rice regards as a command binding upon every woman for all time. Because Eve sinned, every woman must be ruled over by some man as long as the world stands. It is a little strange that the Creator did not tell us this. When talking to the serpent, He put enmity between his seed and the seed of the woman; but to the woman He said not a word of this law of subordination following her seed; and to Adam he gave no command, or even license, to rule over his wife.

Will the Rev. Rice please explain to us the meaning of a like passage in the chapter following? ‘The Lord said unto Cain, the desire of thy brother shall be unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him.’ Was this, too, a command for all time? Did God command Cain to rule over Abel? And if so, to whom does it now apply? The language is the same in both instances, except that in the latter case it was addressed directly to the party who was to rule, and in the former to the one who was to be ruled.

Clearly, the passage quoted should be regarded in the light of prophecy or prediction, and not of command. Substitute wilt for shalt, which I am told the original fully permits, and then all is clear. The prophecy has been fulfilled to the very letter. There are other passages that I think clearly show that the word shall has been wrongly translated. For instance, Cain says, ‘Whosoever findeth me shall slay me,’ taking the form of command rather than prediction.

Having done with the Old Testament, our reverend lecturer proceeds to give us what, in his opinion, was the idea and full meaning of the Apostle Paul in his rules and injunctions to the women of the churches he was addressing, and he wonders how there can be any opinion but his own on the subject. He makes the apostle go a long way beyond the Creator or the Saviour in his condemnation and subordination of women, and then thinks it strange that all do not take his version of the whole matter. Yet there are vast numbers of good, Christian men and women who cannot read with his eyes and who have presumed to differ from him. He quotes from some of the early Fathers on the subject, and proves that they entertained the same opinions and had the same fear of women getting into authority the Todds, Rices and Fultons of the present day suffer from. And the opinion of one party goes for as much as that of the other. The women of those early days, as all know, were ignorant and degraded and regarded as absolutely inferior to men. Custom had assigned them an inferior place and, instead of being treated as companions and equals, they were little better than servants and slaves. None but dissolute women, or women of loose character, sought for knowledge, and education was wholly denied to those who were virtuous. They were expected to remain at home in ignorant subjection to their masters. What wonder then if any, moved by the spirit, dared raise their voice in the presence of men they were instantly silenced, and told that it was not permitted them to speak? The early Fathers, like St. Paul, but conformed to the customs and shared the prejudices of the day in which they lived, and under the circumstances no doubt their injunctions were entirely proper and right.

We have no account on record of these ancient clergy disgracing themselves over a woman speaking as did the Rev. John Chambers, and other reverends of his stamp—and as we suppose the Rev. Rice would have done had he been there—a few years ago at the World’s Temperance Convention, in New York, when by their violent stamping, shouting, scolding and other uproarious conduct they succeeded in drowning the voice and driving from the stand a lovely, refined and highly educated Christian woman whom the president had invited to the platform. They carried their ends at that time; but that did not awe all women back into silence, or do themselves or the church any good. So all the warnings, and quotations from St. Paul, by all the reverends since his day, have not succeeded in keeping women in that state of ignorance and subjection they occupied two thousand years ago. The world moves, and it is God’s will that women move with it. He is no respecter of persons, but regards His people as all one in Christ Jesus.

But what have we next? After putting women down as low as possible our divine throws them a sop by telling them, if they will not usurp authority over men in the pulpit they may speak, and pray, and teach in Sunday schools, and in conference and covenant meeting. And where, pray, does he get his authority for this? Not in the Bible, surely. Paul says, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Teach what? The scriptures—the gospel, to be sure. This is direct and explicit. How can she teach the gospel in the Sunday school and elsewhere, without violation of St. Paul’s law? ‘Let women keep silence in the church,’ says the apostle. Then how can they talk, and pray, and teach in the conference meeting, the covenant meeting and other kindred places? St. Paul gives them no such liberty. Plainly your divine is willing the women of his church should do almost anything, so they do not interfere with his place, or usurp authority over him.

Poor me next comes in for a severe castigation from your reverend lawgiver because I dared say that, while I supposed St. Paul’s injunctions to women were right and proper at the time and under the circumstances of their utterance, I did not believe they were the rule for the educated Christian women of this enlightened day and age, the circumstances surrounding them having greatly changed since the introduction of Christianity. That I believed women were no more bound by the laws and customs of that time than men were bound to observe all the laws and customs of the same period; and further, that the church, by its practice, teaches the same thing, to a great extent. And, still further, that the words of St. Paul had nothing to do with woman’s political rights. The reverend gentleman puts words in my mouth I never uttered, thoughts in my head that I never conceived, places me in a position I never occupied and then, having attributed all manner of bad things to me, wipes me out with a sweep of his pen. Well, I do not feel a bit bad over all this. I have the consolation of knowing that I am in good company, and cannot be so easily annihilated as he supposed. There are scores of divines as able, as learned, as eloquent and as orthodox as T. O. Rice, of Des Moines, who take the same view of the matter as I do, and any number of good Christian people who subscribe to the same doctrine. I ‘have no painful solicitude as to which side will ultimately triumph.’ I am no more ‘squarely and openly at variance with God’s Word’ than is our reverend lecturer, who has set himself up as God’s oracle, and hopes to intimidate all women, and strengthen the rule of all men to whom the sound of his voice may come.

I do not question his right to think as he pleases, and lecture women on proprieties and improprieties; but I must say, I consider women quite as capable of judging for themselves what is proper and what is improper for them to do as any man can be; and I think if our reverends would turn their attention to their own sex, search out passages and rules of conduct applicable to them, and lecture them on their duty to their families and society, they would be much better employed than in trying to subordinate women.