January 23, 2010 by Stacy McDonald

Should Feminists get the Glory?

Print Friendly

I have listened with interest as many Christian women applaud the early feminists for relieving the various injustices against women.

I remember the deep indignation I felt while watching Sense and Sensibility when Mrs Henry Dashwood and her daughters Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret were left in dire circumstances after Mrs. Dashwood’s husband died. Her husband’s estate had passed to her unfaithful stepson, John Dashwood.

Henry Dashwood, before his death, had passionately charged John with the responsibility of caring for his stepmother and sisters; but, John (with the encouragement of his wicked wife) ignored his father’s wishes, and became worse than an infidel.

But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

This was an injustice indeed. However, “biblical patriarchy” was not to blame. Perhaps male tyranny was the culprit, unfaithfulness (Proverbs 19:26), or, better yet, plain, ugly, old sin.

The answer to sin isn’t feminism. The answer is the Gospel.

The fact that a few feminists got a few things right (perhaps), doesn’t make their complete agenda right or good. In fact, we can all agree that racism is wrong. We are all likely to also agree that the segregation of people because of the color of their skin is wrong. And we are likely to take a romantic glance at the past and think to ourselves, “But look at all the good he/she did for the African Americans in our country. Therefore, all he/she taught couldn’t have been too bad.”

Bear with me. See if you can guess the name of this hero of Human Rights:

During this time, ___ also helped to integrate churches, restaurants, the telephone company, the police department, a theater, an amusement park, and the Methodist Hospital. After swastikas were painted on the homes of two African American families, ___ personally walked the neighborhood comforting African Americans and counseling white families not to move, in order to prevent white flight.

___ set up stings to catch restaurants refusing to serve African American customers. ___ wrote to American Nazi leaders and then leaked their responses to the media. When he was accidentally placed in the black ward of a hospital after a collapse in 1961, he refused to be moved and began to make the beds, and empty the bed pans, of black patients. Political pressures resulting from his actions caused hospital officials to desegregate the wards.

In case, you haven’t figured it out, this “hero’s” name was Jim Jones, the charismatic leader who was responsible for the 1978 Jonestown deaths of over 900 of his faithful followers. While in the beginning, Jones claimed Christianity, “by the early 1970s, he began deriding traditional Christianity as a ‘fly away religion,’ rejecting the Bible as being white men’s’ justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color…”

Jones’s last recorded words were, “We didn’t commit suicide; we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”

Be careful whom you admire. God alone deserves the glory. He will use sinners, as well as saints, to accomplish His will. In fact, I hear tell He uses all sorts of interesting creatures…(2 Peter 2:16)

Note: Obviously, I am not comparing early feminists to Jim Jones. :-) I am only pointing out how someone who none of us would admire did “good” humanitarian work that even impressed respected political leaders of the day. Seemingly “good works” can’t be our proof that the feminist message (even the early one) was good. God uses all sorts of bad situations to bring about change in society. His providence is amazing that way.

Similar Posts:

45 Responses to “Should Feminists get the Glory?”

  1. Jennifer says:

    I'm surprised you seem so vehement to, it almost appears, not give the early feminists any credit for the good they did. No one spoke of giving them the glory; they were Christians and I give God the glory for putting it on their hearts to speak up. They are not responsible for the sins of radicals today nor did they cause a mass suicide. I would compare them and their benefits more to the majority of the abolitionists: were these historical people heroes in their beliefs that blacks were equal? Yes. Were the blacks of that time period brave heroes themselves in their fight against slavery? Yes. Are these historical abolitionist heroes to be blamed for the blatant anti-white racism of people like Barack Obama, Reverend Wright, and many ultra-liberals today because of their fight for true equality all those years ago? NO. And neither are the first wave feminists to be blamed for the anti-male fools today. Yes, John Dashwood was a coward indeed, and his nasty wife was wicked. Another point to consider in the film version of Sense and Sensibility was Eleanor's statement to Edward Farris: "You will inherit your fortune. We (women) cannot even earn ours." Now we can, thanks greatly to some women who indeed got it right. Praise God.

  2. Christy, the Notable Blogger says:

    Wow! I did not realize that was Jones. Remarkable.

    You are right–the Gospel is the answer.

    I appreciate your messages. Thank you.

  3. Stacy McDonald says:

    Hi Jennifer,

    I'm not as concerned about the good they may have done as I am the message they sent to the following generations. When the focus goes beyond what Scripture says (women are equal in worth and intelligence) to saying that there is "no difference between men and women; and that they share equal roles in the family, church, and society," then I am concerned.

    This isn't about the fair treatment of women, it's about the bad theology that has infiltrated society…and sadly, the church.

    "Despite Daniel Cady's reservations, the couple were married in 1840, with Elizabeth Cady requesting of the minister that the phrase "promise to obey" be removed from the wedding vows."

    Mrs. Stanton's rebellious attitude caused great trouble in her spirit. The following excerpt is from Passionate Housewives:

    "Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton was an example of a discontented housewife who was ruled by her flesh. In a letter to her close friend and fellow suffragist, Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Stanton complained:

    I pace up and down these two chambers of mine like a caged lion, longing to bring to a close childrearing and housekeeping cares. I have other work at hand…. Oh how I long for a few hours of leisure each day.

    How rebellious it makes me feel when I see Henry going about where and how he pleases. He can walk at will through the whole wide world or shut himself up alone, if he pleases, within four walls. As I contrast his freedom with my bondage, and feel that because of the false position of women I have been compelled to hold all my noblest aspirations in abeyance in order to be a wife, a mother, a nurse, a cook, a household drudge, I am fired anew and long to pour fourth from my own experience the whole long story of women’s wrongs.

    …Matthew Henry wisely said, “Virtue is a penance to those to whom home is a prison.” If we view our God-given role as a punishment to women and the domesticity of the home as a cage, we—like poor Mrs. Stanton—will indeed find ourselves in misery and lacking the virtue needed to truly love, obey, trust, and serve the Lord."

  4. Lacie says:

    Thank you for this article, Mrs. McDonald! It was encouraging and insightful. God bless you and your family.

  5. Queen Beth says:

    Another wonderful article. You are absolutely right.

  6. Persuaded says:

    Stacey… I couldn't agree more with your article if I had written it myself.

    And Jennifer while, I understand your desire to honor those women who seemed to have done so much good, we really do no good outside of the will and direction of God. And within the boundaries that He imposes.
    "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6

  7. Jennifer says:

    "I understand your desire to honor those women who seemed to have done so much good, we really do no good outside of the will and direction of God"

    There's no doubt in my mind that God desired women to be able to vote, have their own jobs, and especially be in positions like that of doctors. If there were no female doctors, I've give birth by myself or hire a midwife.

    Thank you for your patient explanations, Stacy.

    "I'm not as concerned about the good they may have done as I am the message they sent to the following generations."

    That's the thing, I don't think the first ones did send a bad message down the generations, anymore than Harriet Tubman sent the message that all whites are wicked and have brought damnation on America. As for the church and home, I think that has more to do with a concern for Scripture than following the footsteps of feminism primarily, whereas the claim that men and women aren't any different is indeed foolhardy. It amazes me how some can go so easily with extremes: some bounce from equality to sameness, whereas others who love the old ways ASSUME that everyone will do the former extreme action even when they won't. Humanity has a very very hard time reaching a happy medium.

  8. Chelsey says:

    Incredible words and so well said; and so MUCH Truth.

    I love your heart. We need to be careful however, that we don't persume the mind of God. This is why he gave us His Word via the Scriputes.

    You said, "There's no doubt in my mind that God desired women to be able to vote, have their own jobs, and especially be in positions like that of doctors. If there were no female doctors, I've give birth by myself or hire a midwife."

    While there may be no doubt in your mind, when you seek Scripture you will find nothing in there to back up your thoughts.

    I know it is hard to wrap your brain around issues like this; believe me I've been there. But, I think where I have come to and undertanding is, that it isn't about me, it's about God and His glory!

  9. Jennifer says:

    Actually Chelsea, I've found a great deal in Scripture to back up my thoughts; that's why there's no doubt in them. You think Scripture doesn't support women having jobs, being doctors, and voting? I find that very sad. Thanks for your kind words.

  10. Civilla says:

    This gets me thinking about a lot of things.

  11. Stephanie Clark says:

    I'm sorry that this isn't exactly on topic, but my husband and I have been discussing Christian head coverings (based on 1 Corinthians 11) quite a bit recently without either of us really coming to any sort of conclusion. We highly respect your writings (both here and in the "Passionate Housewives" book), so we were wondering if you had any thoughts on this topic. Thanks!

  12. Stacy McDonald says:

    Civilla – I look forward to hearing those thoughts. :-)

    Stephanie – You are right – that is a little off topic. :-) But I can recommend the following article, which we found very helpful when it was first published:


  13. Jennifer says:

    Stephanie, I love your profile! If you wouldn't mind emailing me sometime, I'd be honored :) Thanks

  14. Martha A. says:

    I think though something to remember with Jim Jones that bad people can do good things too. I know people who have committed heinous acts towards other human beings and yet I have good memories and thoughts of wonderful things they did. Evil people do good things too….
    Some of the people who are considered feminists , well, in all honesty, they are much more conservative than many conservative people nowadays. We may not agree with everything they did or believed, but in the sovereignty of God, He allowed them to help change things for the good, just as other evil things that happened and are used for good, they happen with God knowing and seeing.

  15. Stacy McDonald says:

    Good points, Martha. Seemingly bad people can do good things and seemingly good people can do bad things.

    So, my point is, we cannot point to the isolated "good works" someone has done under the banner of some teaching (feminism, in this case)and OK the teaching because of that. Feminism, which has an approach to reform that is, in many ways, the very opposite of the Gospel, in my opinion, introduced serious new problems. As always, the answer is the Gospel.

  16. Chelsey says:

    Stephanie – I actually just finished writing (not a few months ago) – about my journey with headcovering if you are interested:


    Actually, I don't see where Scripture backs up what you are talking about… but, I am very willing to be shown my error. Can you please share with me some of the Scriptures that you have read that show that God desires women to hold jobs outside of the home, be doctors and vote.

    If you prefer, you are welcome to email me too – chelseyhall(at)gmail(dot)com

  17. Jennifer says:

    There have been plenty of women with jobs in the Bible, Chelsea; where do you see jobs forbidden? There have been medicine women throughout history; you really believe men are the ones meant to help in exclusively female issues? As for the idea that women can't vote, I'm amazed people are serious when they say this. Women are citizens of the country and citizens of the country vote; you'd have to come waaaay out of left field to claim women are excluded.

  18. Martha A. says:

    Yeah, I think that sometimes we can get sidetracked both ways. We can be thankful that people who believe things we do not agree with or stood for, did some things that we appreciated, like women owning property when their husband died, which we know is biblical too…..
    I mean women like Elizabeth Fry who reformed prisons in England had 10 or 11 children and went into prisons and helped women and children in there, giving them ways to make money to get out of debt and provide food for their children. Yet, I think she was also a minister and probably believed other things we disagree with.

    I just read a book called "If God is Good" by Randy Alcorn and he talked about some of the horrible things that happen and it made me think farther even to the matter of this….God's has His hand on everything and sometimes He uses people who do not believe everything right. Also, sometimes people can start out right and end up so wrong.

  19. Kara says:

    Ive never given women voting any thought at all, I've always taken it for granted that people over the age of 18 vote. So, in the past, I have. Now that this has been brought up, I will search my bible to find what scripture says.

    That aside. From what I have read, only men were doctors. However, there are passages that talk about female midwives. (Exodus 1:16) But even then, as I read it, it would seem that was a position taken as needed, not a profession.

    Jennifer, you say that there is no doubt in your mind that scripture says that women can have a job outside of home. I do not see this in the plain reading of the text. However, I am also open from correction supported by scripture.

    I recently have come across your blog, and it has been a blessing to me. Thank you for what you do.

  20. Stacy McDonald says:


    I don't think anyone implied that women "can't vote." I'm getting ready to run out the door to church, so I'll post more on what you said later.

  21. Jennifer says:

    Thanks Stacy, I'm on my way to church too.

    Kara, the Bible doesn't say anything about women voting; that's the point. It should be a non-issue; we're citizens of the country and we vote!

    "From what I have read, only men were doctors"

    No, only men were professional doctors. Women have still practiced medicine for centuries and have proven themselves worthy of the trade. I can't imagine why this would even be an issue.

  22. Chelsey says:

    Hi Jennifer,
    It isn't that jobs held by women are "forbidden" or that voting is "forbidden". What we need to do is go back to what God's Word says about women and their roles and the structure of authority that God has given His people.

    God intened women to be homemakers – busy at home. God meant for women to be under the authority of her husband alone – no other man. This is difficult to do when one holds a job outside of her home.

    As far as voting… if we were living according to what the Bible teaches this wouldn't be an issue. In our home, as it should be in every Christian home, my husband is the head of my home. When it comes to voting, I would never vote against my husband. We talk about it, discuss it, come to a conclusion. If I were to still disagree with him, I would not go vote because it would cancel his vote out and as head of this home, he has final authority. I respect that. And for me to vote against my husband would go against what the Scripture teaches me in submitting to my husband and his authority. We have not, however, ever come to a point thus far where we have disagreed in our choice of candidates, so yes, I do go vote along side of him since I have been granted that right.

    The problem is we have walked so far away from the beautiful structure that God set forth for His people, that it has skewed our thinking and our view.

    It's like trying to read a book with glasses that are just a hair off in perscription. We might still be able to get through it, but it is skewed and blurry. Eventually our eyes adjust to those glasses, though, and we never even realize the damage we are doing to our eyes!

  23. Persuaded says:

    One point I'd like to make… and it goes back to your original post Stacey, and statements that were made by you and others of the injustices done to the Dashwood women in Sense and Sensibility… is that in the movie the Dashwood women were not allowed to inherit the property "because it was the law that property passed from father to son." However this was not the case in the book, or in the real laws of that time. In the book, the property of Norland had originally belonged to Mr. Dashwood's first wife, and was in fact her ancestral home. When she died it passed to her husband, the widower, Mr. Dashwood. The first Mrs. Dashwood clearly stipulated in her will that upon the death of Mr. Dashwood, the property could only be passed down to her son, John Dashwood. She did this as she surmised (correctly) that her husband would likely remarry and have other children. She did not want her ancestral home passing on to children who were not related to her. You can say she was wise, or you can say that she was selfish… I'm not quite sure which opinion I hold;)

    Women of that day and age were very able to inherit and hold property- and there are many examples even within the pages of Jane Austen's other works. For example the venerable Lady Catherine DeBourgh (Pride and Prejudice) owned her enormous estate in complete, and her "sickly daughter" was called the "Heiress of Rosings" because she would inherit the entire estate in full upon the death of her mother. Emma also would inherit the family estate upon the death of her father.

    I suppose the creators of the movie tweaked things a bit to make the story flow more smoothly, but the impression they gave of unjust laws prohibiting women from inheriting or owning property were incorrect.

    Also the line: "You will inherit your fortune. We cannot even earn ours." was written into the movie and was never in the original text. It shows the sensibility of the modern woman who wrote the screenplay, but not really that of women of the time.. at least women of the Dashwoods class and state. I think the prospect of "earning their fortune" would have been quite repellent to ladies of that time and society. They certainly felt keenly their lack of finances, but I don't think that they would have felt that employment outside of the home was an appropriate option. If they did there would have been nothing stopping them from getting work as a governess for example, or even a housekeeper. Nothing save their own desire to remain in their current social class, that is. There were no laws prohibiting their employment.

    The Dashwood women were indeed poorly treated, but it had nothing to do with oppression by any laws, and everything to do with the selfishness and greed of another woman, Mrs. John Dashwood, the younger. In other words plain old ugly sin was the cause of their difficulties… some things never change, eh? ;)


  24. Stacy McDonald says:

    Persuaded, THANK YOU very much for pointing that out! Isn't it sad how feminist thought has infiltrated even the best of literature? I have to admit (don't tell my daughters; they'd be horrified) that I haven't actually read Sense and Sensibility – only watched the BBC version of the movie. *hangs head in shame* LOL I didn't realize that part had been changed. Very interesting.

    And do you mean to tell me that Mr. Dashwood's first wife, a mere WOMAN, was able to dictate where "her" money went after her husband's death? I thought all women back then were victims. ;-)

  25. Persuaded says:

    Don't feel badly Stacey, I didn't read the book all the way through until adulthood myself, but don't tell my daughters that either;)

  26. Jennifer says:

    "You will inherit your fortune. We cannot even earn ours." was written into the movie and was never in the original text"

    I already knew this and acknowledged it; why should this surprise anyone? I don't find the idea of women working some repellent thing to infiltrate literature anyway; I know many were governesses and similar things, but they were still quite limited; we shouldn't have to hear from feminists to know this. Most of the work back then for women was hard, limited work not looked upon with favor by the upper class, and no wonder; many upper class women back then believed their role was to be spoiled and have things handed to them.

  27. Jennifer says:

    Chelsea, there is no command or indication in the Bible that women may not work outside home. I don't believe there is a gender hierarchy designed by God, but that belief infiltrates just about everything else for those who hold it. This statement in particular:

    "God meant for women to be under the authority of her husband alone – no other man. This is difficult to do when one holds a job outside of her home"

    I've heard repeatedly the most conservative women claim that women basically should only have one male boss (husband) and some have even claimed that a working wife is a "helpmeet" to her boss, thus proving they know very little of what a helpmeet actually is.

    You were given the right to vote Chelsea, not to only vote what he wants you to vote. My mother's a Republican and my Dad's been a Democrat for years, and he's never demanded she keep from "undermining" him by agreeing with him about politics; in no way does the Bible command a woman redefine all her thoughts to fit her husband. You do what's best for you, but this isn't a Biblical command.

  28. Stacy McDonald says:


    So often, modern Christians get caught up in the fear of the "cannots." You mean I can't___?"

    Marriage and having children is the Scriptural norm for us as Christians. It's a fact. There is also plenty of proof in the Bible that reveals that wives are commanded by God to submit to their own husbands (yes, Virginia, there is a biblical hierarchy) as unto the Lord. The father/husband is to love his wife sacrificially and lead his family faithfully. The wife is to allow her husband to lead the family, and amplify his ministry by serving in the home, caring for her husband, and nurturing her children.

    In the process, she will be and do many other things, but she will not neglect or abandon the realm of home for the sake of individual pursuits.

    In a very real sense, she is not an "individual" (and neither is her husband); they are both one (Matt 19:6). She is not "her own woman;" she is bought with a price (Gen. 2:24). Rather than make them individuals, or roommates, God made them "one." And He did this for the purpose of godly children and grandchildren. Too many married couples are simply (sexually active) roommates these days. They have not learned to truly be one.

    "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth." (Malachi 2:15)

    You are still young, Jennifer. One day I am sure you will marry and have children. When that day comes, I pray you will not desire to "be your own woman," but will find joy in serving and sacrificing for your children in the home, even as you glorify God with the various gifts He has given you.

    By the way, having a "job" isn't the same thing as leaving the home and family to pursue a career. We all have jobs to do, after all. We have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of that job and who does it glorify?

  29. Jennifer says:

    I hope you will post my comments already responding to this matter, Stacy. I no longer care for feminism at all and was in fact re-convicted of this tonight, evidenced by how drastically the modern way contrasts with the original goals (which have already been fulfilled) and how many intelligent women hate it. I'll always admire the early feminists, but they're simply not needed anymore. Feminism has become a testasterone-excluding and harmful thing, and I want nothing more to do with it; it only confuses and irritates most everyone involved with it, including myself. This was actually driven home like nothing before tonight when I came across a book called "My Brother's Keeper" gently and sensibly reminding people of the unfair struggles men have today. Just two pages of this reminded me of what I needed to know.

    Biblical equality, however, is another thing and one I'll never give up. I know the wife is to submit, but I don't believe this is born from hierarchy; I believe it's a loving action done by all Christians. I know marriage has been a plan for me all my life and I have every intention of being a sacrificial wife. I already am my own person and that person was designed, as every person is, to contribute to their own family in their own unique way.

  30. Civilla says:

    I'm amazed that literature would be tinkered with like to make women look like victims!!! What propaganda! Seems like everything is being "revised" today.

  31. Jennifer says:

    It's not propoganda at all, Civilla; women in Eleanor's condition could NOT earn their way, not like a man could. There's plenty propoganda crud out there now regarding feminism, but I don't think that simple line is one of them; Eleanor didn't even say it in an accusatory tone. The fact that women didn't have that autonomy was stifling indeed to many.

  32. Stacy McDonald says:


    It seems to me that the script was either purposely re-written to make women look like victims, or Emma Thompson, who adapted the book for the movie, had simply been so thoroughly influenced by modern feminist thought that she did not realize women were indeed able to inherit property and thought she was adding a little spice to the script (to inflame the women who watched it).

  33. Mrs. Webfoot says:

    This was actually driven home like nothing before tonight when I came across a book called "My Brother's Keeper" gently and sensibly reminding people of the unfair struggles men have today.>>>>

    I am so glad to hear you say that, Jennifer.

  34. Jennifer says:

    "Emma Thompson, who adapted the book for the movie, had simply been so thoroughly influenced by modern feminist thought that she did not realize women were indeed able to inherit property and thought she was adding a little spice to the script (to inflame the women who watched it)"

    While I don't think her line about earning money was meant to be inflammatory, that IS a very interesting point about the historical inaccuracy, Stacy. Weird. I see why they might have altered it for reasons of complication, such as the fact that the father explained, very briefly, why his daughters couldn't inherit; his explanation didn't contradict the book or history. Eleanor's later comment about what the law stated, however, did.

    "I am so glad to hear you say that, Jennifer"

    I'm very glad to say it!

  35. Chelsey says:

    I understand the words you are saying. I understand them so well because I was once there myself. And it doesn't surprise me when women cannot grasp the concepts that we have been talking about here because that was part of the curse given to Eve; "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

    Everything I have said can be backed up by Scripture. I try VERY hard to make sure that the way I live aligns with Scripture alone and not by my feelings or personal wants or desires. Believe me, there are times when I wish Scripture did support your views.

    Scriptures on women being subject to their husbands include: COLOSSIANS 3:18; EPHESIANS 5:22-24,33; 1 PETER 3:1-2

    Scriptures on women being busy at home and homemakers: 1 Timoth 5:14, Titus 2:4-5

    I have mentioned previously that if you have Scriptures to back up your views, I am willing to be shown my error.

    Jennifer, my prayer for you is that you would open your heart and your mind to the possiblity that you could be wrong. Truly, truly pray and seek the Scriptures to see what God is saying on these matters. I pray that God would put some very Godly women in your life over the next several years as you grow in age and spiritual maturity.

    I am so blessed the the Father put some wonderful women in my life along the way to grow me and help show me the incredible Truths of the Father's Word. I was resistant for a long time, but thankfully the Lord has been faithful to grow, mold and shape me. I have much more to learn and always look forward to new Truths that He will reveal.

  36. Jennifer says:

    Thanks, Chelsea. I've already been plagued by the worry I was wrong and have been studying this for 5 or 6 years; I'm not changing my mind. Until you find me a command saying women's gifts are limited to the home, I won't consider otherwise.

    "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

    Indeed, these words have come true: sinful men rule their wives and the wives desire this rule. Even your belief proves those words true.

  37. Jennifer says:

    Stacy, please excuse the turn some of the discussion has taken towards me personally; I'm happy to answer questions, but hadn't intended the focus to be diverted for so long, especially concerning a view I know you may be uncomfortable with. Chelsea, if you have any more comments/questions, please email me. Thank you

  38. Chelsey says:

    Jennifer (and Stacy),
    I hope you don't think I was trying to debate. That was not my intention. I was just carrying on conversation that was started by some comments. I hope that nothing I said was rude or ungracious, that was never my intention.

    I had intended for my last comment to be the last, but felt I needed to correct a comment you made.

    You said that "Until you find me a command saying women's gifts are limited to the home, I won't consider otherwise."

    I have never said or stated anywhere that the gifts we are given by God are limited to the home. I don't believe that for one instant! What I have said is that Scripture tells us we are to be busy at home and homemakers, and I gave Scriptures to support that.

  39. Jennifer says:

    "I don't believe that for one instant! What I have said is that Scripture tells us we are to be busy at home and homemakers"

    Well, I certainly agree with that. You've been very gracious and not debatable :)

  40. Jennifer says:

    If you think reading Jane Austen late in adulthood is bad, I didn't know until a week ago that my beloved three Bronte sisters are poets as well as novelists!! I found a book of their gorgeous poetry. God's blessed us so much in literature!

  41. Jennifer says:

    Speaking of poetry, I was looking for your book "Maidens" once, Stacy, and typed in part of the title for a website address. Instead of finding the book's site, I found a beautiful site of young Christian women! There was a whole page full of their poetry, covering the same subjects you discuss in your book. I recently returned to the site, gathered the poetry I liked and saved it to my computer, and now fully plan to read it with your book. What a nice mistake God let me make the day I found that site :)

  42. Jennifer says:

    How ironic, seeing this two years later: I’ve gone much farther than what I said here. I now believe feminists didn’t do a BIT of good! And why? Among other things, the world was already changing; did you know that 25 states already allowed women to vote by the 1870s?? Women were already doctors by then too, and growing in numbers. Feminism was never needed, was wicked and only meant for liberal women’s rights, NOT all or even regular women’s rights.

  43. CKitson says:

    WOW :) I just read this article, and then got involved with the comments, only being sorry they were from a few years earlier, and not really comment-able (is that a word LOL?)…and then, there you are Jennifer! Great that you came to this point of understanding, and are able to update everyone on your thoughts!

  44. Jennifer says:

    Thanks CKitson! :) Have we spoken before?

  45. Jennifer Corry says:

    Soo, this is many years later, but Chelsey, I am so sorry I consistently spelled your name wrong! Can’t imagine what was wrong with my eyes.

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.