I was struck by a section of Fell’s work: “ But the Apostle
saith further, They are commended to be
in obedience, as also saith the Law; and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for
it is a shame for a woman to speak in the Church” page 755. I was under the
impression that women during this time were starting to get a voice and were
heard in a more public form than previously. However, the Apostles spoken of in
this writing seem to be very much against what has been happening, and even
reverts to asking a male figure for confirmation. My question here is; are
women actually getting more of a voice or is it actually shameful for them to
speak in church? Personally when I read this I was disgusted, and had to read
it for a second time. Really women are being told that it is not ok to speak
and have questions in church, but I guess so. If people, not just women, did not ask
questions then how would anyone learn anything, they wouldn’t be able to or it
would be very difficult. Another problem I have with the Apostles statement is,
why is ok for men to ask questions. It just does not make sense to me, even
with what we know about their time.
Fell later brings up a good point combating the ideas laid
down by the Apostles, “If you tie this to all outward Women, then there were
many Women that were Widows which had no Husbands to learn of” page 757. And
she is correct, what if a woman did not have a husband to teach her, she would essentially have no one to learn from. *When I
type these ideas and think about the sentence that I have just written I am
appalled by the notion that a women would have no means of learning without her
husband. I also then think, and am pretty sure that women who were widows must
have found a way to learn in church, isn’t that a contributing factor to the
creation of nunneries.
Fell, being a Quaker, probably believed that only the pious protestant Christians (of either sex) were ok. She interprets that section to refer only to women who were "Under the Law" or "outward" or non-Christian (the footnote on that same page explains it). It was her attempt to debunk the seemingly obvious interpretation of that Biblical verse. Fell's interpretation says that the Apostle's pronouncement does not apply to Christian women, which she evidences with her vast, educated knowledge of Christian doctrine. To me, it doesn't let her off the hook, though, and I agree with you. She doesn't seem to extend her wish of sexist equality to those who differ from her belief structure. Though, I suppose it makes sense that a non-Christian (of any sex) should not speak in a Christian Church... I guess. :)
ReplyDeleteI like your points. It is very interesting to read about how prejudiced against women actually were, even though we often times get a sentence about how they were starting to speak more in different spheres. I think reading Fell really emphasizes the struggle that women had to go through during these times - when men were their only source of learning, and this could be easily withheld from them.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, your post and the part about learning from husbands kind of made me think about nuns in a way that I haven't before: they are sort of "married" to the Church, or even to God himself, so it kind of makes sense that nuns would be the women most likely to be getting some kind of education, even though it was strictly through religious texts, but in that sense they were only tied down to their religion, rather than a physical man who could easily obstruct their path just by actually being there. I dunno - its a weird thought.
This is exactly how I felt when I read this! My blog post is actually kind of similar! I couldn't help but feel that I was reading Fell's words incorrectly and I found myself reading sections about women speaking in church quite a few times. It makes me wonder why she would be bringing this up at all as an argument for women speaking because to me, it doesn't seem like one at all. I think about some of our fellow classmates whom are male and how much they must be scratching their heads reading this. I would assume that they opened up their textbooks to the correct page and braced themselves for a bra-burning "I am woman hear me roar" type of text, but what they got, if anything, is text that puts women down!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am totally off base, but I agree with some of the questions you raise and look forward to discussing them in class.