Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Many commenters spoke of how patriarchists seemingly want to turn the clock back to the Victorian era, to the standards and values held at the time. They notice how much of the pictures on “Biblical womanhood” or “Biblical patriarchy” websites, seem to show idyllic pictures of upper-class Victorian life.

Now, I observe that Victorian era fantasies are just that: Victorian era fantasies.

So what? The age they find fantastic, had a woman ruler, Queen Victoria. And that contradicts at least some of what they claim about women.


Note: These pictures are from actual Patriarchy/ Biblical Womanhood material. The photo of girls in a garden comes from a banner for a “Beautiful girlhood” catalog, and the reading woman from “ladies against feminism.”

Comments on: "Patriarchy and the Victorian era: One tiny observation" (4)

  1. Strange isn’t it. And Queen Victoria was loved, admired and respected by her people!

    History has shown that a very high social status trumps gender. Just goes to show that gender “rules” really are culturally determined.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Anonymous said:

    Do you have any blogposts or articles that refer to feminism or commenting on the stance of “ladies against feminism”? I’m surfing different sites on this because I have found that what I have been fed for years about “evil feminism” attacking the church is laden with mistruths.


  3. I wrote a piece on LAF when I knew a lot less of the topic than now. If you are interested, type into a search engine:

    christianrethinker wordpress “Ladies against feminism”

    (The first 2 words are for the blog it is on. At the time, I was still under the impression that “feminism” means putting women ahead of men, instead of treating them equally, and knew little of the suppression of real women under “Christian” patriarchy. I even understood role to mean something you could pick up and put down as it suits you – like an actor playing Hamlet and undressing that strange period costume when he goes offstage, so even the words “gender roles” did not bother me. I was uncomfortable with the LAF message, but not nearly as critical as I would be today.)

    This blog has two articles, as far as I can remember, that directly touches on feminism. Type into a search engine:
    Biblicalpersonhood Selfishness Feminism vs. Biblical womanhood
    … and …
    Biblicalpersonhood feminism patriarchy causes abortion


  4. writerhelenrdavis said:

    Retha this is true, but Victoria whined about being queen and was very dependent on her husband Albert. Victoria also claimed that feminists ‘ought to get a good whipping.’ She also had very little power and any she did have was symbolic. She was certainly a woman of great moral courage, but a feminist she was not. For a powerful woman ruler who truly was very strong I would suggest looking into the reigns of Cleopatra VII and Elizabeth I. Victoria’s anti-feminism is likely why such hard comps have such a rose colored view of her era.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: