RSS

Proto-feminist case study: Catharine Beecher

03 Sep

Continuing on the theme I (with input from ElectricAngel) began previously

If we look back to the early 19th century, we can see the seeds of modern feminism, in some of the more influential women of that time period. And were they indeed ever influential…

The book I mentioned in my previous post about early feminism in America, Kenneth T. Jackson’s “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States”, discusses the impact of one Catharine Beecher, who was the daughter of the famous Calvinist preacher Lyman Beecher.

Starting at page 61 in Jackson’s book:

The eldest child of Lyman Beecher, a famed Calvinist preacher in the Puritan tradition, Catharine Beecher was born in 1800 into a family in which the missionary fires burned brightly. In addition to her father, her seven brothers were all ministers, including Henry Ward Beecher, the leading Protestant clergyman in the United States between 1850 and 1887. From his pulpit in Brooklyn’s fashionable Plymouth Church (Congregationalist), he preached to an audience of thousands every Sunday. His reputation was so great and his oratory so spellbinding that an alleged adulterous affair with a female parishioner and a sensational trial scarcely reduced his influence.

Now that’s interesting! An alpha, and possibly a bit of a bad boy, one able to get away with it by being so alpha; no doubt this influenced his daughter.

Her father isn’t the only other famous person in her family; Jackson continues:

Catharine’s sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, wrote the inflammatory novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, that helped lead to the Civil War. Another sister, Isabella, was one of the leading feminists of her generation. And Catharine herself, who never had her own home and family and was rarely on friendly terms with her closest kin, became the nineteenth century’s leading theorist of the virtues and requirements of domesticity.

Ah yes, domesticity. I have previously explored the influence of activist-minded women from the late 19th century and their cult of domesticity here. But pardon my digression; let’s examine what happened a bit earlier on, with Miss Beecher.

Continuing from ‘Crabgrass Frontier’:

In 1823 her fiance, a professor at Yale, died in a shipwreck, and the following year she took charge of a Hartford girl’s school. Nine years later, Catharine accompanied her famous father and her siblings to the “western wilderness” of Cincinnati, where she almost immediately founded the Western Female Institute. Although the school closed its doors four years later, Catharine remained in the Queen City until her death in 1878.

Throughout her long life, Beecher believed fervently in the moral superiority of women over men, a position outlined in the first of her twenty-five books, the privately printed Elements of Mental and Moral Philosophy, Founded Upon Experience, Reason, and the Bible (1831).

Ah, yes. Typical female supremacist, just like today, eh?

Actually, no; not exactly:

Catharine was not a feminist, however. She opposed the women’s rights movement as soon as it emerged as a national organization, insisting that woman’s relation to man should be one of dependence and subservience.

“Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior and to the other the subordinate station,” Beecher intoned. Unlike Angelina Grimke and other militants who sought immediate female self-realization, Beecher believed that women could best achieve their goals by being so unassuming and gentle that men would yield to them.

Sneaky! Much like Adelaide Hoodless, a bit later…

Continuing from ‘Crabgrass Frontier’:

Beecher’s national influence began with her Treatise on Domestic Economy, For the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School, which first appeared in 1841. An immediate popular success, it was frequently adopted as a textbook and was reprinted dozens of times over the next thirty years. Because the “cult of true womanhood” linked the home with piety and purity, Beecher sought to connect architectural and landscape design with her domestic ideal. … Although her designs were technically conventional – the houses were boxes with a central core of fireplaces – the book provided a vision of a healthy, happy, well-fed, and pious family living harmoniously in a well-built, well-furnished, well-kept house.

Beecher did not specifically refer to suburbia, but she assumed that family life could best thrive in a semirural setting. She believed that “implanted in the heart of every true man, is the desire for a home of his own.” Devoting five chapters of the Treatise to yards and gardens, she argued in favor of the physical and social separation of the population into the female-dominated sphere of home life, preferably suburban, and the male-dominated sphere of the business world, usually urban…

So, the sharp division of society into specifically male and female realms of influence is not in fact a traditionalist concept, but in fact one put forward by an ostensibly ‘modest’ reformer – who clearly was seeking to carve out a sphere of influence for women, that didn’t particularly exist before then: as masters of the home! So much for paterfamilias

 
 

16 responses to “Proto-feminist case study: Catharine Beecher

  1. infowarrior1

    September 3, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    The spirit of jezebel takes the 1st step. How feminism begins. May future generations be warned.

     
  2. Will S.

    September 3, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    @ infowarrior1: Indeed, those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, as someone said (loosely paraphrased).

     
  3. infowarrior1

    September 3, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    Did you see the MGTOW video I posted commenting on traditionalism?

     
  4. Will S.

    September 3, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    I’m afraid I don’t think I have; can you tell / show me where you posted it? I’ll certainly take a look.

     
  5. Amos & Gromar

    September 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Modern feminism, particularly the American variety, got its philosophical legs from the Enlightenment. Male philosophers were forced to swallow the reductio implicit in Enlightenment equality dogma. They bit the bullet and slowly gave way–issue by issue.

     
  6. Will S.

    September 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Agreed; I have no doubt that the Enlightenment did lead to feminism, eventually.

    Thank you, BTW, for not blaming it primarily on the Reformation. 😉 I certainly think the ills of the Enlightenment, and all the ideologies and revolutions that occurred as a result of it, is far more responsible for the various ills we face today in our post-Christian era, than any that can be directly laid at the feet of Protestantism. (Not that we’re perfect, but not everything is our fault, either, as some tend to argue. 🙂 )

     
  7. Amos & Gromar

    September 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Yeah, they’re aren’t very many protestants in neoreaction. At all. I’ll have to write on that. The Catholics need a bit of a push back.

     
  8. Infowarrior1

    September 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    It is in the post “don’t blame women for creating feminism”

     
  9. Will S.

    September 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    @ Amos & Gromar: Ah. I’m more a paleorxnary, I think, definitely rxnary, & definitely Protestant.

    @ infowarrior: Ah, okay; I’ll take a look.

     
  10. electricangel

    September 5, 2013 at 9:36 am

    @Will,

    The Enlightenment bears the brunt for the creation of the French Revolution, which is the spawn of a lot of the stuff that afflicts us. Of course, I think the Enlightenment is an inevitable outgrowth of the Reformation. Think of all the professors employed at state-run (instead of Church-run) universities who backed its atomising (you owe me one -our word without u now) ideas, ideas that inexorably empowered the State.

    @A&G,

    Yes, you can see all the philosophies spilling out of the idea of Equality. It’s essentially a philosophy grounded in what Aquinas called the worst of the Deadly Sins, Envy. If you are not born an aristocrat, you must either deal with your station in life, or pretend that aristocracy does not or cannot exist. There is nothing good about Envy, unlike, say, Lust, which is a perversion of a normal, God-given, good desire.

     
  11. Will S.

    September 5, 2013 at 10:17 am

    @ EA: I agree that unfortunately, the Enlightenment became intertwined with the Reformation, in terms of malign effects in some aspects, particularly as the Reformation both splintered into many different denominations, and as many denominations became secularized and mainline in the 19th century in particular. But naturally, as a Reformational Protestant, I contend that it didn’t have to be that way, and that it’s tragic that it did go thus. And yeah, the Enlightenment led directly to the French Revolution, indeed, which I, like my forebears, hold responsible for most of the trends of society over the last two centuries…

    (Hey, we spell it ‘atomizing’ just as much as ‘atomising’, if not more; we tend to skew American in ‘-ize’ suffix words; while the government’s literature is all Oxford, in practice, we Canadians are mixed, using -re and -our but more -ize than -ise. 🙂 Unfortunately, I didn’t have any need for an ‘-our’ word in my response here, but I will say that, prior to Canadian government standardization (hey, there you go!) with Oxford spellings, you will see WWI rolls ‘of honor’ in Canadian churches, though by WWII, that was largely changed. So there you go; I worked in a legitimate pre-1920s Canadian spelling of ‘honour’. 😉 )

     
  12. Will S.

    September 7, 2013 at 1:08 am

    Here’s an example of a Canadian ‘Roll of Honor’:

     

Leave a comment