LETTERS
ON THE
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES,
AND THE
CONDITION OF WOMAN.
ADDRESSED TO
MARY S. PARKER,
PRESIDENT OF THE
Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society.
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY ISAAC KNAPP,
25, CORNHILL.
1838.
LETTERS.
LETTER I.
THE ORIGINAL EQUALITY OF WOMAN.
_Amesbury, 7th Mo. 11th, 1837._
MY DEAR FRIEND,--In attempting to comply with thy request to give my
views on the Province of Woman, I feel that I am venturing on nearly
untrodden ground, and that I shall advance arguments in opposition to
a corrupt public opinion, and to the perverted interpretation of Holy
Writ, which has so universally obtained. But I am in search of truth;
and no obstacle shall prevent my prosecuting that search, because I
believe the welfare of the world will be materially advanced by every
new discovery we make of the designs of Jehovah in the creation of
woman. It is impossible that we can answer the purpose of our being,
unless we understand that purpose. It is impossible that we should
fulfil our duties, unless we comprehend them; or live up to our
privileges, unless we know what they are.
In examining this important subject, I shall depend solely on the
Bible to designate the sphere of woman, because I believe almost every
thing that has been written on this subject, has been the result of
a misconception of the simple truths revealed in the Scriptures, in
consequence of the false translation of many passages of Holy Writ. My
mind is entirely delivered from the superstitious reverence which is
attached to the English version of the Bible. King James’s translators
certainly were not inspired. I therefore claim the original as my
standard, _believing that to have been inspired_, and I also claim to
judge for myself what is the meaning of the inspired writers, because
I believe it to be the solemn duty of every individual to search the
Scriptures for themselves, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and not be
governed by the views of any man, or set of men.
We must first view woman at the period of her creation. ‘And God said,
Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness; and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.’
In all this sublime description of the creation of man, (which is a
generic term including man and woman,) there is not one particle of
difference intimated as existing between them. They were both made in
the image of God; dominion was given to both over every other creature,
but not over each other. Created in perfect equality, they were
expected to exercise the vicegerence intrusted to them by their Maker,
in harmony and love.
Let us pass on now to the recapitulation of the creation of man:--‘The
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord
God said, it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an
help meet for him.’ All creation swarmed with animated beings capable
of natural affection, as we know they still are; it was not, therefore,
merely to give man a creature susceptible of loving, obeying, and
looking up to him, for all that the animals could do and did do. It
was to give him a companion, _in all respects_ his equal; one who was
like himself _a free agent_, gifted with intellect and endowed with
immortality; not a partaker merely of his animal gratifications, but
able to enter into all his feelings as a moral and responsible being.
If this had not been the case, how could she have been an help meet for
him? I understand this as applying not only to the parties entering
into the marriage contract, but to all men and women, because I believe
God designed woman to be an help meet for man in every good and perfect
work. She was a part of himself, as if Jehovah designed to make the
oneness and identity of man and woman perfect and complete; and when
the glorious work of their creation was finished, ‘the morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.’
This blissful condition was not long enjoyed by our first parents. Eve,
it would seem from the history, was wandering alone amid the bowers
of Paradise, when the serpent met with her. From her reply to Satan,
it is evident that the command not to eat ‘of the tree that is in the
midst of the garden,’ was given to both, although the term man was
used when the prohibition was issued by God. ‘And the woman said unto
the serpent, WE may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but
of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
said, YE shall not eat of it, neither shall YE touch it, lest YE die.’
Here the woman was exposed to temptation from a being with whom she was
unacquainted. She had been accustomed to associate with her beloved
partner, and to hold communion with God and with angels; but of satanic
intelligence, she was in all probability entirely ignorant. Through the
subtlety of the serpent, she was beguiled. And ‘when she saw that the
tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a
tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and
did eat.’
We next find Adam involved in the same sin, not through the
instrumentality of a supernatural agent, but through that of his equal,
a being whom he must have known was liable to transgress the divine
command, because he must have felt that he was himself a free agent,
and that he was restrained from disobedience only by the exercise of
faith and love towards his Creator. Had Adam tenderly reproved his
wife, and endeavored to lead her to repentance instead of sharing
in her guilt, I should be much more ready to accord to man that
superiority which he claims; but as the facts stand disclosed by the
sacred historian, it appears to me that to say the least, there was
as much weakness exhibited by Adam as by Eve. They both fell from
innocence, and consequently from happiness, _but not from equality_.
Let us next examine the conduct of this fallen pair, when Jehovah
interrogated them respecting their fault. They both frankly confessed
their guilt. ‘The man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with
me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat. And the woman said, the
serpent beguiled me and I did eat.’ And the Lord God said unto the
woman, ‘Thou wilt be subject unto thy husband, and he will rule over
thee.’ That this did not allude to the subjection of woman to man is
manifest, because the same mode of expression is used in speaking to
Cain of Abel. The truth is that the curse, as it is termed, which was
pronounced by Jehovah upon woman, is a simple prophecy. The Hebrew,
like the French language, uses the same word to express shall and will.
Our translators having been accustomed to exercise lordship over their
wives, and seeing only through the medium of a perverted judgment, very
naturally, though I think not very learnedly or very kindly, translated
it _shall_ instead of _will_, and thus converted a prediction to Eve
into a command to Adam; for observe, it is addressed to the woman and
not to the man. The consequence of the fall was an immediate struggle
for dominion, and Jehovah foretold which would gain the ascendency; but
as he created them in his image, as that image manifestly was not lost
by the fall, because it is urged in Gen. 9:6, as an argument why the
life of man should not be taken by his fellow man, there is no reason
to suppose that sin produced any distinction between them as moral,
intellectual and responsible beings. Man might just as well have
endeavored by hard labor to fulfil the prophecy, thorns and thistles
will the earth bring forth to thee, as to pretend to accomplish the
other, ‘he will rule over thee,’ by asserting dominion over his wife.
‘Authority usurped from God, not given.
He gave him only over beast, flesh, fowl,
Dominion absolute: that right he holds
By God’s donation: but man o’er woman
He made not Lord, such title to himself
Reserving, human left from human free.’
Here then I plant myself. God created us equal;--he created us free
agents;--he is our Lawgiver, our King and our Judge, and to him alone
is woman bound to be in subjection, and to him alone is she accountable
for the use of those talents with which her Heavenly Father has
entrusted her. One is her Master even Christ.
Thine for the oppressed in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER II.
WOMAN SUBJECT ONLY TO GOD.
_Newburyport, 7th mo. 17, 1837._
MY DEAR SISTER,--In my last, I traced the creation and the fall of
man and woman from that state of purity and happiness which their
beneficent Creator designed them to enjoy. As they were one in
transgression, their chastisement was the same. ‘So God drove out
_the man_, and he placed at the East of the garden of Eden a cherubim
and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the
tree of life.’ We now behold them expelled from Paradise, fallen from
their original loveliness, but still bearing on their foreheads the
image and superscription of Jehovah; still invested with high moral
responsibilities, intellectual powers, and immortal souls. They had
incurred the penalty of sin, they were shorn of their innocence,
but they stood on the same platform side by side, acknowledging _no
superior_ but their God. Notwithstanding what has been urged, woman
I am aware stands charged to the present day with having brought sin
into the world. I shall not repel the charge by any counter assertions,
although, as was before hinted, Adam’s ready acquiescence with his
wife’s proposal, does not savor much of that superiority _in strength
of mind_, which is arrogated by man. Even admitting that Eve was the
greater sinner, it seems to me man might be satisfied with the dominion
he has claimed and exercised for nearly six thousand years, and that
more true nobility would be manifested by endeavoring to raise the
fallen and invigorate the weak, than by keeping woman in subjection.
But I ask no favors for my sex. I surrender not our claim to equality.
All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off
our necks, and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God
designed us to occupy. If he has not given us the rights which have, as
I conceive, been wrested from us, we shall soon give evidence of our
inferiority, and shrink back into that obscurity, which the high souled
magnanimity of man has assigned us as our appropriate sphere.
As I am unable to learn from sacred writ when woman was deprived by
God of her equality with man, I shall touch upon a few points in the
Scriptures, which demonstrate that no supremacy was granted to man.
When God had destroyed the world, except Noah and his family, by the
deluge, he renewed the grant formerly made to man, and again gave him
dominion over every beast of the earth, every fowl of the air, over all
that moveth upon the earth, and over all the fishes of the sea; into
his hands they were delivered. But was woman, bearing the image of her
God, placed under the dominion of her fellow man? Never! Jehovah could
not surrender his authority to govern his own immortal creatures into
the hands of a being, whom he knew, and whom his whole history proved,
to be unworthy of a trust so sacred and important. God could not do it,
because it is a direct contravention of his law, ‘Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and _him only_ shalt thou serve.’ If Jehovah had
appointed man as the guardian, or teacher of woman, he would certainly
have given some intimation of this surrender of his own prerogative.
But so far from it, we find the commands of God invariably the same to
man and woman; and not the slightest intimation is given in a single
passage of the Bible, that God designed to point woman to man as her
instructor. The tenor of his language always is, ‘Look unto ME, and be
ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none
else.’
The lust of dominion was probably the first effect of the fall; and as
there was no other intelligent being over whom to exercise it, woman
was the first victim of this unhallowed passion. We afterwards see
it exhibited by Cain in the murder of his brother, by Nimrod in his
becoming a mighty hunter of men, and setting up a kingdom over which to
reign. Here we see the origin of that Upas of slavery, which sprang up
immediately after the fall, and has spread its pestilential branches
over the whole face of the known world. All history attests that man
has subjected woman to his will, used her as a means to promote his
selfish gratification, to minister to his sensual pleasures, to be
instrumental in promoting his comfort; but never has he desired to
elevate her to that rank she was created to fill. He has done all he
could to debase and enslave her mind; and now he looks triumphantly on
the ruin he has wrought, and says, the being he has thus deeply injured
is his inferior.
Woman has been placed by John Quincy Adams, side by side with the
slave, whilst he was contending for the right side of petition. I
thank him for ranking us with the oppressed; for I shall not find it
difficult to show, that in all ages and countries, not even excepting
enlightened republican America, woman has more or less been made a
_means_ to promote the welfare of man, without due regard to her own
happiness, and the glory of God as the end of her creation.
During the _patriarchal_ ages, we find men and women engaged in the
same employments. Abraham and Sarah both assisted in preparing the
food which was to be set before the three men, who visited them in the
plains of Mamre; but although their occupations were similar, Sarah
was not permitted to enjoy the society of the holy visitant; and as
we learn from Peter, that she ‘obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord,’ we
may presume he exercised dominion over her. We shall pass on now to
Rebecca. In her history, we find another striking illustration of the
low estimation in which woman was held. Eleazur is sent to seek a wife
for Isaac. He finds Rebecca going down to the well to fill her pitcher.
He accosts her; and she replies with all humility, ‘Drink, my lord.’
How does he endeavor to gain her favor and confidence? Does he approach
her as a dignified creature, whom he was about to invite to fill an
important station in his master’s family, as the wife of his only son?
No. He offered incense to her vanity, and ‘he took a golden ear-ring of
half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels
weight of gold,’ and gave them to Rebecca.
The cupidity of man soon led him to regard woman as property, and
hence we find them sold to those, who wished to marry them, as far as
appears, without any regard to those sacred rights which belong to
woman, as well as to man in the choice of a companion. That women were
a profitable kind of property, we may gather from the description of
a virtuous woman in the last chapter of Proverbs. To work willingly
with her hands, to open her hands to the poor, to clothe herself with
silk and purple, to look well to her household, to make fine linen
and sell it, to deliver girdles to the merchant, and not to eat the
bread of idleness, seems to have constituted in the view of Solomon,
the perfection of a woman’s character and achievements. ‘The spirit of
that age was not favorable to intellectual improvement; but as there
were wise men who formed exceptions to the general ignorance, and were
destined to guide the world into more advanced states, so there was a
corresponding proportion of wise women; and among the Jews, as well as
other nations, we find a strong tendency to believe that women were in
more immediate connection with heaven than men.’--L. M. Child’s Con.
of Woman. If there be any truth in this tradition, I am at a loss to
imagine in what the superiority of man consists.
Thine in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER III.
THE PASTORAL LETTER OF THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF CONGREGATIONAL
MINISTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS.
_Haverhill, 7th Mo. 1837._
DEAR FRIEND,--When I last addressed thee, I had not seen the Pastoral
Letter of the General Association. It has since fallen into my hands,
and I must digress from my intention of exhibiting the condition of
women in different parts of the world, in order to make some remarks
on this extraordinary document. I am persuaded that when the minds of
men and women become emancipated from the thraldom of superstition and
‘traditions of men,’ the sentiments contained in the Pastoral Letter
will be recurred to with as much astonishment as the opinions of
Cotton Mather and other distinguished men of his day, on the subject
of witchcraft; nor will it be deemed less wonderful, that a body of
divines should gravely assemble and endeavor to prove that woman has
no right to ‘open her mouth for the dumb,’ than it now is that judges
should have sat on the trials of witches, and solemnly condemned
nineteen persons and one dog to death for witchcraft.
But to the letter. It says, ‘We invite your attention to the dangers
which at present seem to threaten the FEMALE CHARACTER with wide-spread
and permanent injury.’ I rejoice that they have called the attention
of my sex to this subject, because I believe if woman investigates it,
she will soon discover that danger is impending, though from a totally
different source from that which the Association apprehends,--danger
from those who, having long held the reins of _usurped_ authority, are
unwilling to permit us to fill that sphere which God created us to
move in, and who have entered into league to crush the immortal mind
of woman. I rejoice, because I am persuaded that the rights of woman,
like the rights of slaves, need only be examined to be understood and
asserted, even by some of those, who are now endeavoring to smother the
irrepressible desire for mental and spiritual freedom which glows in
the breast of many, who hardly dare to speak their sentiments.
‘The appropriate duties and influence of women are clearly stated
in the New Testament. Those duties are unobtrusive and private, but
the sources of _mighty power_. When the mild, _dependent_, softening
influence of woman upon the sternness of man’s opinions is fully
exercised, society feels the effects of it in a thousand ways.’ No one
can desire more earnestly than I do, that woman may move exactly in the
sphere which her Creator has assigned her; and I believe her having
been displaced from that sphere has introduced confusion into the
world. It is, therefore, of vast importance to herself and to all the
rational creation, that she should ascertain what are her duties and
her privileges as a responsible and immortal being. The New Testament
has been referred to, and I am willing to abide by its decisions, but
must enter my protest against the false translation of some passages by
the MEN who did that work, and against the perverted interpretation by
the MEN who undertook to write commentaries thereon. I am inclined to
think, when we are admitted to the honor of studying Greek and Hebrew,
we shall produce some various readings of the Bible a little different
from those we now have.
The Lord Jesus defines the duties of his followers in his Sermon on the
Mount. He lays down grand principles by which they should be governed,
without any reference to sex or condition:--‘Ye are the light of the
world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light
a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth
light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before
men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which
is in Heaven.’ I follow him through all his precepts, and find him
giving the same directions to women as to men, never even referring to
the distinction now so strenuously insisted upon between masculine and
feminine virtues: this is one of the anti-christian ‘traditions of men’
which are taught instead of the ‘commandments of God.’ Men and women
were CREATED EQUAL; they are both moral and accountable beings, and
whatever is _right_ for man to do, is _right_ for woman.
But the influence of woman, says the Association, is to be private
and unobtrusive; her light is not to shine before man like that of
her brethren; but she is passively to let the lords of the creation,
as they call themselves, put the bushel over it, lest peradventure it
might appear that the world has been benefitted by the rays of _her_
candle. So that her quenched light, according to their judgment, will
be of more use than if it were set on the candlestick. ‘Her influence
is the source of mighty power.’ This has ever been the flattering
language of man since he laid aside the whip as a means to keep woman
in subjection. He spares her body; but the war he has waged against her
mind, her heart, and her soul, has been no less destructive to her as
a moral being. How monstrous, how anti-christian, is the doctrine that
woman is to be dependent on man! Where, in all the sacred Scriptures,
is this taught? Alas! she has too well learned the lesson which MAN has
labored to teach her. She has surrendered her dearest RIGHTS, and been
satisfied with the privileges which man has assumed to grant her; she
has been amused with the show of power, whilst man has absorbed all the
reality into himself. He has adorned the creature whom God gave him as
a companion, with baubles and gewgaws, turned her attention to personal
attractions, offered incense to her vanity, and made her the instrument
of his selfish gratification, a play-thing to please his eye and amuse
his hours of leisure. ‘Rule by obedience and by submission sway,’ or
in other words, study to be a hypocrite, pretend to submit, but gain
your point, has been the code of household morality which woman has
been taught. The poet has sung, in sickly strains, the loveliness of
woman’s dependence upon man, and now we find it re-echoed by those who
profess to teach the religion of the Bible. God says, ‘Cease ye from
man whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted
of?’ Man says, depend upon me. God says, ‘HE will teach us of his
ways.’ Man says, believe it not, I am to be your teacher. This doctrine
of dependence upon man is utterly at variance with the doctrine of the
Bible. In that book I find nothing like the softness of woman, nor the
sternness of man: both are equally commanded to bring forth the fruits
of the Spirit, love, meekness, gentleness, &c.
But we are told, ‘the power of woman is in her dependence, flowing
from a consciousness of that weakness which God has given her for her
protection.’ If physical weakness is alluded to, I cheerfully concede
the superiority; if brute force is what my brethren are claiming, I am
willing to let them have all the honor they desire; but if they mean
to intimate, that mental or moral weakness belongs to woman, more than
to man, I utterly disclaim the charge. Our powers of mind have been
crushed, as far as man could do it, our sense of morality has been
impaired by his interpretation of our duties; but no where does God
say that he made any distinction between us, as moral and intelligent
beings.
‘We appreciate,’ say the Association, ‘the _unostentatious_ prayers
and efforts of woman in advancing the cause of religion at home and
abroad, in leading religious inquirers TO THE PASTOR for instruction.’
Several points here demand attention. If public prayers and public
efforts are necessarily ostentatious, then ‘Anna the prophetess, (or
preacher,) who departed not from the temple, but served God with
fastings and prayers night and day,’ ‘and spake of Christ to all them
that looked for redemption in Israel,’ was ostentatious in her efforts.
Then, the apostle Paul encourages women to be ostentatious in their
efforts to spread the gospel, when he gives them directions how they
should appear, when engaged in praying, or preaching in the public
assemblies. Then, the whole association of Congregational ministers are
ostentatious, in the efforts they are making in preaching and praying
to convert souls.
But woman may be permitted to lead religious inquirers to the PASTORS
for instruction. Now this is assuming that all pastors are better
qualified to give instruction than woman. This I utterly deny. I have
suffered too keenly from the teaching of man, to lead any one to him
for instruction. The Lord Jesus says,--‘Come unto me and learn of me.’
He points his followers to no man; and when woman is made the favored
instrument of rousing a sinner to his lost and helpless condition,
she has no right to substitute any teacher for Christ; all she has to
do is, to turn the contrite inquirer to the ‘Lamb of God which taketh
away the sins of the world.’ More souls have probably been lost by
going down to Egypt for help, and by trusting in man in the early
stages of religious experience, than by any other error. Instead of
the petition being offered to God,--‘Lead me in thy truth, and TEACH
me, for thou art the God of my salvation,’--instead of relying on the
precious promises--‘What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall
HE TEACH in the way that he shall choose’--‘I will instruct thee and
TEACH thee in the way which thou shalt go--I will guide thee with mine
eye’--the young convert is directed to go to man, as if he were in
the place of God, and his instructions essential to an advancement in
the path of righteousness. That woman can have but a poor conception
of the privilege of being taught of God, what he alone can teach, who
would turn the ‘religious inquirer aside’ from the fountain of living
waters, where he might slake his thirst for spiritual instruction, to
those broken cisterns which can hold no water, and therefore cannot
satisfy the panting spirit. The business of men and women, who are
ORDAINED OF GOD to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ to a lost
and perishing world, is to lead souls to Christ, and not to Pastors for
instruction.
The General Association say, that ‘when woman assumes the place and
tone of man as a public reformer, our care and protection of her seem
unnecessary; we put ourselves in self-defence against her, and her
character becomes unnatural.’ Here again the unscriptural notion is
held up, that there is a distinction between the duties of men and
women as moral beings; that what is virtue in man, is vice in woman;
and women who dare to obey the command of Jehovah, ‘Cry aloud, spare
not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their
transgression,’ are threatened with having the protection of the
brethren withdrawn. If this is all they do, we shall not even know
the time when our chastisement is inflicted; our trust is in the Lord
Jehovah, and in him is ever-lasting strength. The motto of woman, when
she is engaged in the great work of public reformation should be,--‘The
Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the
strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?’ She must feel, if she
feels rightly, that she is fulfilling one of the important duties
laid upon her as an accountable being, and that her character, instead
of being ‘unnatural,’ is in exact accordance with the will of Him to
whom, and to no other, she is responsible for the talents and the gifts
confided to her. As to the pretty simile, introduced into the ‘Pastoral
Letter,’ ‘If the vine whose strength and beauty is to lean upon the
trellis work, and half conceal its clusters, thinks to assume the
independence and the overshadowing nature of the elm,’ &c. I shall only
remark that it might well suit the poet’s fancy, who sings of sparkling
eyes and coral lips, and knights in armor clad; but it seems to me
utterly inconsistent with the dignity of a Christian body, to endeavor
to draw such an anti-scriptural distinction between men and women. Ah!
how many of my sex feel in the dominion, thus unrighteously exercised
over them, under the gentle appellation of _protection_, that what they
have leaned upon has proved a broken reed at best, and oft a spear.
Thine in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER IV.
SOCIAL INTERCOURSE OF THE SEXES.
_Andover, 7th Mo. 27th, 1837._
MY DEAR FRIEND,--Before I proceed with the account of that oppression
which woman has suffered in every age and country from her _protector_,
man, permit me to offer for your consideration, some views relative
to the social intercourse of the sexes. Nearly the whole of this
intercourse is, in my apprehension, derogatory to man and woman, as
moral and intellectual beings. We approach each other, and mingle
with each other, under the constant pressure of a feeling that we are
of different sexes; and, instead of regarding each other only in the
light of immortal creatures, the mind is fettered by the idea which is
early and industriously infused into it, that we must never forget the
distinction between male and female. Hence our intercourse, instead
of being elevated and refined, is generally calculated to excite and
keep alive the lowest propensities of our nature. Nothing, I believe,
has tended more to destroy the true dignity of woman, than the fact
that she is approached by man in the character of a female. The idea
that she is sought as an intelligent and heaven-born creature, whose
society will cheer, refine and elevate her companion, and that she
will receive the same blessings she confers, is rarely held up to her
view. On the contrary, man almost always addresses himself to the
weakness of woman. By flattery, by an appeal to her passions, he seeks
access to her heart; and when he has gained her affections, he uses
her as the instrument of his pleasure--the minister of his temporal
comfort. He furnishes himself with a housekeeper, whose chief business
is in the kitchen, or the nursery. And whilst he goes abroad and
enjoys the means of improvement afforded by collision of intellect
with cultivated minds, his wife is condemned to draw nearly all her
instruction from books, if she has time to peruse them; and if not,
from her meditations, whilst engaged in those domestic duties, which
are necessary for the comfort of her lord and master.
Surely no one who contemplates, with the eye of a Christian
philosopher, the design of God in the creation of woman, can believe
that she is now fulfilling that design. The literal translation of the
word ‘help-meet’ is a helper like unto himself; it is so rendered in
the Septuagint, and manifestly signifies a companion. Now I believe
it will be impossible for woman to fill the station assigned her by
God, until her brethren mingle with her as an equal, as a moral being;
and lose, in the dignity of her immortal nature, and in the fact of
her bearing like himself the image and superscription of her God, the
idea of her being a female. The apostle beautifully remarks, ‘As many
of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither _male_ nor _female_; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ Until
our intercourse is purified by the forgetfulness of sex,--until we rise
above the present low and sordid views which entwine themselves around
our social and domestic interchange of sentiment and feelings, we never
can derive that benefit from each other’s society which it is the
design of our Creator that we should. Man has inflicted an unspeakable
injury upon woman, by holding up to her view her animal nature, and
placing in the back ground her moral and intellectual being. Woman has
inflicted an injury upon herself by submitting to be thus regarded; and
she is now called upon to rise from the station where _man_, not God,
has placed her, and claim those sacred and inalienable rights, as a
moral and responsible being, with which her Creator has invested her.
What but these views, so derogatory to the character of woman, could
have called forth the remark contained in the Pastoral Letter?
‘We especially deplore the intimate acquaintance and promiscuous
conversation of _females_ with regard to things “which ought not to
be named,” by which that modesty and delicacy, which is the charm of
domestic life, and which constitutes the true influence of woman,
is consumed.’ How wonderful that the conceptions of man relative to
woman are so low, that he cannot perceive that she may converse on any
subject connected with the improvement of her species, without swerving
in the least from that modesty which is one of her greatest virtues!
Is it designed to insinuate that woman should possess a greater degree
of modesty than man? This idea I utterly reprobate. Or is it supposed
that woman cannot go into scenes of misery, the necessary result of
those very things, which the Pastoral Letter says ought not to be
named, for the purpose of moral reform, without becoming contaminated
by those with whom she thus mingles?
This is a false position; and I presume has grown out of the
never-forgotten distinction of male and female. The woman who goes
forth, clad in the panoply of God, to stem the tide of iniquity and
misery, which she beholds rolling through our land, goes not forth to
her labor of love as a female. She goes as the dignified messenger of
Jehovah, and all she does and says must be done and said irrespective
of sex. She is in duty bound to communicate with all, who are able and
willing to aid her in saving her fellow creatures, both men and women,
from that destruction which awaits them.
So far from woman losing any thing of the purity of her mind, by
visiting the wretched victims of vice in their miserable abodes, by
talking with them, or of them, she becomes more and more elevated and
refined in her feelings and views. While laboring to cleanse the minds
of others from the malaria of moral pollution, her own heart becomes
purified, and her soul rises to nearer communion with her God. Such a
woman is infinitely better qualified to fulfil the duties of a wife and
a mother, than the woman whose _false delicacy_ leads her to shun her
fallen sister and brother, and shrink from _naming those sins_ which
she knows exist, but which she is too fastidious to labor by deed and
by word to exterminate. Such a woman feels when she enters upon the
marriage relation, that God designed that relation not to debase her
to a level with the animal creation, but to increase the happiness and
dignity of his creatures. Such a woman comes to the important task of
training her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with a
soul filled with the greatness of the beings committed to her charge.
She sees in her children, creatures bearing the image of God; and she
approaches them with reverence, and treats them at all times as moral
and accountable beings. Her own mind being purified and elevated, she
instils into her children that genuine religion which induces them to
keep the commandments of God. Instead of ministering with ceaseless
care to their sensual appetites, she teaches them to be temperate in
all things. She can converse with her children on any subject relating
to their duty to God, can point their attention to those vices which
degrade and brutify human nature, without in the least defiling her
own mind or theirs. She views herself, and teaches her children to
regard themselves as moral beings; and in all their intercourse with
their fellow men, to lose the animal nature of man and woman, in the
recognition of that immortal mind wherewith Jehovah has blessed and
enriched them.
Thine in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER V.
CONDITION IN ASIA AND AFRICA.
_Groton, 8th Mo. 4th, 1837._
MY DEAR SISTER,--I design to devote this letter to a brief examination
of the condition of women in Asia and Africa. I believe it will be
found that men, in the exercise of their usurped dominion over woman,
have almost invariably done one of two things. They have either made
slaves of the creatures whom God designed to be their companions and
their coadjutors in every moral and intellectual improvement, or they
have dressed them like dolls, and used them as toys to amuse their
hours of recreation.
I shall commence by stating the degrading practice of SELLING WOMEN,
which we find prevalent in almost all the Eastern nations.
Among the Jews,--
‘Whoever wished for a wife must pay the parents for her, or perform
a stipulated period of service; sometimes the parties were solemnly
betrothed in childhood, and the price of the bride stipulated.’
In Babylon, they had a yearly custom of a peculiar kind.
‘In every district, three men, respectable for their virtue, were
chosen to conduct all the marriageable girls to the public assembly.
Here they were put up at auction by the public crier, while the
magistrate presided over the sales. The most beautiful were sold
first, and the rich contended eagerly for a choice. The most ugly,
or deformed girl was sold next in succession to the handsomest, and
assigned to any person who would take her with the least sum of money.
The price given for the beautiful was divided into dowries for the
homely.’
Two things may here be noticed; first, the value set upon personal
charms, just as a handsome horse commands a high price; and second, the
utter disregard which is manifested towards the feelings of woman.
‘In no part of the world does the condition of women appear more
dreary than in Hindostan. The arbitrary power of a father disposes
of them in childhood. When they are married, their husbands have
despotic control over them; if unable to support them, they can lend
or sell them to a neighbor, and in the Hindoo rage for gambling, wives
and children are frequently staked and lost. If they survive their
husbands, they must pay implicit obedience to the oldest son; if they
have no sons, the nearest male relation holds them in subjection; and
if there happen to be no kinsmen, they must be dependent on the chief
of the tribe.’
Even the English, who are numerous in Hindostan, have traded in women.
‘India has been a great marriage market, on account of the emigration
of young enterprising Englishmen, without a corresponding number
of women. Some persons actually imported women to the British
settlements, in order to sell them to rich Europeans, or nabobs, who
would give a good price for them. How the importers acquired a right
thus to dispose of them is not mentioned; it is probable that the
women themselves, from extreme poverty, or some other cause, consented
to become articles of speculation, upon consideration of receiving a
certain remuneration. In September, 1818, the following advertisement
appeared in the Calcutta Advertiser:
FEMALES RAFFLED FOR.
Be it known, that six fair pretty young ladies, with two sweet
engaging children, lately imported from Europe, having the roses of
health blooming on their cheeks, and joy sparkling in their eyes,
possessing amiable tempers and highly accomplished, whom the most
indifferent cannot behold without rapture, are to be raffled for next
door to the British gallery.’
The enemy of all good could not have devised a better means of debasing
an immortal creature, than by turning her into a saleable commodity;
and hence we find that wherever this custom prevails, woman is regarded
as a mere machine to answer the purposes of domestic combat or sensual
indulgence, or to gratify the taste of her oppressor by a display of
personal attractions.
‘Weighed in the balance with a tyrant’s gold,
Though nature cast her in a heavenly mould.’
I shall now take a brief survey of the EMPLOYMENTS of women in Asia
and Africa. In doing this, I have two objects in view; first to show,
that women are capable of acquiring as great physical power as men,
and secondly to show, that they have been more or less the victims of
oppression and contempt.
‘The occupations of the ancient Jewish women were laborious. They
spent their time in spinning and weaving cloth for garments, and for
the covering of the tents, in cooking the food, tending the flocks,
grinding the corn, and drawing water from the wells.’
Of Trojan women we know little, but we find that--
‘Andromache, though a princess and well beloved by her husband, fed
and took care of the horses of Hector.’
So in Persia, women of the middling class see that proper care is taken
of the horses. They likewise do all the laborious part of the house
work.
‘The Hindoo women are engaged in every variety of occupation,
according to the caste of their husbands. They cultivate the land,
make baskets and mats, bring water in jars, carry manure and various
other articles to market in baskets on their heads, cook food, tend
children, weave cloth, reel thread and wind cocoons.’
‘The Thibetian women of the laboring classes are inured to a great
deal of toil. They plant, weed, reap, and thresh grain, and are
exposed to the roughest weather, while their indolent husbands are
perhaps living at their ease.’
‘Females of the lower classes among the Chinese endure as much labor
and fatigue as the men. A wife sometimes drags the plough in rice
fields with an infant tied upon her back, while her husband performs
the less arduous task of holding the plough.’
‘The Tartar women in general perform a greater share of labor than the
men; for it is a prevalent opinion that they were sent into the world
for no other purpose, but to be useful and convenient SLAVES to the
stronger sex.’ ‘Among some of the Tartar tribes of the present day,
females manage a horse, hurl a javelin, hunt wild animals, and fight
an enemy as well as the men.’
‘In the island of Sumatra, the women do all the work, while their
husbands lounge in idleness, playing on the flute, with wreaths of
globe amaranth on their heads, or racing with each other, without
saddle or stirrup, or hunting deer, or gambling away their wives,
their children, or themselves. The Battas consider their wives and
children as slaves, and sell them whenever they choose.’
‘The Moors are indolent to excess. They lie whole days upon their
mats, sleeping and smoking, while the women and slaves perform all the
labor. Owing to their uncleanly habits, they are much infested with
vermin; and as they consider it beneath their dignity to remove this
annoyance, the task is imposed on the women. They are very impatient
and tyrannical, and for the slightest offence beat their wives most
cruelly.’
In looking over the condition of woman as delineated in this letter,
how amply do we find the prophecy of Jehovah to Eve fulfilled, ‘Thy
husband will rule over thee.’ And yet we perceive that where the
physical strength of woman is called into exercise, there is no
inferiority even in this respect; she performs the labor, while man
enjoys what are termed the pleasures of life.
I have thought it necessary to adduce various proofs of my assertion,
that men have always in some way regarded women as mere instruments of
selfish gratification; and hope this sorrowful detail of the wrongs of
woman will not be tedious to thee.
Thine in the bonds of womanhood,
SARAH M. GRIMKE.
LETTER VI.
WOMEN IN ASIA AND AFRICA.
_Groton, 8th Mo. 15th, 1837._
DEAR FRIEND,--In pursuing the history of woman in different ages and
countries, it will be necessary to exhibit her in all the various
situations in which she has been placed.
We find her sometimes _filling the throne_, and exercising the
functions of royalty. The name of Semiramis is familiar to every
reader of ancient history. She succeeded Ninus in the government of
the Assyrian empire; and to render her name immortal, built the city
of Babylon. Two millions of men were constantly employed upon it.
Certain dykes built by order of this queen, to defend the city from
inundations, are spoken of as admirable.
Nicotris, wife of Nabonadius, the Evil-Merodach of Scripture, was a
woman of great endowments. While her husband indulged in a life of ease
and pleasure, she managed the affairs of state with wisdom and prudence.
‘Zenobia queen of Palmyra and the East, is the most remarkable
among Asiatic women. Her genius struggled with and overcame all the
obstacles presented by oriental laws and customs. She knew the Latin,
Greek, Syriac, and Egyptian languages; and had drawn up for her own
use an abridgement of oriental history. She was the companion and
friend of her husband, and accompanied him on his hunting excursions
with eagerness and courage equal to his own. She despised the
effeminacy of a covered carriage, and often appeared on horseback in
military costume. Sometimes she marched several miles on foot, at the
head of the troops. Having revenged the murder of her husband, she
ascended the throne, and for five years governed Palmyra, Syria, and
the East, with wonderful steadiness and wisdom.’
‘Previous to the introduction of Mohammedism into Java, women often
held the highest offices of government; and when the chief of a
district dies, it is even now not uncommon for the widow to retain the
authority that belonged to her deceased husband.’
Other instances might be adduced to prove that there is no natural
inferiority in woman. Not that I approve of woman’s holding the reins
of government over man. I maintain that they are equal, and that God
never invested fallen man with unlimited power over his fellow man;
and I rejoice that circumstances have prevented woman from being more
deeply involved in the guilt which appears to be inseparable from
political affairs. The few instances which I have mentioned prove
that intellect is not sexed; and doubtless if woman had not almost
universally been depressed and degraded, the page of history would have
exhibited as many eminent statesmen and politicians among women as
men. We are much in the situation of the slave. Man has asserted and
assumed authority over us. He has, by virtue of his power, deprived
us of the advantages of improvement which he has lavishly bestowed
upon himself, and then, after having done all he can to take from
us the means of proving our equality, and our capability of mental
cultivation, he throws upon us the burden of proof that God created man
and woman equal, and endowed them, without any reference to sex, with
intelligence and responsibilities, as rational and accountable beings.
Hence in Hindostan, even women of the higher classes are forbidden to
read or write; because the Hindoos think it would inevitably spoil them
for domestic life, and assuredly bring some great misfortune upon them.
May we not trace to the same feeling, the disadvantages under which
women labor even in this country, for want of an education, which would
call into exercise the powers of her mind, and fortify her soul with
those great moral principles by which she would be qualified to fill
_every_ department in _social_, _domestic_ and _religious_ life with
dignity?
In Hindostan, the evidence of women is not received in a court of
justice.
In Burmah, their testimony is not deemed equal to that of a man, and
they are not allowed to ascend the steps of a court of justice, but are
obliged to give their testimony outside of the building.
In Siberia, women are not allowed to step across the foot-prints of
men, or reindeer; they are not allowed to eat with men, or to partake
of particular dainties. Among many tribes, they seem to be regarded as
impure, unholy beings.
‘The Mohammedan law forbids pigs, dogs, women and other impure animals
to enter a mosque; and the hour of prayers must not be proclaimed by a
female, a madman, a drunkard, or a decrepit person.’
Here I am reminded of the resemblance between the situation of women in
heathen and Mohammedan countries, and our brethren and sisters of color
in this Christian land, where they are despised and cast out as though
they were unclean. And on precisely the same ground, because they are
said to be inferior.
The treatment of women as wives is almost uniformly the same in all
heathen countries.
The ancient Lydians are the only exception that I have met with, and
the origin of their peculiar customs is so much obscured by fable, that
it is difficult to ascertain the truth. Probably they arose from some
great benefit conferred on the state by women.
Among the Druses who reside in the mountains of the Anti Libanus,
a wife is often divorced on the slightest pretext. If she ask her
husband’s permission to go out, and he says,--‘Go,’ without adding ‘but
come back again,’ she is divorced.