Women And Womanhood Are Under Attack. Where Are The Feminists?

Cover image reference.

It started with this Gospel passage proclaimed on the morning of June 27, the Thirteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time:

MARK 5:21-43

21And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. 22Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja’irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, 23and besought him, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” 24And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 25And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.” 29And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, `Who touched me?'” 32And he looked around to see who had done it. 33But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” 35While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” 36But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” 37And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. 39And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” 42And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. 43And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

In some Lectionaries, the bolded passage is optional to read, and just the account of Jarius’s daughter is the point of the day. One Mass I cantored that weekend, indeed the presider chose not to read that segment. Essentially, the woman with the issue of blood, a character in the Gospels who appears in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, which is unique in and of itself, her story was considered to be so important that she could essentially be canceled on a given week.

(Another priest I heard talk that weekend did read the passage, but was dismissive of the incident in the midst of a father’s pain in potentially losing a child. Seriously, a twelve year period is no joke. The anemia alone is debilitating.)

In both cases, the presiders – light in the loafers, if you will, although celibate, I am quite sure – mentioned that Bishop so and so – a name famous in Catholic circles, and also quite light in the loafers – said that such and such should be mentioned in the homily, and what it all meant. No mention of the woman, though.

Blah, blah, blah.

Now, this is not to dismiss Jarius and his daughter by any means, but the two stories being one in essence have the same resonance: faith, pure faith, that Jesus could work a miracle for them.

And the story of the woman who suffered at the hands of the system was either ignored or dismissed in favor of the man’s story where the crisis was not chronic, but immediate.

There was another incident that escapes my head, and then there was this:

There are simply no words as to how insulting this is to women. Real women, especially those who would have loved to have been mothers, but it didn’t happen for whatever reason, not to mention mothers who lactated for years. Dude, you just don’t have the equipment. It ain’t happening.

And then some genius decided to make a pregnant man emoji.

Guys, that’s called a beer belly. Trust me. They run in part of my gene pool and are a precursor to diabetes among other ailments.

Yes, it is. And where are the feminists?

There’s a few constitutional amendments these women need to read. Black women have been able to vote for over a hundred years.

And in all of this, where are the feminists? Where are the self described defenders of women’s rights?

Oh, that’s right. They are hell bent on women killing their children if their conception isn’t prevented in the first place.

What is really sick about this is in looking back at the women’s rights movements, women today have no idea how good they’ve got it, and the right to vote is the least of the issues. The suffrage/suffragette push started, actually, as an outgrowth of something far larger.

In England, and her sphere of off-shoots (that includes the U.S.), after the Cromwell years, women had no rights, and in a way that was the message of Jane Austen’s body of work: to demonstrate how unfair the social standards and rules of heredity were, and how women were just treated as chattel. In Sense and Sensibility, the Dashwood women were thrown out of their home and forced to live by the charity of a relative. In Pride and Prejudice, the Bennett sisters were all tarnished by one sister running off with a man who seduced her at the age of fifteen. In Emma, her friend Harriet is the by-blow of God only knows who, and cannot aspire to a marriage of the caliber that Emma can. Life was not fair for women even among landed gentry, and their only hope to escape eventual poverty was marriage, and then the husband held all the cards, including her money – her dowry – which was a complete departure from the original purpose of a woman’s fortune which was supposed to be a safety net for her and any children she had. (See Mary Kate’s fortune in The Quiet Man for reference. In the west, a dowry was a pagan custom that survived in Christianity, so it couldn’t have been all bad.)

In researching the suffrage/suffragette movements, it seems it started in England with fathers wanting to be sure that their daughters’ money was not controlled completely by their husbands. (This is a BIG point made in the Romance sub-genre of Regency. Marriage settlements are always about how much a father provides to his daughter’s new husband.)

Yes, it was all about the money, and in the United States, it was somewhat about women being able to sign contracts, and having bank accounts without a husband. Widows were grandfathered in to an extent, but women owning property was not the norm. No, that was a man’s world. Women were to be the helpmates.

Forget the sexual aspect of it all and the voting rights. Women had nothing unless they were married or widowed.

That’s how it started.

And, according to the notoriously not quite reliable Wiki, this happened in England.

At a political meeting in Manchester in 1905, Christabel Pankhurst and millworker, Annie Kenney, disrupted speeches by prominent Liberals Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey, asking where Churchill and Grey stood with regards to women’s political rights. At a time when political meetings were only attended by men and speakers were expected to be given the courtesy of expounding their views without interruption, the audience were outraged, and when the women unfurled a “Votes for Women” banner they were both arrested for a technical assault on a policeman. When Pankhurst and Kenney appeared in court they both refused to pay the fine imposed, preferring to go to prison in order to gain publicity for their cause.[25]

In July 1908 the WSPU hosted a large demonstration in Heaton Park, near Manchester with speakers on 13 separate platforms including Emmeline, Christabel and Adela Pankhurst. According to the Manchester Guardian:

Friends of the women suffrage movement are entitled to reckon the great demonstration at Heaton Park yesterday, arranged by the Women’s Social and Political Union, as somewhat of a triumph. With fine weather as an ally the women suffragists were able to bring together an immense body of people. These people were not all sympathisers with the object, and much service to the cause must have been rendered by merely collecting so many people and talking over the subject with them. The organisation, too, was creditable to the promoters…The police were few and inconspicuous. The speakers went by special [tram]car to the Bury Old Road entrance, and were escorted by a few police to several platforms. Here the escorts waited till the speaking was over, and then accompanied their respective charges back to the special car. There was little need, apparently, for the escort. Even the opponents of the suffrage claim who made themselves heard were perfectly friendly towards the speakers, and the only crowding about them as they left was that of curiosity on the part of those who wished to have a good look at the missioners in the cause.[26]

Stung by the stereotypical image of the strong minded woman in masculine clothes created by newspaper cartoonists, the suffragettes resolved to present a fashionable, feminine image when appearing in public. In 1908 the co-editor of the WSPU’s Votes for Women newspaper, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence,[27] designed the suffragettes’ colour scheme of purple for loyalty and dignity, white for purity, and green for hope.[28] Fashionable London shops Selfridges and Liberty sold tricolour-striped ribbon for hats, rosettes, badges and belts, as well as coloured garments, underwear, handbags, shoes, slippers and toilet soap.[5] As membership of the WSPU grew it became fashionable for women to identify with the cause by wearing the colours, often discreetly in a small piece of jewellery or by carrying a heart-shaped vesta case[29][5] and in December 1908 the London jewellers, Mappin & Webb, issued a catalogue of suffragette jewellery in time for the Christmas season.[30] Sylvia Pankhurst said at the time: “Many suffragists spend more money on clothes than they can comfortably afford, rather than run the risk of being considered outré, and doing harm to the cause”.[5] In 1909 the WSPU presented specially commissioned pieces of jewellery to leading suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst and Louise Eates.[30]

The suffragettes also used other methods to publicise and raise money for the cause and from 1909, the “Pank-a-Squith” board game was sold by the WSPU. The name was derived from Pankhurst and the surname of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, who was largely hated by the movement. The board game was set out in a spiral, and players were required to lead their suffragette figure from their home to parliament, past the obstacles faced from Prime Minister H. H. Asquith and the Liberal government.[31] Also in 1909, suffragettes Daisy Solomon and Elspeth McClelland tried an innovative method of potentially obtaining a meeting with Asquith by sending themselves by Royal Mail courier post; however, Downing Street did not accept the parcel.[32]Emily Davison

1912 was a turning point for the suffragettes, as they turned to using more militant tactics and began a window-smashing campaign. Some members of the WSPU, including Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband Frederick, disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. In response to this, the Government ordered the arrest of the WSPU leaders and, although Christabel Pankhurst escaped to France, the Pethick-Lawrences were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. On their release, the Pethick-Lawrences began to speak out publicly against the window-smashing campaign, arguing that it would lose support for the cause, and eventually they were expelled from the WSPU. Having lost control of Votes for Women the WSPU began to publish their own newspaper under the title The Suffragette.[33]

The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs, as part of a wider bombing campaign.[34] Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England.[35] In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage.[36] Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. They also burnt the slogan “Votes for Women” into the grass of golf couses.[37] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the ExchequerDavid Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack.[37] There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913 [37] and in April the newspapers reported “What might have been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes”:

Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins – the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.[38]

There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the ‘incendiary devices’, explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[39] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a “Reign of Terror”; newspaper headlines referred to “Suffragette Terrorism”.[40]

One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King‘s horse, Anmer, at The Derby on 4 June 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pull down the horse, attach a suffragette scarf or banner to it, or commit suicide to become a martyr to the cause. However, recent analysis of the film of the event suggests that she was merely trying to attach a scarf to the horse, and the suicide theory seems unlikely as she was carrying a return train ticket from Epsom and had holiday plans with her sister in the near future.[41]

Sound familiar?

Things were never that violent in the United States, but still, eventually, the woman’s rights and suffrage movements were co-opted for something far more insidious: the breakdown of the family and traditional marriage forged through Christianity.

Sound familiar? (See planks of the Communist Manifesto. Number 3 and to an extent number 10)

Now, men with psychiatric issues are trying to tell us biological women that, really, we’re all born eunuchs, and, well, we can pick and choose what we want to be later in life despite what set of chromosomes we are born with, and, oh, isn’t it wonderful that we guys are so in touch with our inner females that we are going to do your most important job on this planet for you? Guess what ladies! We’re going to birth and raise the next generation without ovaries and with borrowed eggs and wombs!


Where are the feminists?

Where are the self described defenders of women?

Where are the loud mouthed squeaky wheels when we REALLY need them?

‘Cause this men pretending to be women is about the most egregious attack on women in the most natural sense since before even Jane Austen. It’s not rights which are under attack, but the entire idea of a unique sex.

And don’t you guys forget it.

Women and womanhood are under attack.

Where are our self-styled defenders?

‘Cause, you know, we girls raised to be ladies, mothers and the like are being pushed aside by the men who aren’t really sure that they are men and the ones who don’t quite appreciate the whole different sex thing.

(Sorry. Had to get that off my, uh, chest.)

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Barb Meier

Hi DP. You’ve reminded me to be grateful for the ladies who went before us so I now am allowed to buy my own home, pay my own bills, do an honest day’s work, vote, and do my best to take care of me. Sometimes I help others a little bit too. Those dabbling in transgender mental states are free to be delusional but that does not mean I want taxpayer $ going to give them surgeries or pay them to adopt or foster children. There’s nothing more valuable to children than stable mom+dad family homes and I wish that for all kids. It is hard enough growing up, no less doing it without the balance that a mom and dad bring to one’s family. Growing up as a girl has its own challenges but fortunately, I could not care less what delusional trans people think about innies and outies.


Enjoyed your post 🙂 I always tell my husband I am a kept woman .
I know though if I had too I could fend for myself and am confident enough.
I have to say some of the strongest women in volunteer groups have been homemakers then of course I have little to non experience working outside the home except volunteering.

Barb Meier

Thank you, singingsoul! My mom stayed at home with us kids but she was always busy doing so many things to benefit our family. From cooking and canning veggies from her large garden to being dad’s bookkeeper and secretary, answering the phone when he was out on a call before we had celll phones. I admire homemakers and all they do for their families and communities. My path has been a little strange, but it was right for me and nothing I particularly planned or expected my life to be like. I know you would do fine if you ever needed to fend for yourself. I am glad that you do not need to. Having a loving partner is a fine thing.


Yes we all have our own path. I admirer women who are working outside the home. I always encouraged my daughter to be sufficient and she is.


“In some Lectionaries, the bolded passage is optional to read,”


That certainly seems strange.

By what criteria was it determined which things God has said are more important, and which ones can be glossed over?

And who decided?


Every time I read that passage it hits me personally. Before menopause, my periods were going crazy. Sometimes I bled heavily for 18 days straight. I can’t even imagine what that poor woman was going through. And in those days, she would have been considered unclean and not allowed to enter the temple or synagogue.

Deplorable Patriot


BTW, in one of the Apocryphal Gospels her name is given as Veronica. It’s been speculated she is the same Veronica named in the Stations of the Cross (number 6, Veronica wipes the face of Jesus), but that in no way is confirmed.


Thank you for sharing this. Here is my story, on the off chance that it might help any younger women here. I had a similar rough time going into menopause. Extreme bleeding repeatedly, once for about 3 weeks, which put me in the hospital for the second time. This time my Hb levels were so low they gave me a blood transfusion and wondered how I had managed to walk myself into the clinic. Afterwards “they” all but demanded I consent to having a certain organ removed. Five “expert opinions” against one lowly patient….not really fair. But I had learned to be a bit stubborn about doctors’ opinions after my daughter’s medical odysee. So I prayed and decided to get the OP only if I ended up in the hospital again….had school-age children at home and didn’t want to put them through this constantly. But back home, I did some computer research and found an obscure study linking the condition that caused the heavy bleeding in my case to a lack of vitamin A. They recommended high-dosage cod liver oil. I tried it and that was the end of my worries. Also cured the increasing trouble I was having with night driving. Was a bit worried about my next visit to my Ob-Gyn, but told him about cod liver oil anyway. His response: “Maybe I should try that. My FIL swore by cod liver oil.”! His wife was part Norwegian.


Cod liver oil is good stuff so is B6 for menopause. I never had any problems went through menopause effortless little hot flashes. Vitamins are very important and not much caffeine to non if one can do it. Eat healthy take rests go early to bed.
I always laugh have daughter going through it sons wives they know better they are all very educated. What do I know they choose to suffer because they are modern . I feel at times I am in a comedy  😂 

Last edited 1 year ago by singingsoul1

(Another priest I heard talk that weekend did read the passage, but was dismissive of the incident in the midst of a father’s pain in potentially losing a child.


It seems barely imaginable that someone known as a ‘priest’ (I am aware of no separate ‘priestly class’ in New Testament Christianity, but that’s a different discussion) would be dismissive of any incident which God made sure was included in His Word.

Because it is tantamount to being dismissive of God.

A very compelling argument to that effect could be tactfully presented to the priest in question, and if he has an open heart and an open mind, and respect for God’s Word, he might very well have his eyes opened.

It’s worth a try, anyway.

Concerned Virginian

Well, yours truly had to furnish certified Marriage Certificates, and my husband, while he was still living, had to sign with me the purchase documents for rental properties I bought with my own money in Pennsylvania and in Virginia. I was told that “the husband has a vested interest in real estate purchased or sold in this state.” Neither of these states are Community Property states.

Deplorable Patriot

My mother has a cousin who’s husband walked out on her at one point. One of the conditions of the reconciliation was that she has control of the purse strings. He makes the money; she keeps the books and gives him an allowance as he has a bad gambling habit.

In our house, I know at least one piece of property is in my mother’s name. Dad insisted.

The states are Illinois and Missouri. Not community property states to my knowledge.

Last edited 1 year ago by Deplorable Patriot

“There are simply no words as to how insulting this is to women.”


It’s not just insulting, it’s disgusting, and it’s child abuse.

Both to give a child to a couple of dudes pretending to be something they are not, and abuse of the child who needs nutrients, which the clueless (or more likely, knowingly sick) dude in the video is biologically incapable of providing.

The entire point and purpose for establishing ‘Children’s Services’ is to protect children from ever winding up in a situation like that (or worse).


Childrens services is more like a door dash order app atm.

Deplorable Patriot

Doesn’t matter the state, DCFS in what ever name it is given serves the adults far more than the kids.


Your post is right. Women and children under attack and the “feminists” are no where. All those men who defend abortion and right for women are in the wind.


Not meaning to miss a larger point in this post, the passage of Scripture that is cavalierly omitted at the discretion of a reader, has always been a singularly important one to me.
While a wild child, I came to my senses, and the very idea of…If I could just touch the hem of His garment… was very much my desire.
The fact that the Lord told this woman her faith had made her whole was as a balm to me.
I’m w Scott on this one: Who decides the relative importance of such passages?
The Bible teaches us to not add or subtract from the Word of God.

Deplorable Patriot

It’s considered in the larger context of three other readings, and a few other antiphons. The point would be brought out with the Introit, the Collect and more. It’s more about the theme of the day, and the message that is to be imparted. In this case, implicit faith.

This link goes to the set for that day.



I love that passage Faith is the key. Without Faith we cannot be healed. How comforting is that ?
Just my thought on that.


“In the west, a dowry was a pagan custom that survived in Christianity, so it couldn’t have been all bad.)”


I was pretty sure that the word ‘dowry’ is in the Scriptures, so I checked, and found ‘dowry’ used four times, all in the Old Testament:

“And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun.” (Genesis 30:20, KJV)
zebed – endowment, gift
† זֶ֫בֶד noun masculine endowment, gift, Genesis 30:20a compare foregoing H2064.
“Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.” (Genesis 34:12, KJV)

môhar – purchase price for wife, wedding money
môhar, mo’-har; from H4117; a price (for a wife):—dowry.
† מֹ֫הַר noun masculine purchase-price of wife (Late Hebrew id.; Arabic RSK 78 f; RSProph. iv. n. 13 Nöl.c. StaGeschichte. i. 381 DrDeuteronomy 22:23 and references; Aramaic מוֺהֲרָא, ); — absolute מ׳ Genesis 34:12 (J; || מַתָּן) 1 Samuel 18:25; construct מֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת Exodus 22:16 (E)
“If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:17, KJV)

mohar – purchase price for wife, wedding money
môhar, mo’-har; from H4117; a price (for a wife):—dowry.
† מֹ֫הַר noun masculine purchase-price of wife (Late Hebrew id.; Arabic RSK 78 f; RSProph. iv. n. 13 Nöl.c. StaGeschichte. i. 381 DrDeuteronomy 22:23 and references; Aramaic מוֺהֲרָא, ); — absolute מ׳ Genesis 34:12 (J; || מַתָּן) 1 Samuel 18:25; construct מֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת Exodus 22:16 (E)
“And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.” (1 Samuel 18:25, KJV)
môhar (again, see above)


Any linguistic association with “mohel”?


“Any linguistic association with “mohel”?”


I have not the slightest, tiniest clue 😁 😂


Maybe if you rubbed it…..

Deplorable Patriot

Help me. I’m drowning in semantics.


Fortunately, you’re not drowning in semiotics, or I’d have to do a wordless interpretive dance to try to save you.


In that case, I think we’re all fortunate she’s not drowning in semiotics.

Including you 👍 😂


“Fortunately, you’re not drowning in semiotics, or I’d have to do a wordless interpretive dance to try to save you.”


Something like this?

It just gets more hilarious, every time I see it… 😂🤣😂


Deplorable Patriot

Still, it is a pre-Christian tradition that was not discontinued.

The early Christians had a tendency to toss anything that smacked of paganism if they didn’t adopt it for their own purposes, i.e., wedding rings.

Cuppa Covfefe

The Engagement Ring,
the Wedding Ring,
and the suffering…

(marriage is sometimes a three-ring circus)…

Deplorable Patriot


I’ve never been married, but I have been in the audience for any number of three ring circuses.

Cuppa Covfefe

I was trying to be nice 🙂

(Otherwise I would have gotten in trouble 🙃 )…




“Yes, it was all about the money, and in the United States, it was somewhat about women being able to sign contracts, and having bank accounts without a husband. Widows were grandfathered in to an extent, but women owning property was not the norm. No, that was a man’s world. Women were to be the helpmates.”


That is very interesting, considering that the Pilgrims were mostly Christians and ought to have been following Biblical teachings.

From Wiki:


In the Mosaic law, for monetary matters, women’s and men’s rights were almost exactly equal. A woman was entitled to her own private property, including land, livestock, slaves, and servants. A woman had the right to inherit whatever anyone bequeathed to her as a death gift, and inherited equally with brothers and in the absence of sons would inherit everything.

A woman could likewise bequeath her belongings to others as a death gift. Upon dying intestate, a woman’s property would be inherited by her children if she had them, her husband if she was married, or her father if she were single. A woman could sue in court and did not need a male to represent her.

In some situations, women actually had more rights than men. For example, captive women had to be ransomed prior to any male captives. Even though sons inherited property, they had a responsibility to support their mother and sisters from the estate, and had to ensure that both mother and sisters were taken care of prior to their being able to benefit from the inheritance, and if that wiped out the estate, the boys had to supplement their income from elsewhere.

When it came to specific religious or sacramental activities, women had fewer opportunities or privileges than men. For example, in monetary or capital cases women could not serve as witnesses. A woman could not serve as a kohen in the Temple. A woman could not serve as queen regnant, the monarch had to be male. A divorce could only be granted by the husband, upon which time she would receive the Ketubah and the return of significant portions of her dowry.

The vow of an unmarried girl between the ages of 12 years and 12 years and six months might be nullified by her father and the vow of a wife that affected marital obligations may be annulled by her husband; the guilt or innocence of a wife accused of adultery might tested through the Sotah process, although this only was successful if the husband was innocent of adultery, and daughters could inherit only in the absence of sons.


For the New Testament, the first example I thought of was Lydia, the businesswoman, the ‘seller of purple’:

“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” (Acts 16:14, KJV)

This was also interesting:

Widows in the New Testament Periodhttps://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/widows-new-testament-period

By Susan E. Hylen
Professor of New Testament
Candler School of Theology
Emory University, Georgia
February 2019

Excerpt 1: “The notion that widows needed someone to take care of them rests on ideas about the legal and social status of women. Perhaps most important is the idea that widows could not possess their own property. A wife was dependent on her husband, and when he died, she went to live with her father’s household if he was alive, or to an adult son if she had one. Having a father or son was fortunate, because otherwise widows were entirely without resources. Widows were also legally subordinate to these male relatives.

The above picture is largely false for the Mediterranean world of the first and second centuries. Legal and social norms of this period granted women property rights and substantial authority within their households and communities. While some widows were greatly disadvantaged, many would have experienced only a slight drop in economic or social status, and possibly none at all.

In the New Testament period, women owned a substantial amount of property. About one-third of all property was owned by women, two-thirds by men. The disparity reinforces our assumption that women were not social equals of men. Yet the proportion of property owned by women is also large enough to suggest women’s ownership was by no means unusual. ”


Excerpt 2: “This historical portrait suggests there was a lot of variety in the social status of widows. Some were wealthy and even powerful. Some were poor, and many were in the middle. Some experienced a drop in economic position when their husbands’ died, and others did not. Although vulnerable in some ways, widows were also supported by social expectations that gave them increased status.

When we read the New Testament texts, we should remember all of these possibilities. Take, for example, the widow who gives her last two coins to the temple. Her story is told as an example of radical dedication (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). This woman did not own much, but the story only makes sense if the two coins are owned by the widow.
The passage before this one also conveys the vulnerability of widows. Both Mark and Luke also record Jesus criticizing the scribes: “they devour widow’s houses” (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). The language of the passage suggests that the widows own houses, and that the scribes are criticized for their abusive behavior.

Some New Testament passages underscore that some widows were quite poor. Acts 6:1 points to food distribution to (presumably) poor widows. 1 Timothy 5 reinforces the social convention that family members should provide for relatives, including widows. Male and female family members were to provide for widowed relatives, but the church stepped in if familial assistance was not available (1 Tim 5:16).

Similar questions may be posed to Old Testament passages including widows. Certainly, the repeated instructions to care for widow, orphan, and stranger (e.g., Exod 22:22; Deut 24:21; Isa 1:7) suggest a kind of iconic vulnerability that the idea of widowhood evoked. However, these sources do not assert that all widows were poor. In some cases, widows appear to be people of some means, and we should not let our assumptions prevent us from acknowledging these signs.

In Ruth, for example, some of the textual details suggest that women and widows have some resources at their disposal. For example, Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to “go back each of you to your mother’s house” (1:8). If the problem of widowhood was securing male support, this is a strage instruction. It may be that readers would imagine Ruth and Orpah’s mothers, whether still married or not, to have resources that would be of help to their widowed daughters.

Naomi also appears to have resources, including property. Later in the story, Boaz says to his kinsman, “Naomi…is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our kinsman Elimelech (3:3). The wording gives Naomi the active role in selling the property, which presumably belongs to her. The detail enters into the story because Ruth gained a husband by marrying the purchaser of this property. But Naomi’s ability to sell the property assumes she is it’s rightful owner. As a widow, she has land inherited from her husband. This may be property that was held in trust for her sons, who, if they had lived, would have had rights to the property. But Naomi appears as the owner and seller under the circumstances of the story.”


It would be interesting to know the justification or Scriptural Authority for early Americans to have treated women any differently than Biblical example.

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Deplorable Patriot

The “Pilgrims” (what were they pilgriming to? Was North America a pilgrimage site at that point?) were in a contract for what amounted to a communist system that didn’t work. I have no clue if any of them actually read the Bible.

What I do know is that in Catholic marriage preparation, the specific question of who is going to handle the money is asked. And I’ve known any number of couples where the wife had an iron fist over the cash flow. Women are never told everything has to be in the husband’s name. The state is another matter.

What other sects do, I have no clue. None of my business.


“The “Pilgrims” (what were they pilgriming to?”


Plymouth Rock?


‘Pilgrims’ is a term we were taught in public school, something to do with Thanksgiving and Squanto, it’s all kinda hazy all these years later 😂

Probably ‘Puritans’ is the term I was searching for.


“Was North America a pilgrimage site at that point?) were in a contract for what amounted to a communist system that didn’t work. I have no clue if any of them actually read the Bible.”


Okay, excluding the Pilgrims, the large majority of early settlers in America, of European descent, many of whom were Christians escaping religious persecution in Europe.

Deplorable Patriot

You mean ENGLAND and their stolen territories of Scotland and Wales, as well as Irish slaves.

The French and the Spanish were already here, and there was no escape for religious persecution involved. They were just explorers.


I don’t know about England, just that many of the Founding Fathers self-identified as Christians, America was founded on Christian principles, and a large number of early settlers in America were Bible-believing Christians who were escaping religious persecution from some powerful quasi-state Church that had gone off the rails, selling Indulgences for sin and engaging in Inquisitions and other activities which were about as diametrically opposed to Christianity as they could possibly be.

“Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe.

The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established “as plantations of religion.” Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives — “to catch fish” as one New Englander put it — but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create “a city on a hill” or a “holy experiment,” whose success would prove that God’s plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness.

Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves “militant Protestants” and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.”

It eventually got so bad in Europe that in 1517, some guy named Luther stood up to the corrupt establishment and nailed his protest, his 95 Theses, to the door of the church at Wittenberg Castle.

Whatever anyone may think of Luther, it was a pretty bold move.

We have 330+ million people and over half a billion firearms, and nobody has yet had the guts to stand up to our corrupt establishment with such directness and defiance.

Founding Father Samuel Adams made reference to this same church:

Would Founding Father Samuel Adams Agree with Ben Carson on a Muslim President?
AWR Hawkins

“It is interesting to note that in 1772 Sam Adams wrote “The Rights of the Colonists,” through which he set forth a litmus test for religions that could be tolerated under the new government colonists would form. Adams’
litmus test rules out theocracies like Islam.

Hanover College published “The Rights of the Colonists,” in which Adams wrote:

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind.

And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society.

The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”

So Adams sets forth a test for ascertaining which religions should be tolerated and that test is whether the “doctrines” – or teachings – of a given religion are “subversive of society.” Adams contended that religions “are excluded from… toleration” when they “teach doctrines subversive of the civil government.”

One would think of the Muslim tendency to seek sharia law and sharia-compliant courts instead of laws and courts affiliated with constitutionally recognized jurisprudence. It would follow that one would presume the theocratic nature of Islam, whereby every facet of life – including matters of civil governance – are co-opted as part of the religion.

Theocracies can tend toward fascism, and although Adams did not employ such a term in opposing toleration for religions “subversive of the civil government,” he certainly made the same point.

At the time of Adams’ writing, he called the Roman Catholic religion by name, suggesting practitioners of that faith forfeited toleration due to “such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government.

We do not see the Roman Catholic church destroying those “they call heretics… without mercy” in our day.

But it is common to find examples of Muslims demanding that infidels convert to Islam or face death. And they do so with an allegiance to Muhammad that both supersedes and defines their allegiance to civil government.

While Ben Carson opposes the idea of having a Muslim for president, Samuel Adams would have opposed toleration for the Muslim faith in general.”



“What I do know is that in Catholic marriage preparation, the specific question of who is going to handle the money is asked. And I’ve known any number of couples where the wife had an iron fist over the cash flow.”


Iron fist?

What man wouldn’t be desirous of a woman with iron fists?

Sounds like love… 👍 😂 🤣😂

Deplorable Patriot

You are worse than my brothers.


“You are worse than my brothers.”


Sounds like a high compliment 😁

I wasn’t suggesting anything lewd, I was just being sarcastic, i.e., that most people are not attracted to tyranny, which ‘iron fists’ are symbolic of and frequently associated with, that’s what I meant 👍


My husband’s father was Catholic and his wife a Lutheran ran the household and his money with iron fist 🙂 The house she put in her name. Oh God that woman controlled this wonderful man’s life.


Thanks for this thread, DePat.
 👏  😀  👍 

I was reflecting the other day, about how it hasn’t been that long since women were treated like livestock.

In the timeline of human history…it has been only a small blip since we were totally denied the rights we enjoy today.

And indeed, womanhood is under attack by the mental cases who claim to be ‘women’.

Yet the silence from the so-called feminists is deafening.

Wolf Moon

Great stuff!

Something is terribly wrong in feminism.

But I know this.


comment image


A very interesting article.

I thought the Left followed science. So why does a dude think he can breast-feed a baby? Pretend was a game we played as children. Now it’s accepted in some quarters for adults.

I have seen conservatives state that women’s right to vote is likely what got us into the leftist mess we’re in today. Even some women have agreed with this. I think it’s painting with too broad a brush. Yes, we see the pink-hat-wearing feminazis because they make the news, but there are so many patriots of both sexes that are the backbone of this country. And that has been true from the beginning.

Last edited 1 year ago by TheseTruths