From Patriarch to Patriot
To reject authority became a praiseworthy and specifically American act.... the making of an American demanded that the father should be rejected both as a model and as a source of authority.
— G. Gorer1
With the passion that only a preacher could muster, he triumphantly proclaimed that America's struggle for independence from Britain would "begin a new era in the annals of mankind, and produce a revolution more important, perhaps, than any that has happened in human affairs."2
These visionary words are from the prophetic pen of Dr. Richard Price. A highly valued friend of both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, Price gave valuable aid to the Revolution through the political essays he wrote and distributed throughout England. Dr. Price probably didn't realize that this new era he
Page 95
envisioned would not only revolutionize the political situation in America, but would also inadvertently alter and even damage the role of manhood in America.
Before I go on to develop this point, let me take a moment out to say that I love my country and am thankful for the benefits of living in this nation. I have never failed to exercise my duty to vote. I've gone door to door campaigning for presidential candidates. I was an enlistee in the U.S. Army. I would willingly die to defend this nation, and I would let my only son give his life in defense of her if need be. I love the flag.
But this one thing I know. If we men are even to regain what we have lost, we must acknowledge that there is a fly in the ointment of the American Revolution. In addition to political freedom, the Revolution also gave birth to a spirit that would ultimately be the undoing of the American male: the spirit of independence.
The Price of Revolution
The Revolution was born out of an admirable desire to shrug off unjust British political rule. But as often happens, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. In this case, the baby was the essential paternal pulse of colonial life. Instead of correctly identifying and trying to escape from oppressive patriarchalism, Americans began to look upon all civil patriarchy as inherently evil, and they became intent on not being ruled by anyone. In a later essay Dr. Price gleefully described America as "a rising empire, extended over an immense
Page 96
continent, without bishops, without nobles, and without kings."3
That may all sound quite liberating, but it was an idea unprecedented in the history of humanity. There have always been bishops, nobility, and kings — along with accountability. The development and glowing acceptance of the idea that patriarchy is evil must have had a jarring effect on people with a Christian heritage. Up to that time, Christians had been taught to "honor the king" because earthly kings represented the "King of kings," and godly bishops imaged "the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls." How in heaven's name could this new anti-authority attitude be reconciled with biblical injunctions like these?
The independent spirit that energized Price's vision soon permeated every aspect of American life. Independence was all but enshrined as a national virtue. As it spilled over into economic, religious, and domestic relationships, it began to profoundly alter our concept of manhood. The same bell that tolled for political liberty in the colonies rang out a death knell for American fatherhood. Aided by the Industrial Revolution and the Second Great Awakening, thousands of years of responsible manhood crumbled into a pile of rubble — all in less than a century.
This new unquenchable thirst for independence created new heroic models for the men of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These models took the place of the colonial man, who was courageously devoted to the welfare of his family. These new
Page 97
men were the epitome of strength, determination, and courage, to be sure. But, tragically, they were also the essence of independence. And they were sorry examples of patriarchs.
Davy Crockett was married three times.4 The adventurous Simon Kenton of frontier fame would disappear into the wilderness for months at a time, without a word to his wife about when he was departing or when he planned to return. On one occasion, after being gone from home too long, Daniel Boone returned to discover his wife had just given birth to his brother's son!5
Historian Peter Stearns tells us of this era: "The male heroes were unflinching captains of industry, the warriors, the frontiersmen, or even the two-fisted missionaries."6 Were free-spirited men like these the actual forerunners of our current tough guys who can't uphold their own family life?
Independence Goes to Church
This new revolution of independence, as social cancers always seem to do, finally infected the church as well. Self-ordained men, appointed and sent out by no one, began to ride west with Bibles tucked under their arms to join the swelling ranks of wandering frontiersmen. We are still haunted by this image of the independent frontier preacher, who rides into town again in our time in films such as Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider. "Preacher," as Clint's character was called, was really just a gunslinger in clerical garb. In time, many of
Page 98
these colorful but independent preachers unwittingly helped sanctify and legitimize the thoroughly secular virtue of independence and helped give birth to a distinctively novel American anomaly, the independent church.
An already divided Christendom began to fracture even further. Almost two thousand years of Christian consensus on the essentials of the Faith was spurned as independent churches produced independent members who came up with independent interpretations of the Scriptures. The proliferation of modern and very independent American cults tells us the rest of the story.
This legacy of independence among Christians remains, of course, a prominent feature of modern American Christianity. Yet it seriously disturbs some who fear its consequences. I can remember sitting in the office of a prominent leader of a large international parachurch ministry not too many years ago and hearing him admit, "I hate the use of the name 'independent church.' It arrogantly declares a blatant unaccountability to the rest of the Body of Christ." I could not escape the undeniable truth of his statement.
The rise of clergy who were connected to nobody would cost many Americans dearly. If authority tends to corrupt, and absolute authority corrupts absolutely, let it be clear that unaccountability corrupts, and absolute unaccountability corrupts even more! The concept of private biblical interpretation opened wide the door to every conceivable heresy. Recall that the Mormons'
Page 99
Joseph Smith, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Charles Taze Russell, and the Christian Scientists' Mary Baker Eddy all claimed full belief in the Bible. But they all — in the spirit of their day — insisted upon their own independent interpretations.
. . . and the Home
But it was not just the religious folk who were influenced by national independence. The American family took its lumps, too. In 1776, just three months before the Declaration of Independence was signed, future First Lady Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John:
I long to hear that you have declared an independency...... and, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.7
If men had gained their independence from authority, why couldn't women have theirs, too? That only seemed fair. Thus, the changing roles of men and women began at the very birth of our country. Even
Page 100
there, forces were starting to stir, forces that would drastically alter family life for everyone: wives would question the rule of husbands; sons and daughters would rebel against the authority of parents; grandchildren would challenge the wisdom of grandparents.
The same independent spirit that sent colonists to war with Britain would put family members at odds with one another. As Lawrence Fuchs observes, "With its emphasis on personal independence and equality, American ideology is at war with the very nature of family life, at least as it has been known through the ages."8
... and the Economy
The independence movement was also fueled by dramatic economic changes. Like a bomb, the Industrial Revolution burst upon the scene. Colonialism had survived with the common productive unit of rural household industry. However, by 1815, American household productivity was well on its way to being demolished and replaced by industries located outside the home. The evolution of industry would be a powerful catalyst in the continued growth of the independent nation.
The colonial period had ended. American leadership realized that industrialization was an indispensable ally of independence. This, Ann Douglas notes, "Jefferson, once the staunch defender of agrarian life, explained in 1816 that 'experience has taught me . . . manufacturers are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort.' "9
Page 101
Soon the homespun woolen industry, once a part of most every colonial home, became virtually extinct because of the overwhelming presence of twelve hundred cotton factories in the United States. The death of this home trade was typical of the way factories replaced home industry.
What did industrialization do to the American family? Because no profit could be made by producing goods at home, people began to work at the factory. When the doors opened wide to the first large mechanized factories at the close of the eighteenth century, women and children, as well as men, entered through them en masse. Mary Ryan writes that a textile firm in Rhode Island was the first to adapt to mass production techniques that created the need for hiring a large body of laborers. This company's owner "recruited families as his labor supply, removing entire households from farm to factory." In fact, this new industry provided employment to women and children in such great numbers that "by 1816, a report on the United States cotton industry listed 66,000 women operatives, 24,000 boys, and only 10,000 adult men."10
Although women had always been essential to the economic survival of the household, they had never before directly competed with men. Before this time, men had their own distinct spheres of work on the farm. While they worked in close cooperation with their wives, they never had identical jobs at the factory, their roles became confused. Men sought new
Page 102
ways to preserve their masculinity. The first distinction to arise was economic — women would earn less than half what men were paid for doing the same job. In addition, women would be given the more menial tasks.
But even these differentiations did not eliminate competitive feelings between men and women. Something more drastic and radical had to be done to regain the clear distinction of the male role. The idea of the man as the sole breadwinner for his entire family was born. This idea represented an entirely new line of economic thinking for men.
One cannot fathom what a major turn of events was taking place at this time in American history. Although many women continued to work in industry, the aim of men was to send women back home — and back to the home they went. As a result, the woman's increased presence in and the man's increased absence from the home would be the major cause of the woman's becoming the new "practical head" of the family. Peter Stearns writes:
The same division of labor that made the man breadwinner outside the home gave the wife increasing control of the family. A man might seek and claim dominance, but he simply was not present for day-to-day decisions ranging from allocation of money to raising of children. Patriarchalism in this situation would be rather hollow, though man and wife both might, for their own reasons, pay lip service to it.11
Page 103
Interestingly enough, during the Industrial Revolution, when the American male traded in his role as paternal manager of the household economy for the new role as sole economic supporter of the family, he became dependent on a whole new system. "The house-hold economy was clearly no longer autonomous," writes Mary Ryan, "but increasingly dependent on relations with other enterprises and reliant on money and credit to meet its needs."12
This dramatic transition drastically shifted the role of men in America. Once farmers, and the children of farmers, these men exchanged work near their homes and families for new occupations in factories. And in most cases, this new situation required men to leave their homes for long periods of time. Men began to lose their grip on who they were.
Commuting became a new difficulty. A man couldn't hop in his BMW and drive forty-five miles in forty-five minutes; twenty-five miles was an all-day journey. Numerous men left their families in the rural areas while they worked in the bustling cities. Others, who lived close to their jobs, put in such long, toilsome hours each day that it became almost impossible for them to provide the normal care that fathers had previously given so conscientiously to each member of the family. They no longer had time or energy.
The New Prodigals
Other problems began to surface. When Dad left the farm for the factory, he no longer had land, cultivated
Page 104
for several generations, to pass on to his son. Tensions began to mount. "Patriarchalism was severely affected," comments Stearns. "A property-less worker might rage at his son, try to dominate him physically, but the vital hold was gone. The son could walk out without great damage to his economic future."13
Young people became free from patriarchal and community control. American fatherhood was mortally injured. The resulting confusion of the male role and the confused state of masculine identity produced an incredibly high level of stress in men that caused them, for the first time, to die sooner than women. As Stearns notes, "It was in the nineteenth century that women began to outlive men in the Western world."14
The American male, at this crossroads in history, suffered greatly as he lost his place and his role as personal guide and leader of his family on a day-to-day basis. Much of the time that he had once given to the affairs of the family would now be devoted to the role of being an employee in an impersonal factory atmosphere.
Thus did the Industrial Revolution disconnect men from home life. No longer looking to their patriarchal function in the family as the focal point of their male identity, men were forced to seek new alternatives for rites of passage to manhood. And it didn't take young men long to exchange the old rites of passage for the new. Sociologist Peter Stearns confirms that three popular rites of passage soon dominated the national scene: getting into fistfights, drinking booze, and having sex outside a marital relationship.15
Page 105
The working-class male proved his masculinity by engaging in one, two, or all three of these activities, and his reckless pursuits brought cheers of approval from fellow factory workers. It was at this time that the number of tavern owners skyrocketed and prostitution flourished. New York City authorities estimated that between twelve hundred and seven thousand prostitutes roamed the city streets in the early nineteenth century.
Because sexual conquest had become a new mark of manhood, young men experimented sexually at a much earlier age, resulting in another new problem: the rise of illegitimate births from 1780 onward.
Fighting, drinking, and engaging in sex outside of marriage, of course are still the primary means by which hordes of American males secure their pseudo-manly roles.
A Change in National Conscience
The next blow against the paternal order of the family, and against fatherhood itself, came in a rather unexpected way: American leaders helped undo the manly cooperation between politics and religion by new declarations of independence from the providence of their Creator. In the preface to his "Defence of the American Constitution," written January 1, 1787, John Adams, future president of the United States, boldly dismissed the idea of man's dependence upon God to providentially guide him in "the land of promise" by saying:
Page 106
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature . . . thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery . . . The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded.16
God was being expelled from the affairs of government. In time, according to Ann Douglas,
The Protestant Church in this country was gradually transformed from a traditional institution which claimed with certain real justification to be a guide and leader to the American nation to an influential ad hoc organization which obtained its power largely by taking cues from the non-ecclesiastical culture on which it was dependent.17
This pressure to officially disengage the Christian Faith from public life did not go unnoticed by many of the clergy of the day. "Lyman Beecher [1785-1863]," Douglas continues, "a prominent Congregational clergyman, preaching fervently against the imminent disestablishment of the Connecticut church in 1812, predicted grimly if extravagantly that, under its dispensation, 'we shall become slaves, and slaves to the worst masters.' "18
Whether we agree with what developed or not, politics triumphed over Christian theology. A new
Page 107
god, rational humanism, emerged. " 'Your own reason,' Thomas Jefferson once wrote to a nephew, 'is the only oracle given you by heaven.' "19 It is my conclusion that when the state pulled the rug out from under the church, men no longer identified being Christian with being masculine. After the state's dismissal of Christianity from public affairs, men felt personally inhibited from discussing theology in the marketplace. Christian commitment was thoroughly divorced from masculinity.
Taking their cue from the state, men began to forsake God and take up the pursuit of the materialistic promises of the Industrial Revolution, commonly called the "American Dream." Theology was replaced not only by politics, but also by commerce as the hot topic among men in the marketplace. It was no longer manly to talk about religion.
As men left the church and ceased to discuss theology, the American view of God would change as well. It was at this time, according to Stearns, that "the image of God lost ground."20 American Christianity now began to focus almost exclusively on a feminized and sentimental Jesus. This would have an increasingly negative effect on American men.
With the Father in heaven missing from public view, the father in the home took a leave of absence as well. How? With theology depopularized, men, for the first time in American history, began a mass exodus from the church. Stearns says very pointedly that "exposed to a competitive, acquisitive economic world
Page 108
and, often, to a secular education, many men lost an active religious sense. Male recruitment to the clergy declined. In many villages, and even more in working-class communities, regular church attendance was left to women."21
By the early 1800s, the majority of the Christian faithful in America were women.22 And not only were women the most numerous members; in time, they came to dominate the spiritual attitudes of the church.
Women: From Producers to Consumers
To understand why this change came about, we turn to take a closer look at the effect the Industrial Revolution had on women. When men became sole economic supporters of the family, women were deprived of their former role as producers and became, instead, consumers. Their new task was to keep the home fires burning.
However, it was not just the home fires that burned. Historians suggest the new consumers began to burn holes in their pocketbooks as well. One writer comments that the Industrial Revolution swallowed up the family enterprise and "drew the head of the family and his trade from home, leaving his wife alone with the children in a more secluded and monotonous household, no longer his partner but an economic parasite."23
By 1830, writes Ann Douglas, "middle-class women were far more interested in the purchase of clothing than the making of cloth." Everything had changed for
Page 109
women at home. "Domesticity itself is altered beyond recognition; women no longer marry to help their husbands get a living, but to help them spend their income."24
Unlike their mothers, who oversaw and directed the busy, productive processes of the home economy, many of these new industrial middle-class women, Freidel writes, "having nothing to do, or choosing to do nothing of a useful nature, found time heavy on their hands."25
This domestic shift received attention at the time from at least one man, the prominent president of Yale University, Timothy Dwight, who wrote:
Women of this description crowd to the theatre, the assemblyroom, the card-table, routs, and squeezes; flutter from door to door on ceremonious visits, and from shop to shop to purchase what they do not want, and to look at what they do not intend to purchase; hurry to watering places, to recover health which they have not lost; and hurry back again in search of pleasure which they cannot find.26
This, of course, was fortunately not the case with all women. But the general consensus of American historians is that women in the early- to middle- 1800s began to feel worthless, bored, and trapped in their homes, holding a new sense of consumerist guilt. They were women without a cause.
But not for long!
Page 110
Finney and the Second Great Awakening
Women got religion. The Second Great Awakening was born. This was not the first time American women had been stirred by a spirit of revivalism. Both men and women had been involved in the First Great Awakening during the mid-eighteenth century. But a major change in revivalism would profoundly influence the country in the early nineteenth century.
"These revivals do not appear to have involved a cross section of the population," writes historian Barbara Epstein. "Ministers wrote that converts were usually young, most often between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five, either single or married but without children, and predominantly female."27
Not only were women the most numerous converts of revivalism, but in time, they became its most vocal proponents. According to a study by Epstein, "among the forty-seven male converts whose accounts have been examined in this study, sixteen mentioned the influence of religious women in their families; the rest did not mention their families or spoke of them only in passing. None of the women mentioned the influence of men in their families."28
Women also dominated the organizations spawned by revivalism. In The Origins of Modern Feminism, Jane Rendall says,
Women's associations multiplied rapidly. Prayer groups, mission societies, benevolent reform societies, Sunday School organizations: all clearly derived from
Page 111
the revivalist movement. The large cities and small towns of New England all had their own, spontaneously generated, local associations.29
Displaced in her role as an essential producing component of family industry by the Industrial Revolution, the American woman found in revivalism, among other things, a new place to employ her energies. Rendall states, "the appeal of such movements to women was immense, both because of their fitness for women's qualities, and because, as Harriet Martineau said, 'women pursued religion as an occupation.' "30
But the new flood of female religious activity was not a leaderless phenomenon. It was a response to the call of dynamic, powerful leadership. The grand spokesman of revivalism came suddenly on the scene in 1824. Born in 1792, Charles Grandison Finney became the most well-known evangelist born this side of the American Revolution. He would introduce a new, individualistic style of revivalism that would affect believers for generations to come.
Finney was an attorney by profession, a man who was adept at powerful persuasion. As to his theological training, Rendell says:
He was mostly self-educated in religion, which he largely ignored until his thirtieth year and then clasped it possessively. He crammed in enough private study to be ordained by the Presbyterians, but in
Page 112
effect he always remained a layman. Never having sat at the feet of scholars in divinity as a youth, Finney had no hesitation about writing his own doctrinal platform in a bold script.31 (Italics mine.)
Ignoring the historical tradition of interpreting Holy Scripture within the consensus of the church, Finney boldly paved the way for independent biblical interpretation. As recorded in They Gathered at the River, "Finney leaned more and more heavily on the Bible as he interpreted it . . . . For enlightenment on hard questions, the aggressive soul-winner said, he could go 'directly to the Bible, and to the philosophy and workings of my own mind as revealed in consciousness.' "32
This same bold revivalist preacher, who strode dramatically across the stage conspicuously dressed as an attorney rather than in traditional clergy garb, would unwittingly become a father of modern feminism!
Finney skillfully made use of middle-class women who were ripe for a cause. His message and style were particularly effective at reaching the female heart. Rather than emphasizing manly characteristics, such as courage, aggressiveness, and a desire for justice, Finney aimed toward the feelings and emotions of the potential convert. As a result, many more women than men responded to his message of revival.
In the Finney revivals, both men and women were called upon to pray aloud. This marked a radical break with the practice of many Christian people who, up to this point, had taken the instruction of St. Paul for
Page 113
women to be quiet in the church quite literally. In fact, women were now expected to express themselves both in public meetings and in small groups. Because of this open involvement of women, the evangelist Finney soon found himself opposed by the rest of the clergy of his day.
A paper written in 1823 on female influence by the Presbyterian Utica Tract Society called Finney to task for placing women in unbiblical roles in relationship to men. This opposition led Finney to defend himself by traveling to upper New York State as a representative of the Utica Female Missionary Society. Finney's staunch support of female involvement resulted in the emotionally charge "Utica awakening," wherein women poured into the revival movement to sign up for missionary endeavors. Finney was on a roll. He had tapped into a resource that would change not only the society at hand, but the whole nature of the American Protestant church.
Sidestepping the Apostle Peter's admonition that wives should win their husbands by conduct rather than words, the evangelist encouraged women to begin their verbal crusade at home. He warned, "I have known women who felt they ought to talk to their unconverted husbands, and pray with them, but they have neglected it, and so they get into the dark. They knew their duty and refused to do it; they went around it, and there they lost the spirit of prayer."33
This strategy for winning the husbands at home was backed up by the organization of women's neighborhood
Page 114
prayer meetings. In Bath, Maine, a minister wrote that "in a certain neighborhood, all the wives were persons of piety. These females were given to prayer. For this purpose they met together. Their husbands were always the subjects of prayer."34
This tactic apparently had some success. Charles Finney enthusiastically welcomed the triumphant testimonies of those faithful wives who succeeded in winning the souls of their wayward husbands. One such woman dramatically caught the attention of the famous revivalist, who recalled that "there appeared in her face a holy joy that words cannot express."35
Do I deplore the genuine conversion of husbands and fathers? Absolutely not! But in the flurry and emotion of revivalism, the vacuum of spiritual leadership that was created when men deserted the church was filled by women. With their deep concern for the souls of their husbands, Christian women inadvertently took upon themselves the responsibility that biblically and historically had been carried by men: being the spiritual head of the home. One minister told of a woman who converted in the course of a revival meeting: "The first exhortation she gave was, as she flung herself upon the neck of her husband — an unconverted man — 'O, my dear husband, you must submit, you must submit.' "36
During the Second Great Awakening, men began to return to the church. But when they did, it was under the spiritual matriarchy of their wives. Men's subordination to the force of feminine spirituality greatly
Page 115
alarmed some of the clergy of the day. "A minister who opposed the revival in his town wrote that as a result of it 'there are many men, who begin to doubt whether they hold that place in their houses, and in the affection and regard of their wives and daughters, which, by nature, by law and by gospel, belongs to them.' "37
The female leadership and dominance in the Finney revivals were overwhelming. Whenever he spoke in towns and cities throughout this nation, women rose to his cause. Not only were women called to be evangelistic in the home, but the call came for them to hit the streets as well. It was at this time that women began to use outreach endeavors as opportunities to organize for moral reform. Historian Jane Rendall notes,
The work of Finney was a major element in this change, since in his revivals from 1829 onwards, Finney called upon New Yorkers to go through the streets seeking converts. The number of tract distributors, male and female, grew tenfold from 50 at first to 500 in 1830, and in his second revival, from 1834-5, over 1000 laymen and women were engaged in this work. The relevance of this was to lie in its direct impact on female organization. In the spring of 1834 a group of New York women, under Finney's inspiration, founded the New York Female Moral Reform Society.38
The women of America were openly challenged to be the leaders in bringing virtue and purity to all
Page 116
spheres of society. The clergy began to pick up on the feminine drum roll. Women constituted the majority of their congregations because of the revivals, and pastors gradually gave way to this swelling tide. One minister, capitalizing on this new phenomenon, exhorted his female members:
We look to you, ladies, to raise the standard of character in our own sex; we look to you to guard and fortify those barriers, which still exist in society, against the encroachments of impudence and licentiousness. We look to you for the continuance of domestic purity, for the revival of domestic religion, for the increase of our charities and for the support of what remains of religion in our private habits and publick institutions.39
Women had religious authority, and they would develop political clout as well. "It is not surprising that many of the women who were touched by God in Finney's revivals became the feminist leaders in the nineteenth century," writes evangelical Kari Malcolm.40
Women, displaced by the Industrial Revolution and hungry for purpose, picked up, through the vehicle of revivalism, the mantle of headship in the home which had been dropped by men when they left the home and the church for the factory. The men of the mid-1800s looked nothing like the colonial patriarchs.
Page 117
A Mixed Heritage
True to the biblical declaration, the sins of the fathers have passed on from generation to generation. The problem of the fragmented family and the social and moral chaos surrounding us today have sprung forth from seeds of idolatrous independence planted as long ago as the American Revolution.
Our forefathers, in their search for freedom, forsook patriarchal responsibilities in church and in society. They delegated their spiritual duties to women, they walked out of the church, and they lost sight of God as Father. In their haste to grab the gusto of the new Industrial Revolution, they embraced the ancient lie that life consists more of what you own than what you are. Men today are surrounded by incredible technological toys, but privately they are a wrecking yard of broken homes and moral corrosion.
Chapter 6 || Table of Contents
1. G. Gorer, The American People: A Study of National Character (New York: Norton, 1948).
2. Charles Sumner, Prophetic Voices Concerning America (Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1974), pp. 112-13.
3. Ibid., p. 113.
4. Stearns, Be a Man, p. 51.
5. Elizabeth A. Moize, "Daniel Boone: First Hero of the Frontier," National Geographic, December, 1985, p. 819.
6. Stearns, Be a Man, p. 51.
7. Freidel, Changing Ideas, p. 68.
8. Lawrence H. Fuchs, Family Matters (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 19.
9. Douglas, Feminization, p. 50.
10. Ryan, Womanhood, pp. 84, 85.
Page 118
11. Stearns, Be a Man, p. 48.
12. Ryan, Womanhood, p. 73.
13. Stearns, Be a Man, p. 44.
14. Ibid., p. 53.
15. Ibid., p. 63.
16. Sumner, Prophetic Voices, p. 61.
17. Douglas, Feminization, p. 24.
18. Ibid.
19. Terry Somerville, "Hero or Heretic," AGAIN, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 17.
20. Stearns, Be a Man, p. 50.
21. Ibid.
22. Jane Rendall, The Origins of Modern Feminism (Houndsmill, England: Macmillan, 1985), p. 77.
23. Freidel, Changing Ideas, p. 151.
24. Douglas, Feminization, p. 52.
25. Freidel, Changing Ideas, p. 146.
26. Ibid.
27. Barbara Leslie Epstein, The Politics of Domesticity (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1981), p. 45.
28. Ibid., p. 51.
29. Rendall, Modern Feminism, p. 78.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Bernard A. Weisberger, They Gathered at the River (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1958), pp. 94, 96.
33. Kari Torjesen Malcolm, Women at the Crossroads (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 122.
34. Epstein, Politics of Domesticity, p. 59.
35. Ibid., p. 61.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Rendall, Modern Feminism, p. 82.
39. Ibid., p. 78.
40. Malcolm, Women at the Crossroads, p. 122.
