By Rachael Tearney.
Not so very long ago, I had to look up the word “misogynist.”
The cacophony of left-wingers I came into contact with in the arts were throwing this word about willy-nilly, in an act of moral superiority, as they do.
“What does it mean?” I thought. ‘A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.’ One assumes the socialists can now, once again, define ‘woman,’ since they’re planning a law based on the despising of them – sorry, I digress.
“Oh,” I thought, “well, I don’t think I’ve ever met one of those.” Not the male kind, anyway.
I’ve met plenty of aggressive females who’ve despised me – is that misogyny? Apparently not, as it’s defined as being from men to women, so the dictionary definition is wrong from the start.
I’ve met plenty of aggressive females who’ve despised me – is that misogyny? Apparently not, as it’s defined as being from men to women, so the dictionary definition is wrong from the start.
I’m not being pedantic. Words matter, you see. They shape laws and, consequently, judgments, something the socialists are all too aware of. It’s vital for making the crime fit the punishment.
Recently, I got to thinking: why was it that I had to look up the word “misogyny” in the first place? Well, because I would argue Great Britain doesn’t, as a rule, create misogynists. Therefore, it stands to reason I’d have to look it up.
Much is written and talked about these days under the heading “culture.” We are given great details about other cultures, but what is our own on this little island? It’s rich, varied, and very long. The first point at which we were considered England came with King Athelstan, who now lies buried in Malmesbury Abbey. He was the grandson of King Alfred the Great. Alfred was the leader who first envisioned one united landmass but was unable to complete it in his lifetime. Athelstan, however, created England.
All the former kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria, and Wessex were brought together, and one powerful, secure nation was established. How did Alfred achieve this? Did he breed strong fighting sons? Yes—but vital to the plan was his daughter, Æthelflæd.
Alfred educated his daughter as though she were a boy; he didn’t treat her any differently. Perhaps he took some pointers from the Vikings on the physical capability of women, inspired by the antics of the shield-maidens, but when it came to intellect, I’d hazard a guess that was all Alfred. She was married to the King of Mercia, admittedly in an act of political union, but when facing an opponent as ferocious as the Vikings, this was a huge strategic benefit.
After her husband died, Æthelflæd was elected to lead in her own right. No evidence of misogyny from her witan there—seemingly, Alfred’s ideas of powerful women were catching.
What could’ve given Alfred this crazy idea in the first place? As a man of devout faith, could it have been Christianity? Yes, Christ was extraordinary in his elevation of women. He saved the fallen woman from a stoning by saying, “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.”
The story of the sisters Martha and Mary, who were visited by Jesus, can be found in the Gospel of Luke. Martha gets agitated because Mary isn’t helping with the cooking and preparations; instead, she sits at Jesus’ feet, listening and learning from him. Jesus states that listening and learning about faith from him is more important than housework. As he is dying on the cross, Jesus tells John to “behold your mother.” Jesus protects, cares for, and educates women. He gives them status and dignity.
As we pass through the centuries, we have many examples of fathers educating their daughters as they would their sons. We have Thomas More and Margaret Roper, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, William Godwin and Mary Shelley, Alfred Roberts and Margaret Thatcher. These men are far from despising women. They are champions of women, supporters of women, protectors of women, and empowerers of women.
“Empower” is one of the socialists’ favourite buzzwords. Empower women how, raise them up from what? A Christian culture that honours, protects, dignifies, and educates women?
“Empower” is one of the socialists’ favourite buzzwords. Empower women how, raise them up from what? A Christian culture that honours, protects, dignifies, and educates women?
Of course, there are times in history when women were less prominent in public life, most notably during the Victorian age, with its prim attitudes and authoritarian principles. Ironically, it was a woman on the throne for 63 years who presided over this restrictive age—was she the misogynist?
Before Victoria, Georgian women were achieving extraordinary things. We had celebrity actresses, writers, poetesses, pirates, and even the first female editor of a paper, Mary Robinson (1757–1800), whom I featured in my 2010 play Acting on Instinct and on whom Chawton House is currently running an exhibition.
This brief history of the British patriarchy—oh, now there’s a word we’re all sick of hearing: “Smash it!” cry those angry socialists—has brought me to this conclusion:
Christendom does not, as a rule, create misogynists. On the contrary, strong, capable, faithful men who provide for their families raise strong, capable daughters who are valued, educated, dignified, respected, protected, and beloved. I’m not sure that is a system in need of being smashed.
Follow Rachel at @WritesRachael
