The Declaration of Sentiments

Wednesday Morning.

On the morning of the 19th [of July, 1848], the Convention assembled at 11 o'clock.... The Declaration of Sentiments, offered for the acceptance of the Convention, was then read by E[lizabeth] C[ady] Stanton. A proposition was made to have it re-read by paragraph, and after much consideration, some changes were suggested and adopted. The propriety of obtaining the signatures of men to the Declaration was discussed in an animated manner: a vote in favor was given; but concluding that the final decision would be the legitimate business of the next day, it was referred.

[In the afternoon] The reading of the Declaration was called for, an addition having been inserted since the morning session. A vote taken upon the amendment was carried, and papers circulated to obtain signatures.

Thursday Morning.

The Convention assembled at the hour appointed, James Mott, of Philadelphia, in the Chair. The minutes of the previous day having been read, E. C. Stanton again read the Declaration of Sentiments, which was freely discussed . . . and was unanimously adopted, as follows.

Declaration of Sentiments.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object.  We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf.  We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.

Firmly relying upon the final triumph of the Right and the True, we do this day affix our signatures to this declaration.

At the appointed hour the meeting convened. The minutes having been read, the resolutions of the day before were read and taken up separately. Some, from their self-evident truth, elicited but little remark; others, after some criticism, much debate, and some slight alterations, were finally passed by a large majority.

for him and for her who has ears to hear

I find these words to be astonishing. In fact, I find the words written by both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Gage ... to be so brave and daring that I want to weep. How did these women find the courage to stand up and say these things publicly ... ?

listen, read, weep

Man Stuff: After Mother's Day 2008 AD

Throughout church history the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14 has been that women are more easily deceived than men. . . The only problem with the traditional interpretation is that most Western Christians today, patriarchalists included, recognize that this perspective is factually incorrect. Women are not inherently (by virtue of their gender alone) more easily deceived than men. It is not only politically incorrect to say so today, it simply does not square with the hard data.
--William J. Webb
Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals:
Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
2001 AD

Could Paul have looked down to the nineteenth century with clairvoyant vision and beheld the good works of a Lucretia Mott, a Florence Nightingale, a Dorothea Dix and Clara Barton, not to mention a host of faithful mothers, he might, perhaps, have been less anxious about the apparel and the manners of his converts. Could he have foreseen a Margaret Fuller, a Maria Mitchell, or an Emma Willard, possibly he might have suspected that sex does not determine the capacity of the individual. Or, could he have had a vision of the public school system of this Republic [i.e., the U.S.A.], and witnessed the fact that a large proportion of the teachers are women, it is possible that he might have hesitated to utter so tyrannical an edict:
“But I permit not a woman to teach.”
--Lucinda B. Chandler
The Woman’s Bible:
A Classic Feminist Perspective
1895 AD

“It sounds like Aristotle,” says Suzanne McCarthy to John Hobbins in a conversation, she with him and with others, in 2008 AD. The “It” is the “argument,” or the logic, “that men have the courage of command and women the virtue of subordination.” It is the logical argument in order “to put women in the role of ‘responder’ to men as ‘leaders’.”

Now, I’m suggesting we all respond. You respond, and I respond, regardless of our sex. But let me warn the men among us who cannot be taught by a woman: Do not read Suzanne’s blog. She has something to say, something to teach, to men and to women as well. Aristotle absolutely could not listen. Maybe Paul and Timothy would not either. If you, a man, believe Aristotle and Paul (perhaps), then you should not be womanly by responding, and by responding to a woman or her blog.

The point I want to make is that men who are honest will listen, and will learn from a woman.

And don’t we all believe that Aristotle and Paul and Timothy all listened, at least, to their mothers, once upon a time? Their mothers taught them very many important things. So why must these men stop listening to a woman when they as boys pass through puberty or something else towards manhood? Does the progymnasmata or the Bar Mitzvah or one latter day circumcision for Christ help them make the argument that they really do have the courage of command while women really do have the virtue of subordination? Why must these authoritative men silence women? Are women really that naïve, that much more sin-prone, that much lesser than men spiritually or psychologically or biologically?

What, really, is the evidence if Suzanne presents it? What are the facts? In 2008, are we repeating the cycles of history? Do you have manly courage enough to ask yourself whether you are perpetuating the cycles of history? Do you really think you are not responding?

Here are men who did not think they needed to respond to what a woman taught:

In 66 AD or so, Paul writes and Timothy reads this:

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός
ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ
Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη εἶτα Εὕα
καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν

Now do you think that young “Timothy” [“Honorer of Gods”] took the letter to his father and his mother? What did Mama “Eunice” [“Blessed Victor”] married to the Greek Pappa say to what Paul had written to their son?

So fast forward to the 1870s AD. Three teams of 101 men, and no women, began work in England and America on the “Revised Version” of the English Bible. In 1881, the men insisted on translating Paul’s Greek, and published it, as follows:

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man,
but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not beguiled,
but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

These men, authorized by the Church of England, practiced what they translated. The men notably viewed Julia Evelina Smith Parker as beguiled. And as infamously, they refused to include her in their translation project. She was absolutely excluded from involvement or consideration. Equally ignored was her complete translation of the Bible into English from the Hebrew, the Greek (including the Septuagint), and the Latin (particularly the Vulgate). They especially did not want to consult Smith or her work as to how she translated Paul’s letter to Timothy.

Women and men who were reading Smith’s translation did notice the silencing. Thus, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucinda B. Chandler, and twenty three other women from around the world, decided to publish a commentary, which they entitled, The Woman’s Bible. Francis Ellen Burr wrote the Appendix in which she gives a biography of Smith and praises her work: “Julia Smith’s translation of the Bible stands out unique among all translations.” Burr notes:

Frequently her wording is an improvement, or brings one closer to the original than the common translation. Thus in I. Corinthians viii, I, of the King James translation, we have: “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” Julia Smith version: “Knowledge puffs up and love builds the house.” She uses “love” in place of “charity” every time. And her translation was made nearly forty years before the revised version of our day, which also does the same. . . This word “charity” was one of the words that Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of English, charged Tyndale with mistranslating. The other two words were “priest” and “church,” Tyndale calling priests “seniors,” and church “congregation.” Both Julia Smith and the revised version call them priest and church. And she gives the word “Life” for “Eve:” “And Adam will call his wife’s name Life, for she was the mother of all living.” . . . Her work has had the endorsement of various learned men. A Hebrew professor of Harvard College (Prof. Young) . . . examined it. He was much astonished that she had translated so correctly without consulting some learned man. . . She received many letters from scholars, all speaking of the exact, or literal translation. Some people have criticised this feature, which is the great merit of the book.

That was 1895 AD.

So again we fast forward, to seven years ago. Then, in 2001, there was another “publishing team [that] includes more than 100 people.” But again, not even one of those “people” is a woman. Their statement is this: “The team is 100-member team, which is international and represents many denominations, shares a commitment to historic evangelical orthodoxy, and to the authority and sufficiency of the inerrant Scriptures.” You may recognize the team as the “ESV [English Standard Version] publishing team.”

Here’s how they translate Paul’s letter to Timothy:

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14and Adam was not deceived,
But the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Wouldn’t we all like to read how Julia Evelina Smith Parker translates Paul’s Greek? No? The Revised Version teams of the 1870s want her to remain silent. Likewise, the ESV team seems not interested in the facts of Smith’s translation either. Alas, neither I nor my university’s library nor any bookstore I can find has a copy of Smith’s work. It’s not online. History silences her and it. If we listen to Suzanne McCarthy, who brings herself to listen both to men and women, then we know, “It sounds like Aristotle.”