The following statement will result in an easily predicted basket of responses.
If there was ever a period in the United States (I cannot comment on other geographies with as much certainty, though I am sure periods exist elsewhere that are similar functionally) when real egalitarianism was close to being, or actually was being modeled, it was prior to the industrial revolution, during the birth and expansion of our nation to the west.
Secular feminists will rail using worn out clichés about women being enslaved to men, barefoot, pregnant, assigned only woman’s work, etc. Evangelical feminists will agree and add that these arrangements were likely physically abusive, but even in the absence of DV, they were emotionally abusive in that the women’s important emotional needs were in no way being met, and that is a churchian cardinal sin.
A very simplistic look is a good opener; look to the Proverb’s 31 woman, the Biblical equivalent of MLK for the evangelical feminist , was clearly operating in an environment that was functionally similar to frontier married women with husbands and children. Obviously as Christian men, we should not find fault with the Proverbs 31 women, and we do not. We red pill Christian men do however have major problems with the rewritten narrative around her, and the idolatry with which she is held in a certain form of high regard.
But lets unpack the example of the pioneering settlers in America’s growth west during the establishment then movement of the frontier until we reached the Pacific coast.
At the very frontier we cannot glean the best example simply because of the danger. Homesteads were not completely established in that the business of operating a home was often secondary to simply staying alive by protecting against attacks from indigenous people. Once a frontier and small buffer was established the danger abated sufficiently to set up agriculture based homesteads, which of course led to settlements and commerce, supply stores, law officers, etc. etc. At this point, a man was working the fields and likely he had the double duty of somehow collectively with neighbors still defending the collective. If his was a homestead at the outer reaches, he had no collective with which to work. In both cases he was soldier, sheriff and farmer.
Between these tasks he had no time to devote to controlling his wife. He had to rely on her. She had neither time nor opportunity to control her husband nor sufficient time to dwell on that. They depended heavily on each other, and each one had tasks that, if not done, had grave consequence. To the extent needed, they overlapped. In case of a man’s illness, the wife had to tend fields and be able to shoot a gun. If she was ill the man had to tend the livestock (a task she generally bore as it was close to home) and manage things inside the house to the degree he could. To function best, each had full latitude to engage their daily responsibilities as seen fit. Time of an evening over dinner was generally coupled with exhaustion and discussion and planning for more and better ways to deal with making sure they survived. Survival depended utterly on both of them and their respective tasks.
It’s beyond the purview of this post but let me make quick mention of the fact that what passes for relationship now would be a real conundrum for the women in those days. To have expectations, the kind of esoteric connectedness that so defines today’s marriage, would have been folly, silly, and alien as a concept. What is that expression about idle hands?
This man and women were 100% empowered. The women did not sit in church groups and bitch about how the men get all the best jobs while the poor dears are stuck doing mainly domestic things. These women were stuck in their roles (For the person who wants to offer up a name of some famous frontier woman I say, OK, I’m pretty sure there were a bunch, but only today’s corrupt way of thinking would ever conjure that objection up as important.)
While churchian women today will claim that these frontier women were terribly abused and unhappy, had to have been depressed, EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T KNOW IT THEY WERE BEING ABUSED, this is an exploitation of what was something they have no perspective on these days……reality.
In fact, they would make great strides by acknowledging these women for the way they manifested their so called empowerment. Today’s women would look upon that empowerment and see enslavement. Why? Those women ALSO accepted the ultimate responsibility that goes with the empowerment that was so necessary. Today the real objection, if adapted to those frontier days, would say that those women should have had the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to work in the fields, as sheriff, or as soldier, and that it would be the highest of praise worthy that a man step aside and encourage his wife to do so.
The men considered themselves ultimately responsible for the well being and survival of the family. To see to it, he had to fully and completely trust his wife to accept a great measure of daily responsibility. Her doing so put her in a position to speak to the family plans, the big picture, because she was integral to its success, by necessity, not by fiat.
Behind all of it there stood a man who insisted that when push ever came to shove, he was where the buck would stop ultimately.
That looks more egalitarian than anything the mealy mouthed mutual submission crowd comes up with, be they evangelical feminist women or men pandering to same.