How Interpretations of Christianity Contributed to the Cult of Domesticity and Relegated Women to Lower Societal Roles

Tradwife. Mobwife. Soft girl. These are all microtrends on the internet in recent years. The common denominator? The invisible financial support of a man. In modern day, internet trends are reflecting the tale-as-old-as-time American dream of being able to live a life without worrying about finances and women, in the hopes of achieving this, are reverting to stereotypical gender roles. Tradwife, the most recent of these trends, is characterized by a woman giving up work to follow the traditional household structure of a male ‘breadwinner’ and a female stay-at-home mother/chef/maid. However, these trends aren’t exactly new. Rather, the labeled hyperfixation around women as homemakers dates all the way back to around the 1830s. 

Sparked due to a combination of millenia-old gender stereotypes and the simultaneous rapid rise in industrialization, The Cult of Domesticity was born. Though not literally a cult, the Cult of Domesticity refers to the widespread value system amongst the upper and middle classes of America that prioritized white women staying at home and tending to the house and children while the men went out and worked. As the middle class expanded and the distribution of wealth became more equal, the average American family no longer had to work as a unit to produce what they needed to survive as previous families had to. So as the national priorities shifted from a medieval reliance on agriculture to mechanization and urbanization, it became much more reasonable for men to work in manufacturing jobs while their children and wife remained at home. The Second Great Awakening, a religious movement that spread across the United States, coincided with this and began to influence the budding Cult of Domesticity, using religious doctrines to enforce the belief system upon women. However, there were many historical accounts of women stating that Christianity and its various forms was actually helping women gain positions of power usually within the church, and that religion was uplifting women. 

However, Christianity, despite having been credited to offering women positions of power within the church, overwhelmingly contributed to the cult of domesticity and the subsequent relegation of women to lower societal roles.

Upon initial research, a common first impression based on the amount of written testimonies may be that Christianity allowed women a conventional way out of the Cult of Domesticity, often by offering them positions of power within the church. The following quote is from a sermon preached by public preacher Theodore Parker in 1853: 

“It seems to me that woman, by her peculiar constitution, is better quali-fied to teach religion than any merely intellectual discipline. The Quakers have always recognised the natural right of woman to perform the same ecclesiastical function as man. At this day, the most distinguished preacher of that denomination is a woman, who adorns her domestic calling as house-keeper, wife and mother, with the same womanly dignity and sweetness which mark her public deportment.”

This quote expresses the opinion that women, because of their natural jobs as homekeepers, wives, and mothers, possess the kindness and forgiving attitude needed to be preachers and teach religion as recognized by the Quakers, a set of Protestant. However, there are several unfounded assumptions made in what seems like a progressive mindset for the time. The first sentence states that women, by their natural disposition, are qualified to teach religion better than in any other intellectual occupation because of their supposed ‘sweetness’ and ‘womanly dignity.’ This is flawed reasoning first because women, as all human beings do, have emotions and lives that span an impossibly large range. Women are also not a different species and do not have common emotional traits that bind them together, and by assuming that all women are sweet because they are forced to work in domestic positions only furthers the ideas behind the Cult of Domesticity and fits women into an impossibly small box. This is further illustrated by Tine Van Osselaer’s observations that “religious institutions allowed women to pursue a semi-public role in education and charity, though not in politics and often under the strict supervision of men." The fact that women were only allowed to pursue a public role in education and charity shows that the Cult of Domesticity was enforcing the notions that because all women were naturally kind and empathetic, their best careers to go into would be education, often for children, and charity for the poor and the dispossessed. The last phrase ‘often under the strict supervision of men,’ shows that even the tiniest ray of freedom was only allowed under men’s approval, and how religious institutions were in fact not providing liberation under the domestic craze; religious institutions should not have to ‘allow’ women to do anything a normal man could do. By restricting women to these overly primitive roles, it shows that the then interpretations and practices of Christianity in America was only forcing women more and more into what was believed to be ‘womanly’ and ‘pure.’ The tactic of completely taking away something, in this case women’s autonomy, and offering a sliver of it back is manipulative and unjust. 

Though it could’ve seemed as if Christianity was offering women unconventional escapes from the burden of the home, the overwhelming effect of Christianity on furthering the Cult of Domesticity was devastating. As Christianity coiled itself with the Cult of Domesticity, women began to internalize both the teachings of Christianity and the Cult of Domesticity as the two became intertwined. Patrick Pasture, a historian, states “...more everyday religiously inspired items…bear witness to the home as a place of Christian socialisation..it was above all the place…where they learned the appropriate 'gendered' behavior and became good Christians.” This quote shows that during the time period leading up to the Civil War and after, the home became the place where men and women learned gendered behavior and by adhering to these behaviors, became ‘good Christians.’ Christianity at the time fed off the Cult of Domesticity and as shown here, even took it at times as a requirement to be a good Christian. If women did not adhere to their set role of being a domestic model, they could not be a good Chrisitian, and by having this extreme mindset, the popular interpretations of Christianity were used to force women into domestic confines. Another example is when Nancy F. Cott, a historian, reflects upon a quote by Reverend Buckminister that “men…pursued wealth, pleasure, but ‘the dependent, solitary female’ God. Because of their softheartedness women were attuned to Christianity, Buckminster thought, and they appreciated Christianity because it valued domestic life.” This shows that as Christianity started being twisted to fit the narrative of the Cult of Domesticity, the Cult of Domesticity’s ideologies were more largely preached. This Christian messaging here is hingent on the supposed quality of women’s ‘softheartedness’ and love for ‘domestic life,’ an idea supported by the Cult of Domesticity. This kind of idea became supported by women too. One example of this is from Catherine Beecher, who wrote an 1868 handbook for young women to follow after. She writes that there is “one mode of economizing…by getting the poor to work as cheap as possible. Many amiable and benevolent women have done this, on principle, without reflecting on the want of Christian charity.” This page in the handbook is essentially stating that one method many women use for saving money is by getting the poor to work for cheap. However, women shouldn’t do this because it goes against the principles of Christian charity. Yet again, this ties into the Cult of Domesticity’s principle that women should be kind to all in spite of status and class, and in this case, should take pity on the poor because Christianity states to be kind towards all. Though this message itself is not wrong, the handbook’s audience is specifically young women who are tending to the home and managing household expenses. This is yet another example of how Christianity only furthered the Cult of Domesticity by supporting the message that women should continue to be pure and virtuous according to the Cult of Domesticity and its emphasis on women being docile and domestic.

Though the expectation of women to be ‘pure’ and virtuous is well-known, its impact is less emphasized in the public eye. The impact of these decades of oppression has permanently relegated women into lower societal roles compared to their male counterparts; in fact, many women at the time already saw the Cult of Domesticity’s potential to harm and spoke up against it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a prominent feminist and activist for women’s rights at the time states, “...but the Chris-tian Church has steadily used its influence against progress, science, the education of the masses and freedom for woman…woman owes all the advantages of the position she oc-cupies to-day to Christianity, but the facts of history show that the Christian Church has done nothing specifically for woman's elevation.” Stanton's critique highlights the role of the Christian Church in perpetuating the subjugation of women, underscoring the institutionalization of the Cult of Domesticity. Stanton argues that the Church historically opposed progress and education for women, thereby reinforcing societal structures that kept women in subordinate roles. Her assertion that women’s societal advancements are not due to Christianity but rather to broader scientific and civilizational progress suggests that the Church's influence was more regressive than emancipatory for women. Additionally, Stanton emphasizes how religious doctrines, particularly those related to original sin and asceticism, were manipulated to justify women's oppression. This institutionalized belief in women’s inherent sinfulness and the idea that they were vessels of moral corruption led to systemic exclusion from religious and civic privileges. As women were taught that their subordination was divinely ordained, their natural self-respect and aspirations were stifled. Thus, Stanton's analysis illustrates how the Church's teachings and practices perpetuated the Cult of Domesticity by embedding the notion of women's inferiority into societal and religious norms, effectively diminishing women’s agency. Stanton goes on to provide an example of this, communicating that even though wealthy women support society, they're often not allowed to speak up or vote like men. They're taught that they're inferior by religious beliefs, which makes them suppress their self-respect. This belief led to harmful practices like celibacy and blaming women for things like witchcraft, and eventually resulted in men fighting against women's influence, regardless of whether it was positive or negative. Stanton’s argument underscores how the interpretations of Christian doctrines entrenched women's subjugation and reinforced the Cult of Domesticity. She points out the paradox of wealthy women contributing to the building and support of religious institutions while being systematically denied the rights and honors afforded to men. This exclusion from public religious and civic life was justified through the belief that women’s degradation was divinely ordained. Such teachings suppressed women's self-respect and ambitions by framing their subordination as God's will. By positioning women as the origin of sin, these doctrines justified widespread fear and mistrust of female influence. The resultant belief among "godly men" that distancing themselves from women would bring them closer to divinity reflects a systematic effort to marginalize women's roles in both religious and societal contexts. This institutionalized misogyny ensured that women’s influence, whether positive or negative, was consistently suppressed. Thus, Stanton's analysis reveals how the Cult of Domesticity was maintained through religious teachings that portrayed women as inherently sinful and untrustworthy, thereby justifying their exclusion from significant societal roles and perpetuating their lower status.

Therefore, Christianity, despite having been credited to offering women positions of power within the church, overwhelmingly contributed to the cult of domesticity and the subsequent relegation of women to lower societal roles. The impacts of the Cult of Domesticity have been ever present and recently, its scars on our society have become more apparent than ever. From the years of 2016 to 2020, internet culture spearheaded mantras like ‘girlboss’ and emphasized the qualities of being ‘fierce’ and ‘slayful.’ But in 2024, living in the aftermath of COVID-19 where the world’s economy and quality of life have taken a complete nosedive, this internet emphasis on women overcoming gender stereotypes has done a complete 180. Nowadays, it’s more common to recognize trends like ‘I’m just a girl’ or ‘girl dinner,’ both trends highlighting women’s supposed helplessness. Though people may defend these trends as a way to heal, they often have the impact of hurting. Especially with the rise of Tiktok, popular internet trends have a tendency to seep their way into business models, for example Zara, Shein, and Temu’s shirts that all feature these ‘coquette’-ish trends. And while it may just seem silly and like a joke, these trends accomplish nothing but forcing women back into the roles that were molded by men hundreds of years ago, and going into these roles voluntarily doesn’t change that. In order to combat modern sexism, it’s imperative that we understand the long-standing history behind the emphasis on women to be submissive and domestic. If we understand our history, hopefully, we can stop it from repeating. So: mobwife, tradwife, softgirl – take this as an intervention of sorts. Instead of using these male-fetishized labels, instead choose to be authentic to who you are, and work towards the better.

Bibliography

Beecher, Catherine. A Treatise on Domestic Economy : for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School. Rev. ed ed. New York, United States, 1868. Haithi Trust.

Cott, Nancy F. The Bonds of Womanhood: Woman's Sphere in New England, 1780-1835. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.

Parker, Theodore. A Sermon of the Public Function of Woman. Boston, United States: R.F. Wallcut, 1853. Hathi Source.

Rose, Sonya O. Limited Livelihoods: Gender and Class in Nineteenth-century England. London: Routledge, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. Bible and Church Degrade Women. Chicago, U.S: H.L. Green, 1898. Library of Congress (93838346).

Van Osselaer, Tine, and Patrick Pasture. Christian Homes: Religion, Family and Domesticity in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014. EBSCO eBook Collection.

COVER IMAGE FROM https://weareezer.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/christianity-and-the-cult-of-domesticity/