That Hideous Strength was first published in 1945 (I haven't read it, but think it is the third of a trilogy 1st published in 1938), and of course, is not only a work of fiction, but of fantasy. Lewis would not marry Joy Davidman Gresham until another 11 years of his life had passed. Throughout his life, his opinions and understanding evolved, to the point where this Ulsterman came as near as I imagine he could to having such an affinity for some (non-birth control related--bear with me, I'm just making a larger point about the development of his opinions) Roman Catholic doctrine, that to this day, there exists some question as to whether or not he seriously contemplated conversion (some contend he did convert secretly, but I don't see evidence for it).
To argue about whether or not he was a stodgy (granted, he'd probably agree on that point), misogynistic prude, based on a storyline seems too simplistic.
Was he a feminist? Of course not. Did he have attitudes and a point of view regarding/re women that today we easily find outdated? Sure. This is a man born in 1898, whose mother died when he was ten years of age. He had no sisters. He was raised by his father, educated in all-male schools, and spent much of his life in British Academia in the first half of the 20th century. He may well have been a prude for much of his life and career, even if we examine him for prudishness only in comparison to other Christians of his era. Of course, he also had meaningful platonic relationships with women; probably had an illicit affair with a deceased friend's mother; participated in lengthy correspondences with women; revised later editions of an argument put forth in one of his non-fiction books because he was argued down by a colleague (a woman); considered his wife his intellectual equal (or superior); and spoke in favor of platonic friendships between men and women (largely to those who thought women were not good enough for same).
As you know, I am a married woman who is still fertile, and I think you know or could have guess that with a 9 year old, 6 year old, and 5 year old, I do not want to be pregnant, again. I am grateful for some modern contraceptive methods, and find them useful tools within the context of my (Christian) marriage, although I do actually understand (although I disagree with) many of the arguments put forth by Christians who object to their use. I take no issue with people of other opinions, as long as they do not try to restrict my access.
That said, I can understand and agree with the contention--from a Christian/religious perspective--how these methods which I believe I use in a non-sinful way, are also used by...dare I say it?--the Devil.
Among orthodox (intentional small "o") Christians, there is the ancient belief that God has given sex as a gift to married people, to be celebrated within the context of marriage--a symbol used to explain the mystery of Christ and His Church. For any Christian, particularly one born in Lewis's time, to think/speculate/opine/imply that birth control is a "tool of the devil" is hardly beyond either understanding, or sympathy, and such an argument could easily (more likely) come from places other than misogyny. Even though I do not find (all) contraceptives objectionable, I can certainly see where their introduction has not only been a help within the context of marriage, but has also encouraged expression of sexuality in ways that are contrary to what I (personally) believe God has ordained.
I can't understand why would you expect the then-bachelor Lewis, to appreciate or understand birth control as we do, to such an extent that you assert his disapproval for them comes from a place of misogyny. (?!?) In the U.S., Ortho released its first birth control pills in 1963--the year Lewis died. He was of a time and place, and moved in circles where contraception was often sought not only for use within marriage, but also for extra-marital sexual expression of the sort that Lewis surely would have found misogynistic (as do I).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fancy meeting you here!
Date: 2005-11-05 02:44 pm (UTC)That Hideous Strength was first published in 1945 (I haven't read it, but think it is the third of a trilogy 1st published in 1938), and of course, is not only a work of fiction, but of fantasy. Lewis would not marry Joy Davidman Gresham until another 11 years of his life had passed. Throughout his life, his opinions and understanding evolved, to the point where this Ulsterman came as near as I imagine he could to having such an affinity for some (non-birth control related--bear with me, I'm just making a larger point about the development of his opinions) Roman Catholic doctrine, that to this day, there exists some question as to whether or not he seriously contemplated conversion (some contend he did convert secretly, but I don't see evidence for it).
To argue about whether or not he was a stodgy (granted, he'd probably agree on that point), misogynistic prude, based on a storyline seems too simplistic.
Was he a feminist? Of course not. Did he have attitudes and a point of view regarding/re women that today we easily find outdated? Sure. This is a man born in 1898, whose mother died when he was ten years of age. He had no sisters. He was raised by his father, educated in all-male schools, and spent much of his life in British Academia in the first half of the 20th century. He may well have been a prude for much of his life and career, even if we examine him for prudishness only in comparison to other Christians of his era. Of course, he also had meaningful platonic relationships with women; probably had an illicit affair with a deceased friend's mother; participated in lengthy correspondences with women; revised later editions of an argument put forth in one of his non-fiction books because he was argued down by a colleague (a woman); considered his wife his intellectual equal (or superior); and spoke in favor of platonic friendships between men and women (largely to those who thought women were not good enough for same).
As you know, I am a married woman who is still fertile, and I think you know or could have guess that with a 9 year old, 6 year old, and 5 year old, I do not want to be pregnant, again. I am grateful for some modern contraceptive methods, and find them useful tools within the context of my (Christian) marriage, although I do actually understand (although I disagree with) many of the arguments put forth by Christians who object to their use. I take no issue with people of other opinions, as long as they do not try to restrict my access.
That said, I can understand and agree with the contention--from a Christian/religious perspective--how these methods which I believe I use in a non-sinful way, are also used by...dare I say it?--the Devil.
Among orthodox (intentional small "o") Christians, there is the ancient belief that God has given sex as a gift to married people, to be celebrated within the context of marriage--a symbol used to explain the mystery of Christ and His Church. For any Christian, particularly one born in Lewis's time, to think/speculate/opine/imply that birth control is a "tool of the devil" is hardly beyond either understanding, or sympathy, and such an argument could easily (more likely) come from places other than misogyny. Even though I do not find (all) contraceptives objectionable, I can certainly see where their introduction has not only been a help within the context of marriage, but has also encouraged expression of sexuality in ways that are contrary to what I (personally) believe God has ordained.
I can't understand why would you expect the then-bachelor Lewis, to appreciate or understand birth control as we do, to such an extent that you assert his disapproval for them comes from a place of misogyny. (?!?) In the U.S., Ortho released its first birth control pills in 1963--the year Lewis died. He was of a time and place, and moved in circles where contraception was often sought not only for use within marriage, but also for extra-marital sexual expression of the sort that Lewis surely would have found misogynistic (as do I).