Editing Puritans (section)

=== Gender and punishment ===
Many Puritan communities operated under strict values that determined gender roles and generally “pure” behavior. Many of these values were shaped from their interpretation of the [[Bible]]. If anyone in the community was found to have disobeyed or strayed from these values, they would be reported and put through the [[censure]] process. This involved a public confession from the accused of their wrongdoings. People would be censured for things that ranged from immodesty and cursing to domestic abuse and fornication.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=46 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref> Religious leaders would often make an example of the censured individual by turning their experience into a lesson for the [[Church (congregation)|congregation]]. In some cases, [[Minister (Christianity)|ministers]] or [[Elder (Christianity)|elders]] would meet with an individual to counsel them for a “private sin,” such as [[impiety]] or struggles with faith, before taking public action. In 1648, Puritan minister [[Thomas Hooker]] explained the necessity of church discipline: “[God] hath appointed Church-censures as good Physick, to purge out what is evill, as well as Word and Sacraments, which, like good diet, are sufficient to nourish the soul to eternal life.” They saw these practices as necessary for the community to keep each other in check and in line with their “godly paths.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=42 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref>

While Puritan doctrine viewed men and women spiritually equal, [[laymen]] reinterpreted [[spirituality]] to reflect their ideas of [[masculinity]]. Men displayed their spirituality through their public actions and behaviors, such as being a good neighbor to the community and father to their families. Women were expected to reflect their inner spirituality with their entire being. The human soul was often described using feminine language, but men were allowed to separate their mind and body from their souls in order to maintain an image of masculinity on the outside.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=48 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref> The husband was the [[Patriarchy|patriarch]] with ultimate authority, and the wife would be his assistant. If any of the other members of the family misbehaved, such as the children or even their mother, their actions reflected the capability of the father to be the head of the household.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Godbeer |first=Richard |date=2017 |title=“Your Wife Will Be Your Biggest Accuser”: Reinforcing Codes of Manhood at New England Witch Trials |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/90011101 |journal=Early American Studies |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=502 |issn=1543-4273}}</ref> Thus, men were often called out for not fulfilling their role as a good father, husband, and/or neighbor.

As a result of this reinterpretation of the Puritan doctrine to reflect certain gendered beliefs, the things men and women were censured for differed. For example, women were often associated with “[[Eve]],” a temptress and sinful seductress. This led to women being censured for [[fornication]] far more often than men.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=67 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref> Men, on the other hand, had more of a focus on civil duty, being censured for filing false lawsuits, arguing over property lines, charging inflated prices, tearing down a neighbor’s mill, land fraud, or poor military conduct. In the economic sphere, women lacked formal power. Thus, men were censured more often for poor business practices.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=45 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref>

The audience played a large role in censures, listening for certain words that demonstrated the accused was truly remorseful for their actions. Similar to the distinction between female and male spirituality, the language women and men used in their confessions differed. The feminized language expected from women included words such as “shame,” “wounded,” “great sin,” “nature,” “pity,” “evil,” “poor,” and “grief.” On the other hand, men used more objective phrases such as “rules,” breach,” offense,” desire,” forgiveness,” actions,” and “brethren.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=58-59 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref>

The difference in treatment for men and women was reflected even in the specific sins they were accused of committing. As stated earlier, women were rarely censured for economic disputes as they lacked influence in that regard. Thus, if a commercial dispute involving a woman were to arise, the congregation treated her differently than a man. Such was the case for a woman named Chaplain: “In 1696, Dorchester’s Sister Chaplain borrowed money from John Green to buy a shipment of wine. When Green died and his estate tried to collect the debt from Chaplain, she refused. The congregation did not cite her for breaking a contract, but censured her for lying.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=45 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref> Women would also at times face harsher punishments than men for the same sin. “Boston's Second Church censured John Farnum for making bad comments about another church and its pastor, and they noted he was "breaking the rule of truth." However, that same congregation recorded much harsher words about Sarah Stevens, whom they admonished for "many evill carriages and sundry filthy speeches, not fit to be named." And when they censured her, they said she "grew more vile and hard hearted." The court also took up her case and sentenced her to jail and two whippings.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fitzgerald |first=Monica D. |date=2011 |title=Drunkards, Fornicators, and a Great Hen Squabble: Censure Practices and the Gendering of Puritanism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41240523 |journal=Church History |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=60-61 |issn=0009-6407}}</ref>