Quote #1:
This one is attributed to Martin Luther:
"If they become tired or even die, it does not matter. Let them die in childbirth — that is why they are there."
An "extended" version of this is the following:
"Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that."
These are often given without any citation at all. However, I actually did find one site that gave a citation, but the citation was in German and the quotation was initially confusing to figure out. It turned out to refer to a German collection of Luther's writings, so I had to find that, turn to the page to figure out what it was. Then, since I don't know German, I had to figure out where I could find the work in English, then find the exact quote in the English to see how it was rendered. It was a bit of an odyssey, but in the end I discovered it.
This quote can be found in English in Volume 45, Page 46, of "Luther's Works" as
part of an essay called "The State of Marriage." Occurring towards the end, here is the full
paragraph:
"Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is
forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and
becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty,
and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and
propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is
terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot
take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we know how
weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are
healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves
weary–or ultimately bear themselves out–that does not hurt. Let them
bear themselves out. That is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health."
The underlined portion is the quote in question, though obviously with different phrasing due to being a different translation. The problem is that when we see this in context, Luther is actually prescribing what he views as health advice. His statement that women should have children even if they die is given in the context of saying that it is preferable because they would be healthier, and a healthy shorter life is preferable to a long one in poor health. Whatever one may think of the actual medical value of Luther's statement, to use this as some kind of staunchly anti-women quote is really not correct.
Now, you may have noticed that in the full context, the phrase "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing" is nowhere to be found, despite the fact that the other version of the quote said, "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that." So where does that come from?
I haven't seen this quote given with a source, but a work called The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant (specifically, the volume on the Reformation) puts those two quotes next to each other, though it is clear from the usage of quotation marks and separate footnotes that they are separate quotes. However, I am not sure if that the source for the above, because the way he renders those quotes are:
"Take women from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing." "If women get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that."
(footnotes omitted) Quote is available here. As we can see, the translation is different from the quote I saw. Now, the citations for these are "Maulde, Women of the Renaissance, 467" and "Werke X-2, 301, in Maritain, 171." We already have the latter so there is no difficulty, but what of the first citation of Women of the Renaissance? Unfortunately, having looked it up, it gives no citation. The full quote it offers is (ellipses original):
"Talk of household concerns is women's affair," said Luther: "they are mistresses and queens there, and more than a match for cicero and the finest orators . . . But take them from their housewifery and they are good for nothing . . . Woman is born to manage a household; 'tis her lot, her law of nature: man is born for war and polity, to administer and govern states."
But, again, there is no citation available, so it is impossible to judge the accuracy of this quote, either in terms of the text itself or if there is mitigating context.
In any event, the quote from Luther about women dying in childbirth is taken out of context. The other portion of the quote (only in the "extended version") I have been unable to trace back to Luther.
Quote #2:
This is another one attributed to Martin Luther. This quote comes in several versions; I'll give all the ones I have seen.
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
or
"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."
or
"Women ... have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
The quote comes from Table Talk, and can be viewed here (page 299). Here is how it is rendered there:
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than the women, who have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
The problem here is where the quote is found.
"Table Talks" is a collection of sayings that Luther made to his various students, often at the dinner table, hence the name. While such quotes can be interesting, the fact they were not written down by him, but were written down by his students, means there was likely some level of paraphrasing. Furthermore, in Table Talks these quotes are presented without context. And these quotes are, by their nature, unrehearsed off the cuff remarks, and I'm sure anyone would have some very embarrassing quotes if someone else were to write them down. Remember these were compiled after Luther's death, so he had no opportunity to expunge any he felt were poorly expressed.
So this quote is found in Table Talks and attributed to Luther, but due to the aforementioned considerations it should not be used against him.
Quote #3:
This one is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. I will give two versions I have seen:
"Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist."
or
"Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."
One can indeed find this quote in the work; it occurs in Part 1, Question 92, Article 1.
However, context is all important; not merely the context of the work it is in, but the context of how reproduction was understood at the time.
So, the format of Summa Theologiae, which this comes from, is to pose a question, give objections to the yet-to-be-given answer, give the actual answer, defend it, and then respond to objections. Now, the question here is "Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?" and the answer of Aquinas is to say that, yes, God should have and was correct to do so.
One of the objections given to Aquinas's conclusion is "It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production." ("the Philosopher" refers to Aristotle) Aquinas rebuts this argument with the following:
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."
Notice the important qualifications that are not given in the quote that gets thrown out. Aquinas's statement of "women is defective and misbegotten" comes immediately after the qualification of "as regards the individual nature." Also, he subsequently asserts "as regards human nature in general, women is not misbegotten."
Someone may still be confused, and for this, we need to understand scientific context. In today's world, we understand conception as working in this way: During sexual intercourse, the sperm of the man reaches the egg of the woman, which fertilizes it, and it over the course of nine months will gradually develop and then be born. A child's physical gender is decided by whether the sperm had an X chromosome or a Y chromosome.
Here is the thing: Back in the 13th century AD when Aquinas wrote (to say nothing of the 4th century BC when Aristotle wrote) people didn't know all of that. They knew that sperm went into the woman and pregnancy resulted. And they knew that there was about a 50/50 chance of the child being male or female. There were various theories as to exactly how things worked; the belief Aristotle had, and which Aquinas echoes, was that the "male seed" would somehow interact with the menstrual blood to try to create another male, but this would sometimes fail and instead create a female. Thus, since a female resulted from a failure of the male seed to create a likeness of itself, it could be seen as "misbegotten."
This is the argument Aquinas is responding to, because if women are misbegotten, then that is an argument against Aquinas's position that God was correct to create women. He addresses this argument by saying that even if each individual woman is "misbegotten" in the sense that the male seed failed in its goal, the fact this happens in general is deliberately intended. Hence in the "individual sense" women are misbegotten, but "as regards human nature in general," women are not misbegotten.
Had Aquinas had modern medical knowledge of conception, all he would have to say is that Aristotle's idea of women being misbegotten was based on inaccurate scientific knowledge and move on (or more likely, he would not have bothered responding to it to begin with).
One may also see this post which covers many of the above points.
Quote #4:
This one supposedly comes from Tertullian:
"Woman is a temple built over a sewer."
I have only seen one place give an actual citation for this, which only ambiguously credited it to "De Cultu Feminarum", in English "On the Apparel of Women." While Tertullian does make some remarks concerning women in that work (found here) that would hardly be considered politically correct nowadays--such as the next quote under examination--I see no mention of anything similar to the above quote. Indeed, someone asked about this over here and no one was able to find it. One user there speculated it might be a bad translation of "tu es arboris illius resignatrix" (roughly, "you are the unsealer of that tree"). Until such time as a more clear citation is given, I will regard this one as wrong. Indeed, some have attributed this to other writers entirely, generally a good sign that a quote is dubious.
Quote #5:
This is another one from Tertullian, which I have seen in several versions:
"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell."
or
"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."
or
"God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."
We can find the following quote in the aforementioned On the Apparel of Women:
""In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."
(note the first sentence is a quote from Genesis)
Unlike the above ones, there is some merit to this one. That said, there are a few things to note. I should note that some sources giving these quotes, when referring to
Tertullian, declare him to be the "father of Latin Christianity" as if to try to hold up his opinion as especially important. This
seems questionable to me. Tertullian was a prolific and influential
writer, but later on in his life he got into a dispute with the church
and was apparently cast out. He could be understood as being the "father" only
insofar as he is, to my knowledge, the earliest Latin Christian writer
we possess many works of.
But we should also note that the quote, when distributed, is sometimes translated it in a way to make things look a little worse. Additionally, for greater context of this in Tertullian's writings, see here.
One final thing to note. I have no idea where the "woman, you are the gate to hell" is supposed to come from. It is certainly similar to the confirmed statement of "you are the devil's gateway" but it was listed separately in the first of these quotation versions.
So this one has some merit to it, even if it is overstated a little, especially in the first version.
Quote #6:
This one is alleged to come from John Chrysostom. There are two versions I have seen, though only slightly different:
"Amongst all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"
or
"Among all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"
There are two problems with this. First, this wasn't said by John Chrysostom, but a Pseudo-Chrysostom text; that is, a work claiming to be by Chrysostom, but not actually by him. More importantly, however, it is mistranslated. There's an important qualifier that is missing in the above quote: It does not say "a woman" but "an evil woman" (or rather, "evil women" as it is plural in the original).
I would go on for more detail, but someone else has done such a good job that I will simply link to their work:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2022/09/22/amongst-all-savage-beasts-none-is-found-so-harmful-as-a-woman-a-quote-from-john-chrysostom/
Obviously, there are other quotes that are thrown around of this type. Some are true, some are false, some are in-between. However, hopefully this examination has been of a little help for the above specific quotes. If you take anything from this (outside of better information about the above quotes), you should be wary of trusting any quote you see online that does not have a citation. And even if there is a citation, you should (if possible) check it for context before you start distributing it.