Rereading, I see you use the term “an immediate hands-on way,” which strengthens my perception that we’re feeling the very same thing, even if we diagnose it a little differently.

I have no urge to become a Quaker, and even the evidence of the poem shows that we had and have light that they lack. I’m a Mormon. That won’t change. Still I’m yearning for something that I see here. Something that recognizes the equality of women, and particularly single women, in an immediate hands-on way, not just as an idea, not just intellectually. To see that this woman had it in the mid-1700s makes me wistful. Will we have that by 2050? Can we manage to lag only 300 years behind the Quakers on this?

(I fixed the typo you pointed out so that it would be convenient for any reader who wanted to copy the poem.)

The Quakers were amazing — I agree — and I’m proud of my personal heritage and for their contributions to this country and to mankind in general. They stayed faithful to the light they had despite many decades of persecution that topped anything we endured (other than, perhaps, very brief spikes in our worst troubles which may have matched theirs), and they jumpstarted social revolutions, like the antislavery campaign, for which we all should applaud. There’s no question in my mind that they responded to the Light of Christ that the scriptures tell us is the birthright of all of us, only they listened to it more closely than most.

Did they have light that we LDS didn’t have? I don’t know, really — by the mid-19th century they had had two centuries to adapt and earn their place on this continent while we were still scrambling to survive as a people. They did much that was right, but their philosophy was mingled with men’s as much as anyone’s — the Lord didn’t tell Joseph Smith to become a Quaker, and Joseph wasn’t inspired to adopt major features of their creed. My Birdsall ancestors and their Washburn cousins moved from centuries of Quakerism directly to Mormonism when they heard it, without wandering around in search of anything else in between — if we could bring them into the discussion, they might be able to explain their willingness to convert. I can only know that they almost immediately did recognize Mormonism as superior, for whatever reason, because they did convert.

See, Tatiana, the evidence of your being a historian: You can start with a silly joke, think about what it meant in the context of the past, recall relevant documents, and spark a serious discussion about the past and the people who inhabited it. You’re sunk. You’re one of us.

Here’s a poem (or excerpts) I found from a prominent Quaker spinster woman, Susanna Wright, in Philadelphia to her friend who seems to be contemplating marriage. This is from around the mid 1700s. (I left the original spellings and punctuation. I like to read things the way people wrote them.)

To Eliza Norris — at fairhill

Siner Adam, by our first fair mother won
To share her fate — to Taste, & be undone
And that great Law, whence no appeal must Lye
Pronounced a Doom, That He should Rule — & Die
The Patial Race, rejoycing to fulfill
This Pleasing Dictate of almighty Will,
(With no Superior virtue in Their Mind)
Assert Their Right to Govern womankind
But Womankind, call Reason to Their aid
And Question, when or where, that Law was made,
That Law Divine, — (A Plausible pretense)
oft urg’d, with none, & oft with Little Sense
from wisdom’s source, no origin could draw
That form’d the Men, to keep The Sex in awe,
Say, Reason Govern, all the mighty frame
And Reason rules, in every one, the same
No Right, has man, his Equal, to controul,
Since, all agree, There is no Sex in soul;
weak women, thus, in agreement grown strong,
shakes off the yoke, her Parents wore too long;
But He, who arguments, in vain, had tryed
Hopes still for Conquest, from ye yielding side
Soft Soothing flattery & Persuasion Tries,
And by a Feigned submission, seeks to rise,
steals, unperceived, — to the uguarded heart,
And There Reigns TYRANT, –

But you, whom no Seducing Tales Can gain
To yield obedience, — or to wear the Chain
But set a Queen & in your freedom reign,
O’er your own Thoughts,, of your own heart Secure,
You see, what Toys, Each Erring sex allure,
Look round the most Intelligent, how few,
But Passions Sway, or Childish joys pursue,
Then Bless that Choice, which led your bloom of youth,
from forms & shadows, –to Enlightning truth,
Best found, where Leisure & Retirment reign
far, from the Proud, –The Busy–& the vain
where Rural views,–soft gentle Joys impart
Enlarge The thought, & Elevate the heart,
Each Changing Scene, adorns gay Nature’s face
Ev’n winter wants not, its Peculiar grace
Hoar frosts & dews, & Pale, & summer suns,
Paint each Revolving season as it runs,
The Showery Bow, delights your wond’ring Eyes
Its Spacious Arch, & Variegated dyes,
You watch the Transient Colors, as They fade,
Till, by degrees, — they settle into shade
Then Calm Reflect, — so Regular & fine
Now seen no more, — a fate will soon be mine,
When life’s warm streams, Chill’d by deaths Fey hand
Within these veins, a frozen Current Stands,
Tho Conscious of Desert superior far

Till Then, my friend, the righteous claim forbear
Indulge Man in his darling vice of sway
He only Rules Those, who of Choice obey;
When strip’d of Power, & Plac’d in equal light
Angels shall Judge who had the Better right
All you can do, — is but to Let him see,
That woman still, shall sure his equal be,
By your Example, shake his ancient law,
And shine your self, the finish’d Peice you draw;

This seems to be excerpts, not the whole poem. I got this not from a primary source but from a book called Women and Freedom in Early America, by Larry D. Eldridge.