Women's Issues

[MaryPage]

Women's Issues If Art imitates Life, what does Literature show about the place of women in our society? From the Red Tent to the new movie Anna Karenina,  to Malala Yousafzai in the news, has the state of women changed? What IS the state of women today, in your opinion? Let's talk about how women are portrayed in the press, and in literature, and how accurate it is.   How does advertising reflect, if it does, how women are portrayed?  (Remember heels and pearls to sell refrigerators?) How does it seem to you that women are portrayed today? Let's talk! National Women's History Project

I have always had a problem also with the argument that had their mother chosen to have an abortion, so & so would not have been born.  Or I would not have been born.

That, also, is nonsense.  If you believe, as I do, that we are animals, evolved mammals, and that there is no immortal soul and no life after death, this is a totally inane theme.  It just does not compute.  When I am dead, my body is the same dead meat deal as the haunch of beef on your butcher's scale.  No more, no less.  And so, in order to further the research of my species and improve its chances health-wise, I have arranged for my body to be picked up by a Roman Catholic institution, Georgetown University Medical Center, and used by the students as a cadaver.  They need that body, and will cremate what remains when they are done with it.

I also believe there are billions of other planets containing life in this and other universes.  The Creator or Creators of these universes does not resemble us in any way;  that was pure hubris on the part of homo sapiens.  Such Higher Power or Powers has no interest in us as individual "souls," but only as a species that dominates its planet at a given time and the outcome of what it will do with that domination.  In the case of my species, I think we will, as doubtless countless species have done with their own planets before us, cause our own extermination through a disregard for our environment.  In other words, dirtying our own nests we destroy our chances to reach other star systems.

And cultures where the main focus of the males of the society is to subject the females, such do not have a chance of true civilization;  just superstition and myth.  So sad.  So deeply disturbingly sad.

On the other hand, if the argument is that God wants a particular soul with particularly marvelous attributes to be born, and if you believe in such a God, then how can you contemplate for a nanosecond that God will not see to it that that soul IS, in fact, born?  If God is the Reason we are to obey these in fact man-made rules, than how can it be that God is thwarted by so small a thing as a woman's choice?

[Steph]

HearHear MaryPage.. I do agree with all you said.. I just want the ability to choose.. and I want it for my daughter in laws, granddaughter and everyone else.. I have seen both great joy in a pregnancy and absolute horror..
I am however bothered by women who would attack other women on the street and enforce shariah and laws regarding clothes, etc. It just seems to be such a betrayal.

[MaryPage]

I agree, Steph.  That IS a huge betrayal of our gender.

We, both male & female, have also betrayed the future generations, who will suffer and die and ultimately cease to exist, because we have polluted their entire environment:  air, water and soil.  One of the main reasons we can no longer adapt our behavior and clean up our own mess is that there are now runaway numbers of us.   We are over populated, thanks chiefly to the prohibitions on birth control.  In short, men have made laws to ensure our extinction as a species!  What colossal ignorance!

[maryz]

This is from 2012, but I've just seen this quote from Will and Jada Pinkett Smith about letting their daughter cut her own hair. Well said! and done.

“We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it’s like how can you teach her that you’re in control of her body? If I teach her that I’m in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she’s going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can’t cut my hair but that’s her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she’s going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives.”

[MaryPage]

Good on them!

But I do think we should tell our daughters that any PERMANENT change to their bodies, such as tattoos or body piercings, should be left until they are legally of age and capable of making a for-the-rest-of-their-lives type decision.  Ear piercing for the purpose of wearing earrrings can be an exception, because they can always choose to let those holes grow back together.

[Steph]

I think the prohibition on permanent markings should be applied to both male and female..

[MaryPage]

Oh, you are absolutely right.  I was just thinking girls here.

[maryz]

Jimmy Buffett said it well (as always) in "Permanent Reminder of a Temporary Feeling" - mentioning tattoos, weddings, and babies. 

[mabel1015j]

I love everything you've all said. It would take great will-power for me to let my children cut their own hair. I like their reasoning about personal body power, but i'm not sure that i could let a (5-16) yr old decide to cut their own hair. I can't even cut my own hair so that it looks "good," at 72. LOL

Speaking of destroying the earth. I've just read a wonderful, altho sometimes tedious, book by Robert Musil, Rachael Carson and Her Sisters. He focuses on RC, but talks about women before and after RC who led/lead the conservation/environmental movements. I have read a lot of women's history but of the 8 or 10 women he mentions, i knew only Alice Hamilton who did a lot of research about industrial diseases and influenced the laws of protections for employees, especially lead in paints and in the air. That's one of the reasons i enjoyed it so much, learning about women who were, and are, the foundation of studies, and organizations, that tell us about environmental dangers.

Jean

[mabel1015j]

Another good woman we never heard of......

Milly Zantow has passed away is Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin at 91.  You likely never heard of her. And yet she affected your life every day for decades.

You know the little triangle symbols on plastics, with the numbers (1-7) inside, that tell you how to recycle?  That's the "plastic identification code."  We all know it, and we think it's been there forever.  It hasn't.  It began in the late 1970s, and it all goes back to a very sweet lady, a neighbor of mine, Milly.

The story goes that Milly took a trip to Japan and was impressed with how clean the country was, the lack of litter and plastic that was tossed away that she was accustomed to in the U.S.  That inspired her to figure out how to recycle plastics, when there was no system, no infrastructure, no market, no funding, no awareness, no public campaign, to do so.  It all started in the small towns of Sauk County, Wisconsin, where Milly lived. 

Jean

[Steph]

I had no idea and always wondered how they decided what number to give something and why.So thanks..

[mabel1015j]

Another woman girls and boys should know about - yes there have been women scientists......

http://www.amazingwomeninhistory.com/stephanie-kwolek-inventor-kevlar/

Jean

[Steph]

Having gone to school in the 50 's I look back and realize that we were taught in history that white males did everything.. Now over the years, we start to realize that women did a lot and so did blacks, Spanish.. Indians.. Amazing the misinformation.

[mabel1015j]

Isn't it amazing Steph to look back and recognize how much our history courses were biased toward white male, American/European, military, political and economic history? Maybe just as amazing today is how little history, of any kind, any college student gets. If a student is not a history major, or a liberal arts major - and LA majors may be limited - they may get NO history at all.

So, how much history 95% of the country knows about our past depends on how good their high school courses are, or their own personal interest in history.

As you all know by now, i am mad about history, especially non-tradional history. I enjoy reading biographies, history about people's movements, social history, labor history, ethnic histories and, of course, women's history. Thank goodness since the 1960s there has been continuing research and new ways of looking at the past are constantly updated and easily available.

And now here we are in the middle of all kinds of anniversaries of American history and our media is giving us some interesting looks at those events. When i taught college history courses, i included a lot of these "new" histories, as well as "personalities"of major characters, and students inevitably wrote, in anonymous evaluations, that they had come to like history and why didn't they teach them those histories in public school history courses. I clearly remember a whole year of the Civil War my junior year in high school because the teacher was a lover of that period. Fortunately i was already a reader and knew there were more interesting events and people in our past, which is why i choose history as a major...........Actually, i choose "Social Studies" as a major. That was a combination of history, political science, sociology, psychology and economics, but heavy on history courses.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

ah history - I too have loved history - usually it starts with a question why this or that happened and then tracing the happenings helps however, I have learned that I cannot depend on one author - it is like looking in a cracked mirror or a group of folks all having gathered around a catastrophe - there are as many view points as gawkers and so too there appears to be as many view points of the same historical event as authors - they do not all use the same research either - then the whole question of what is truth rears its ugly head. And so over the years I've learned as much from historical novels as I do out and out history with both only sharing a viewpoint.

The other realization I had is we really do not know the rational for so much - we think we do because of actions or what we find in memoirs, diaries and letters but then, we share what we want to share and our real thought may not have been shared which to me accounts for many in history who we try to imagine intent. When things are horrid, brutal, in-human how easily we define our own version of intent seeing it from what we value and so too we evoke heroic and noble intent for what we determined was a good thing -

And so where I still enjoy history I am seeing that a good novel gets me thinking and lining up what I value and my viewpoints even more so than reading history - oh there may be behavior I admire in an historical figure but I really do not know the pull and influences developing that behavior where as, a novel follows a path that gives me a wider viewpoint to the behavior or at least why the author needed a character with that behavior to tell the story. A novel connects more dots.

[mabel1015j]

So true, i've often said to my students and our children that we have no idea what information the decision-makers have that we don't have and altho we can form opinions of current affairs, we usually aren't looking at "facts!" That's why i get infuriated at these stupid on-air "polls" that tv news stations do. "let us know if YOU think the police should tell the cop's name?" ARRRGGGHHH

Poor Obama, i said to my family this week that Obama must be waking up every morning asking "is it 2017 yet?"

[Steph]

Someone, I don't remember who said that " History is written by the winners" and I think that for many years, this was true. I love reading history of events,that I thought I knew and discovering that I really only knew one side.. My younger son was a history major, but his interest in in Viet Nam, the whys and why nots, etc. He has a huge collection from that era and swears that upon retirement, he will write his own version.. Who knows.

[MaryPage]

I am right in there with you, and History is my passion, as well and all.  If I had my life to live over, I WOULD NOT do the same things again!  (There was a song in my youth:  If I Had My Life To Live Over.)  I would skip the Love & Marriage bit, and be a History teacher.

As for reading more than one historian, oh, definitely!  All possible sources.  We should always remember that much was written by few in past centuries, and those few possessed opinions and biases and were anxious to tell it their way, just like today.  It is the proliferation of literacy, combined with the high speed of dispersion due to technology, that more or less causes Facts to prevail in our century.  Even so, Faith and mythology are still humongous tools large interest groups are using to obscure true facts.  Religious sects garner up seemingly infinite winds of zeal in a effort to hold on to male domination of society, while the greedier Midases in their corporate offices will disseminate all manner of lies, many disastrously harmful to mankind in the long run, in order to pile up their luxuries.

I remain convinced, for instance, that Henry VII, and later the Tudors, in England, were masters of propaganda;  and managed to totally smear Richard III and the (more) legitimate York line and to make the quite illegitimate Lancaster line (Parliament had passed a LAW, for crying out loud, that the Beaufort blood could NOT inherit the throne!) seem preferable.  Oh well, he won by combat, which has always been accepted as legal.  Still, Power set out to sway public sentiments then, as it continues to do today.

[maryz]

Re:  History written by the winners.  Definitely true.  One of John's favorites is an old novel by Kenneth Roberts set in Revolutionary times called Oliver Wiswell.  The hero/protatonist is a Tory.

[MaryPage]

I do not trust the deliberate authors of histories prior to having to list sources, nearly so much as I do letters and journals and official papers both of private persons and public archives.  Obviously our myths, and those of the ancient peoples, contain a lot of historical events as handed down around the cooking fires, told and retold, ever changing and evolving, each tainted by personal experiences of the individual relaters.

For instance, the Bible is chock full of real history, terribly tainted by prejudiced distortion and bent to prove points and institute rules designed to be obeyed under the sway of the Fear of God.  How, where and when we came to insist upon it as Absolute Unerring Truth is still unclear to me, but I believe this to have originated in America in the nineteenth century, and again to have been a tool for those who would Rule by instilling Religious Fear.

When I was growing up, the Roman Catholic Church did not emphasize, or indeed even encourage, their adherents to read their Bible (which has A LOT of differences from the Protestant Bibles).  The prayer book was EVERYthing, in those days.  Bible reading was, and remains, a very Protestant thing.  I was raised Episcopalian, and taught that the Bible was largely allegorical.  I was astonished upon attending a convent school for two years to discover the girls there had never even peeked in a Bible!  Oh, they knew their Religion well;  but never explored that which was not required of them.  Me, by that point in time I had already read the (St. James version) Bible all the way through, including the begats, and begun a second and more careful reading, one in which I allowed myself to skip the begats.  The (new to me) fact that Catholics had extra books in theirs made me seek out a Douay Bible and learn all kinds of new and horrific stuff, like the Maccabees being cut up and roasted in humongous frying pans!

[Steph]

Oh ugh.. never read the catholic bible and dontneed people roasting in anything. I have been pursuing the whys and wherefores of the bible for the past few years. Ah, the differences in versions and what is actually happening at the same time.

[MaryPage]

Well, exactly.  How can ANYone make the claim, even based on Faith, that the Bible in without error when you consider:

The Bible which is supposed to be perfect is NOT THE SAME collection of books that Christianity held sacred for almost a thousand and a half years.  The Vulgate and the Douay were the Bibles of Christianity, and the Church was the Roman Catholic Church.  Then along came Prostestants, and that has Evolved into many different versions of The Bible.  So which ONE is it that is Perfect?

I am all for Faith, and for honoring the Faith of others.  But hey, what about Reason?  In this case, I feel compelled to ask the question:  Which Bible?

[mogamom]

Translation is a discipline all its own: translators vary in how closely they adhere to the original text(s) being used.  I believe the Christian Church has maintained that the Bible is inerrant in its original form, not that every translation holds such a status. However, I am not aware of any findings of more ancient texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls and texts discovered at the Essene community), that have seriously challenged orthodox beliefs.  For instance, I believe all orthodox Christian Churches would accept the doctrines expressed in the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed, both of which reflect the Church’s understanding of the teachings of Scripture.

This is, of course, a most important matter since all religions that I am aware of have their own truth claims.  On the other hand, this is also a question that will ultimately be answered, if there is conscious awareness at all after death: finally, we will all know true Truth.

[BarbStAubrey]

Several of the parables are not in the 3 original bibles still in existence - as monks copied the bible they added stories in the margins that were later included when other monks copied the texts and translations were not always interpreting words with their meaning - there is a Bible Scholar, Bart Ehrman, Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina who shares some of this in classes available on tape as well, many books explaining the inaccuracies of the Bible. This was one of the reasons Catholics were not encouraged to read the bible - the Douay-Rheims, 1611 was particularly bad with the Latin Vulgate 'the' approved although, the church admits it is still inaccurate because of translating from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew into Latin.

All King James did was gather a group of men that were finally reduced to 14 men to come up with the least offensive stories and translations to create the King James - there is a whole book about that process God's Secretaries by Adam Nicolson -

You can learn how the names attached to the four Gospels were made up in order to fit the parameters set for a bible to be accepted in the canon and how no bibles written by women would be accepted and that any bible or people that did not accept that Jesus was both Man and God was considered heretical with the people duly tortured or killed outright and any bible that suggested the Jesus was either just man or just God was banned and certainly not included therefore, omitting the Gnostic Bible and how there was a thousand year argument as to if Jesus was both God and Man before it was made part of the canon in the 15th century.

The earliest rational made by Tertullian in about the year 200 AD was finally accepted as the rational which he said the story was too fantastic not to believe it. Since this accepted notion, especially when the translations were coming off the Gutenberg press, all sorts of configurations pulling out phrases and text from a translated Bible have been cobbled together to justify this principle of the Trinity.

The concept of Satan became part of the Christian tradition by way of the Essenes in the second century resurrected from some Jewish traditions. A Satan concept was used by Christians to explain the Roman horrors and the Jews who hated those who followed Christ - it was not till almost the 3rd century that Satan came to represent a sinful way of life to be avoided.

The history of the growth and many changes among Christians is fascinating, making any follower aware that what we believe today was not cut in stone and only grew and was altered many times over with men deciding what was and was not to be included in the canon.  

[kidsal]

The Great  Courses is offering Ehrman's course on the New Testament - 24 lectures - for sale through 8 September.

[Steph]

I have been taking Ehrmans courses and they are wonderful. He made me understand that the early Christians had a lot of reasons to declare heresy for a number of excellent writings. The current bibles are almost all committee works, therefore subject to individual prejudices.. Saying that all people (Christian ) declare that certain common prayers are all the same, means that you have not been in many different types of churches.

[MaryPage]

Yes, I have been astonished upon attending various other services for a variety of reasons (weddings, funerals, memorials, etc.) to encounter the differences.  One of the things I look back at now and giggle over is the saying of The Lord's Prayer in the convent school.  When everyone else's voice stopped abruptly (or so it seemed to me) with an Amen, my own voice would continue on with "For Thine is the Kingdom and The Power and The Glory  -  -  -  -", etc., and I would be awash with mortification.  You see, Catholics do not have that end part in this prayer.  They stop with  "And deliver us from Evil!"

Yes, I think you have to read books, take courses, and visit all denominations in order to fully appreciate the mixed stew of sects within Christianity.

[mogamom]

There have been - and still are - many 'higher criticisms' made about the Bible, which all have their own biases and prejudices and begin with their own presuppositions. For instance, if you don't believe in miracles, then those described in Scripture are considered 'fables', although the belief in a transcendent God who is 'completely other' would not necessarily eliminate the concept of miracles.   And that 'miracles' can be 'explained' as having occurred by natural means does not refute them, as they still occur as/when predicted, and the God described in Scriptures is often shown to work through secondary causes.

There are a variety of traditions found throughout the denominations of Christianity, though there is also a common core of beliefs necessary to declare a church 'Christian' (I don't believe 'common prayers' is the same thing as 'creeds'; I am not using the terms interchangeably).

All that aside, the Bible makes truth claims about Christ, including those he makes about himself.  As with the truth claims presented in all Holy Books, these can be examined and considered.

 And it is still true that:

            'On the other hand, this is also a question that will ultimately be answered, if there is conscious awareness at all after death: finally, we will all know true Truth.'

[mabel1015j]

August 18 - Women's Equality Day! Women won the right to vote in 1920 after 50 years of battling for suffrage. Thank you Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, Alice Paul, Lucy Burns and thousands and thousands of others.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Good Grief folks who study anthropology and the Bible are not in a well paid job using their prejudice - that would be like saying a mathematician like Einstein uses his opinion and prejudice solving math problems - believing in miracles has nothing to do with examining ancient texts and seeing the additions and changes - it is right there in front of you - You can be Christian today following any number of Bible Tracts which was not possible until the Gutenberg press allowed a timely printing and that Luther rebelled after seeing how it was in Rome. To be Christian is to embrace Christ and all Christians came from the same stew pot - the Roman Catholic tradition - and within that tradition there were many sects - most monasteries had their own traditions, prayers and way of saying Mass all approved by the Pope in Rome -  

Before Luther there were 52 rites to the church - 52 approved masses - 52 separate practices, music, prayer, what days were celebrated, when Easter would be celebrated etc etc. After Luther each denomination decided the how and what of their group down to how it would be governed.

The question of miracles is a recent phenomenon - before the advancement of science and our understanding of  how the universe and disease functions all unknowns were either a sign from God or if it turned out well a miracle - The answer to unknowns - examining the collected examples of the Bible through out history and with each ancient scroll found there is more and more clarified.

I get annoyed now that Vatican II decided as Catholics we should read the Bible - for thousands of years the faith and practices honoring god had little to do with the stories in the bible - however, if others find their faith and practices are more meaningful for reading this book - fine - just do it - but do not hold it over the heads of other Christians as if we have a right to judge each other.

as to the role of women in the Christian Church - that is the sadist sadistic history of sanctioned abuse - my sister is a philosopher and had been a Dominican for 35 years - her specialty is in women and their contribution to Christian Churches including Muslim since they have a direct connection through Abraham - She still teaches although no longer the Dean of the Philosophy Department in the collage she was associated with for years however, she has given many addresses on this subject by invitation in the US, France and Japan.  

In the early Roman Christian church there were women Deacons and Bishops  - remember neither position at that time entailed being an ordained priest just as Popes and Cardinals were not ordained priests however, there is all sorts of historical evidence that women held a greater position of power in the church than after the Reformation. Luther did not like that secular approach to running and over seeing the church - he was not prepared any more than most folks today to realize that there were and always were two arms of the church - one legal and political and the other monastic and spiritual.

Things like what prayers are approved and if this or that is to be believed (Theology) and what day various holy days are celebrated and if a place of worship should or not have images etc. etc. are all the legal aspects of any church and have little to do with your relationship with God - they may guide you to a more connected state of being with God but the real work is with the spiritual guidance available in ceremony, good works and study.  

No different than being a good American seldom comes from reading the Constitution but is enhanced by reading about other Americans who made a difference, and taking part in a patriotic celebration that includes songs that raise the fervor toward being more connected with our neighbors.

Legalities, Constitutional interpretation, Theology, Bibles, bring us to a court of Law rather than sharing a community campfire. Differences can be negotiated in a court of Law even churches have their conclaves to determine what is right and wrong but none of that addresses the spiritual nature of those who are building community. It is not differences we need to search out it is where we are the same. What group is doing a good job of equally elevating all people regardless of gender, race, economic circumstances and creed.

[MaryPage]

I applaud.

[maryz]

Jean, and it's always good to remember that Tennessee was the state that cast the deciding vote to ratify the 19th amendment.

[mabel1015j]

Yes TY to Tenn and to that mother of a Tenn legislator who told her son to "do the right thing." His vote sent the amendment to victory.........somewhere i have his name, but its not in my brain right now.

Jean

[MaryPage]

Oh, I do so relate to that!

[maryz]

I almost never agree with this woman's columns or opinions, but she got it nailed on the conservative side of our paper's editorial pages this morning.

Click here to read about Tennessee's part in passing the woman's suffrage amendment.

[mabel1015j]

Hurrah for suffrage! Thanks Mary.

[MaryPage]

The August 11 & 18 issue of The New Yorker (yes, a double issue) has a political article titled The Uses of Division by George Packer.  Basically, it relates a history of the rise of the Right, with an awful lot about Reagan in it.  I have just read it, and was shaken by the following paragraph, which I want to share with you.  I am struck by what it says about Jimmy Carter, and realize this is what his legacy will be;  but I am absolutely thunderstruck and devastated by what it says about the American public:

"If you listen to Carter's Oval Office addresses on inflation, energy, and the nation's "crisis of confidence," the level of honesty is shocking, and deflating.  No President has ever spoken that way since.  The lesson he taught all his successors was not to tell the American people hard truths."

[Steph]

Oh my, a very very true statement. Carter simply has never understood that people do not want hard truths.. he still does it.. A bad President, but a truly good man.

[MaryPage]

My assessment precisely, Steph.  I did not vote for Jimmy Carter.  I voted for Gerald Ford.  For one thing, I had met Ford many times at various events around town (Washington, D.C.).  He was famous back in the day for going to everything that was going on;  everything he was invited to.  I never saw Betty!  It cannot be said of me that I "knew" Ford, but he seemed to be a good, true and loyal representative of the people to me, and so it was that I stuck by him.

And I found Carter to be something of  a wimp, truth be told.  He was not a speck like any of the politicians I had worked with.  I even felt, and now I realize this shows me up as something of a snobbish elitist, a tad contemptuous of him for using the childlike name Jimmy in running for President of this nation, rather than using the formal adult name James.  I used to scoff at that.

Now I kick myself.  He WAS a nerd, but a brilliant one and a good hearted one and a man who wanted desperately to BE honest with us.  Well, this could be on his tombstone:  "He never let us down, but we let him down."

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh dear - really - a bad president - just because he thought we were grown up enough to hear the truth - oh oh oh - and so we are nothing but sheep that should be lead by a president who we see over and over his powers are limited when a Congress is split on arming the police as combat soldiers - what will shake up these power hungry men in Congress - but them Carter was not a man about power either so where he treated us as equals there was no force that is the leadership to get things done.

This is where it gets confusing because the best of leaders still listened to others and put us in harms way - is that it - we are looking for the perfect leader - have we so lionized presidents from our post that we assume such a perfect leader exists. They seem to be easily swayed to make leadership choices that will strengthen their party - was Congress just weaker during the presidency of FDR - how did he get so much done to benefit the average person before WWII - he certainly had his detractors - folks like George P. Davis who took his case of taxation caused by SS to the Supreme Court - but then even the Supreme Court had a less political mission.  

Well bottom line Carter has made an exemplary post president life - they all write books but he also lead folks to make a difference here and abroad.