Women's Issues

[mabel1015j]

Woohoo! Hillary just had a great, long interview with Andrea Mitchell. I'm sure you will see parts of it all day on MSNBC.

[MaryPage]

Oh, I adored Molly Ivins!  And Anne Richards!  I still have a bunch of Molly's books that I haven't passed on to my granddaughters yet.  I really should.  Did you know that Cecile Richards, who has been president of Planned Parenthood for some years now, is Anne's daughter?  I tell you, when we grow great women in this country, we grow GREAT ones!  These three are all TEXANS, too!  And then there was Barbara Jordan!

[mogamom]

Thank you for the Hillary posts - I do remember the stoves, nice work.  That doesn't - in my mind, at least - off-set the negatives as far as politicians helping themselves more than their constituents, throwing us crumbs so they can best situate themselves.  The money flows freely - and from undesirable sources with questionable intent.  Their service to the country must be weighed against the harm done. 

Isn't it incredibly curious that Hillary was not used much in the middle east?  Yet John Kerry certainly has been.  Curious...  And there is still the Benghazi issue...and problems with exposing soldiers and our intelligence communities to dangers while receiving foreign funds.  I really hope there is full disclosure - to be certain that people's lives and safety have not been compromised for personal gain. That would only be in her own best interest at this point.  I'll look forward to her interviews.

I was encouraged when she announced that she found the Planned Parenthood videos (which members of Congress have been given access to in the original, uncut versions - 40 hours of tapes) "disturbing", but later she defended the agency.

As for the clerk:  part of the first amendment was written to protect the free expression of religion whether it is one I agree with or not.  I think speculations and judgments about her or her motives is a moot point. The community who elected her agrees with her view, so she is representing them well.  Lois Lerner and Eric Holder both were held in contempt of Congress apparently standing on principles, albeit not religious ones; neither went to jail as I recall.

The Supreme Court overstepped their authority in regard to same-sex marriage (as they did with Roe v. Wade); they do not have the constitutional authority here to invalidate the states' laws.

[nlhome]

The Clerk had other avenues open to her, including authorizing someone else to issue the licenses, as is done in some other states. No one is denying her the right to her religious beliefs; she, however, believes she has a right to force those beliefs on others. She has the right to quit her job; ethically, she should do that.

[MaryPage]

You are, of course, absolutely correct.  No one is saying that she cannot practice her religion.  Our constitution guarantees her that right.  But she cannot, again under our constitution, practice her religion by preventing other citizens from receiving the legal benefits bestowed upon them by state and federal laws, when and if HER FEDERAL OR STATE OFFICE demands that she carry out the laws of the government that issues her paycheck.  In this case, all of our courts had ruled that she must issue those marriage licenses.  She is in contempt by not doing so, NOT because any other citizen is infringing upon HER rights, but because she is not doing the job her fellow citizens have elected her to do.

There are six (6) deputy clerks of the court in that office she heads up.  Five have said that they WOULD issue those marriage licenses.  The only one who said he would not IS THIS WOMAN'S SON.

[mogamom]

"...because she is not doing the job her fellow citizens have elected her to do."


I think the citizens who elected her do not agree with the above statement.  From what I've read, they want her to stand up to a ruling illegally obtained and equally forced on the public - negating the votes of millions of American citizens.  How is it that they can force their beliefs on the country through very questionable means?  Isn't that equally egregious?

There were others who could - and would - issue the licenses.  The governor and legislature could have stepped in and made accommodation.  Her statement was very well written and underscores her objections, which were logically and clearly stated with considerable grace. 

And she did refuse to issue licenses to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, in an effort to avoid discrimination.  In fact, she's being sued by two couples of each type.  Neither is she the first clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple since the Obergefel ruling ... just the first that was videotaped.  Everyone knew her beliefs - an obvious attempt to discriminate against a Christian?.

As far as removing her:

"Because Davis is an elected official, she can only be removed from office for impeachment. That would require the Kentucky House of Representatives to charge her with an impeachable offense and the Senate would then try her. Impeachment is unlikely since few citizens in Kentucky support same-sex marriage".

I haven't heard any voices raised to impeach her - only those in her community protesting in support of what she is doing.


Still - Lerner and Holder also took an oath to uphold their respective offices and - in Holder's case - to enforce the law, which he frequently refused to do based on his personal ideology.  And his negligence of duty resulted in the death of at least one citizen.   I don't understand why that isn't every bit as upsetting, causing people to stand against such a flagrant negligence of duty? 

[mogamom]

Oh.  As far as Hillary being a senator from New York?  She was not seen as a "New Yorker" (except as befitting NYC).  Instead, she was elected in a VERY blue state primarily because she was the former first lady and her husband set up his office and foundation here.  Because NYC (and a hand full of other cities) make up the majority of the population, the rest of New York State is pretty used to not being represented except in the House and in local elections. 

With 94 million Americans out of the work force - the highest since 1977 - I hope she has more to offer than just being a woman and being married to a man who wished ne could rum for a third term?

[MaryPage]

There were a larger number of demonstrators cheering on and for the rights of those citizens who wished to purchase marriage licenses than there were of demonstrators from this County Clerk's church. So much for the viewpoint of the majority of citizens of that county.  Even if it had been the other way around, which it was not, it has been declared the law of this nation in all 50 of its United States that under our constitution every human being has equal rights under our laws, including the right to marry the person they love and be a family together.  We cannot revert to the barbarism of not recognizing the basic humanity of each and every one of us and our equal right to Love.
It was Jesus Himself who told us we should observe the following Law:  render unto Caesar (the government) the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's.  The Jesus of Nazareth I have known all of my 86 years is all about Love.  There is no doubt in MY mind as to which side in this matter He would demonstrate for, and both the religious views of the vast majority of the citizens of this nation AND the laws according to our constitution demand we all love and let love, recognizing we are all created equal and deserving of life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness.  This also demands of the vast majority of us, of course, that we must turn our gaze from those poor souls who prefer to huddle in their "churches" and babble about a gospel of hatred for all others, and leave them the freedom to rant on and on.

[BarbStAubrey]

Federal law does not honor States Rights, County Rights, Religious Right if it affects those from another religion - we fought all that in the Civil War and lost - so regardless what her constituents think is right or wrong and what laws they should or not uphold - they are acting trying to make the rule of law into a social issue not a legal issue -

We are a nation based in law and Constitution law does not give individuals room to adjust the law for personal reason - religion or otherwise. To not marry those who come to you, as an elected official with job requirements based on the rule of law is no different than, a group of Muslims with a Muslim in an elected office saying, all women who live in that district must wear a hijab. Or a community that is overwhelming Jewish with a Jewish representative elected to office and who denies non-Jewish Doctors permission to work out of the county hospital because they preform circumcisions without the presence of a rabbi.   

We all have some aspect of the Federal Law that we are not 100% behind - it is why there is such a fierce debate before they become law - remember the hurrah when Black Kids were entering all white schools for their education - same thing - you can fuss and raise an army in your defense but bottom line those who do not like a law are not made immune from the law.

As to God's Law being superior - that went out with Henry VIII when he made the laws of kings paramount over the church and then when we created this union of states called the United States of America we put the rule of law in the pinnacle position.

[mogamom]

Not to be contentious here, but help me understand how what she did is different than what Eric Holder did when he, for instance, refused repeatedly to enforce immigration law and actually took states to court which were enforcing the federal law?  How was (and is) the DOJ allowed to determine which laws to enforce - to travel throughout the country telling state attorney generals how to choose  which laws to enforce? They all took an oath to uphold the law - the whole law, yes?  Not just the ones they agree with?  How was that not using the rule of law for a social issue?

We are talking about the constitutional right to the free expression of a person's religious beliefs. A family in the baking business refuses to make a wedding cake and is sued, their lives threatened, their business destroyed.  A jeweler who fashioned wedding rings designed by a homosexual couple is being sued because, after they received the rings with joy, in casual conversation he made it known that he did not agree with homosexual marriage.  The same attempts were made to destroy his business.  The people making threats and destroying people's life work simply because they don't agree with them - aren't they being hateful?  Now a sitting judge has refused to perform homosexual marriages, so we'll see how that plays out.

People throughout our history have protested unjust laws, often by disobeying them.  This clerk did not run away or fight with the police - she accepted the judge's ruling and went to jail without incident.  An act of civil disobedience.

Jesus of Nazareth established that marriage was a union between a man and a woman where they become one flesh; a sacred covenant often used as an analogy for the union He shared with the Father.  God is a God of love and infinite mercy and grace.  He is also a just God, full of righteousness, holy, and immutable.  He hasn't changed His mind in what He has determined to be right. And a child of God stands for what is right and true in all of life. That is worship.  In America we thankfully have the right to do that.

[BarbStAubrey]

The problem is - trying to suggest that everyone believes that Jesus is God - we are not a theocracy -

...trying to suggest a narrow interpretation of the Bible - that also interprets as the word of Jesus whatever is not written in the bible - Jesus made no mention of same sex marriage in the bible -

...trying to suggest the social mores of 2000 years ago is appropriate as if we have not learned anything in the last 2000 years so we all must live with the same mores as 2000 years ago -

...trying to say even if someone is not Christian - then as a CIVIL servant if a Christian needs to be assured that someone will abide by the Christian rules for marriage, means forcing folks to live to a Christian religious belief which also means since, you believe these beliefs came from God and that you want someone who does not share your religion or religious belief to accept that your God is supreme and the only God - We know that is silly - even the Pope knows better and has been developing alliances with the leaders of other religions. 

Since no one has ever seen God, many religions make an assumption about God and where Christians believe Jesus was God and Man, it took them over a 1000 years to settle that question as their truth, while other religions and a few in the Eastern Christian churches, see Jesus as a Prophet therefore, if they were to make a Civil rule follow a Religious rule they would not choose Jesus as the guide for the rule but instead, chose the God they believe in - The Constitution, as the basis for this nation's laws was never made as an extension of any religion or any God or any religious law. 

There are many laws we do not agree with - there is a proper channel to sway enough people that can make a change to the law -

I do not agree the stop sign should have been erected at the end of my street after living here for 25 years without the stop sign I still get a ticket if I drive through the stop sign even if there is no other car on the road. - yep, it happened -

This is true with any law and yes, there are laws on the books that become irrelevant because of the change in how we live - example, I do not have a hitching post in front of my house and yet, that law is still on the books. Since there is no an empty appointment book - with no requests for marriage license that is a good clue this new law could not be considered irrelevant as the hitching post in front of my house.

I know you have strong religious beliefs however, I never took you for someone who would recommend braking a law because you do not like a law that conflicts with a religious belief that is important to you - I think of you as a law abiding person and I hope you are just expressing your frustration rather than, really trying to say folks have the right to brake laws with impunity when they are in a job representing, not just their local constituents but also, representing the Federal rule of law that keeps us as one nation.

Again, this is a Federal Law rather than a State or County law - a more local law may better represent her constituents However, in the democratic process the winner takes all and those who have reservations with a law or an election have a process they need to use to make a change.

Over our lifetime we have seen many protest a law or the direction taken by our national leaders - they have laid on streets, bombed armament sites, yelled at leaders, marched in the street, camped on public or empty land and carried signs - however, any that break the law are prosecuted and jailed and some are jailed for simply bringing attention to the problem in an unruly manner just as they were in Ferguson -

If Ms Davis is bringing attention to a law she and others do not agree with - that is fine but again, as a representative and executive executioner of Federal Law that means the courts get into the mix - no different than if a soldier does not agree with a war and chose not to do part of the job - anyone can break a law - but by doing so you will be brought to court where a judge will decide your fate.

If she wants the marriage law changed and this is her protest to assure the change gets the attention of all those who agree to that change - then she is doing a great job and as all protest movements if the law is broken there is consequence to pay.

I think it would be good to read a few law books and a few books on how to protest using the court room and how Federal laws are changed - I do not know of any law that was overturned in a matter of days - there is no one in this nation that has that kind of authority - as to Holder - that is your opinion based on a political opinion which for this discussion is like trying to insert a few oranges into the pile of apples -  I think you have to decide to talk about either Holder or Ms. Davis - splitting and trying to make a reconnect dilutes both as we learned in high school debating 101.

I think this is more about the process of change than if her viewpoint on marriage is right or wrong -

[MaryPage]

Outstanding, Barbara!

And I sing YES with enthusiasm at your last sentence.

[Steph]

I love Helen and Margaret. I dont know about pain in her eyes, but I do know that she could let her clerks take care of this. She does not see it, but it boils down to, how about if she said.. my faith does not allow me toissue marriage licenses to any red headed human. They are all wrong and evil.. Same thing exactly. Dont blame your faith.

[MaryPage]

From what I have gleaned from just the television and newspapers, nothing more, because goodness knows I am no legal expert regarding any place, anywhere, let alone Kentucky (where I lived and went to school in 1940), there is/was some sort of legal glitch there, Steph, to the effect that ONLY THE Clerk of the Court has the right and duty in that County, or maybe it was the state, but I think I heard that county, to issue marriage licenses.  Which in effect means that while the deputy clerks may be processing the paperwork, all licenses issued in that county must come with the County Clerk's signature on them.  One would assume all fishing, hunting, etc. licenses, as well?  I don't know.  All birth certificates?  All death certificates?  Or is there a Department of Health that handles those?  These little details, I think, differ mightily across the 50 states.  Not to mention the over 3,000 counties, I think it is.  But there has been some sort of hold up like that until that Federal Judge in Kentucky ruled that the Deputies COULD issue those licenses.  Which now 5 of them have done, and there is much rejoicing in the land, BUT --------- but there is also a whiff of people saying no, under the laws there these newly issued licenses are not worth the paper they are written on.  Me, I don't know who prevails here.  For the time being I assume that Federal Judge does, but I expect the legislature may chime in when they meet again.  They are not in session again until January, I believe it is.  Then again and also too, there would be some sort of county ruling body:  a County Council or a Board of Supervisors, or whatever the local jargon is.  City, county, state and federal.  This story would appear to be ongoing.

[MaryPage]

Musing on the matter of licenses being granted for ANY thing, it has occurred to me that the principal purposes are (1) to make the action involved legally entered upon, that is to say, with the sanction of the ruling government body, the government being the body appointed or elected by the society as a whole for granting permission for the activity, and/or (2) to make a legal record for the permanent community archives to the effect that this birth, marriage, property transfer, death, dog license, you name it, has occurred and the proper fee paid to the community treasury.  The action involved becomes illegal and void if it is later found out that the party or parties appearing before the license granter have given false information because the true facts would disqualify them from receiving the license in question.  In short, the clerks are dependent entirely upon the information given them and declared truthful by those requesting licenses, and if those bits of information appear to be okay according to the law within their jurisdiction, then said clerks have NO CHOICE but to issue those licenses, this being their duty to the community in fulfilling their assigned workload.  So if you distrust the person or persons appearing before you to receive a license, or you just flat out take a dislike to them, or you disapprove of their attitude or religion or whatever, you have to issue that license if the application is complete and correct according to the law.  Your FEELINGS just do not apply.  And if you have a problem of personal disagreement with the law, it makes no difference what that problem arises from, as in this case it is a religious belief, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to exercise the duties of that position in any wise except according to the laws that apply.  So this woman may feel she has every right to that job, (having inherited it from her mother who held it for 37 years), and her son has every right to the job she has given him, BUT the graceful, proper and correct thing would be to resign and seek a position where she would not feel the requirements of the work would be too much for her conscience to allow her to function in peace.  Does this make any sense?

[MaryPage]

I don't want to be talking to myself in this forum, but there is another thing that strikes me here, and that is that this case is not unsimilar to the much larger, much more horrendous matter of world wide importance going on in Europe:  i.e., those refugees fleeing Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq, but mostly Syria, 80% they are saying, because they fear for their very lives.  The extremely poor cannot flee, for the going has become a racket and money must be paid up front for the smuggling out, the buses, the trains, the boats.  It is the more educated middle and upper classes that are abandoning their homes, if indeed the bombing has left their homes intact, and selling up all they can in order to take themselves and their families to a place where they might NOT be killed.  It is all about life or death.  And the United Nations has declared that all their nations will recognize refugee status and assist these desperate souls.
But there is huge paranoia.  Huge fear.  This is where I see a parallel.  Some folk are afraid of same sex marriage;  scared to bits of it, feeling it threatens their very existence, or the world as they know it.  And on this planet of ours, many fear strangers.  There is a deep primal urge to resist all incomers;  to stop them, as they are a perceived threat.  Man, woman and child:  KILL THEM!  They are not human, they are vermin, and their coming in HERE, wherever here is, will upset the balance of things for US.  They will bring us religious practices foreign to us, diseases we do not have, languages we do not speak or understand.  So let us designate them NOT human, and keep them from our midst.  Let us turn our faces away and not think about what is happening to them.  Let us do this in all good conscience in the name of keeping our lives as they are.
I have long envisioned a world in which huge armies are deployed along the borders of our very own beloved and generous hearted country, and machine guns are pointed toward any human being who appears headed in this direction, be they fleeing death from gangs, despots, and drug dealers or from climate change, droughts, and/or disease.  People, in the long and short of it, leave their home bases and their native lands only in dire need to do so.  When the people on the receiving end of their desperate journeys are unable to imagine accommodating them in any way, only terrible numbers being mowed down by guns, bombs or gases will be the end result.  The end of humanity?  One wonders.

[CallieOK]

MaryPage, the graceful, proper and correct thing would be to resign and seek a position where she would not feel the requirements of the work would be too much for her conscience to allow her to function in peace.  Does this make any sense?
Perfectly!!

[nlhome]

Yes, MaryPage, as Callie says, "Perfectly"!

[mabel1015j]

Wonderful discussion.

Marypage - i think you have hit on an important point that has driven events throughout history - fear! But it saddens me, having been a history teacher for decades, that it continues. I think the issue with the refugees is that Europe is in such bad economic condition and, like Americans when millions of immigrants came in the early 20 th century, the Europeans fear for their jobs and their economies. I also believe there is much fear about "the other" -many of the refugees are "brown" people and non-Christian people, not similar to most Europeans.

And on the same sex marriage issue, change is scary. I don't always understand why people can conjure up myths about how homosexuals marrying can "destroy" heterosexual marriage. If I'm homosexual, i am not going to marry, or attempt to attract, your heterosexual spouse. If I am heterosexual, I am not going to be attracted to homosexuals because we can now marry. It is an irrational premise.

As to religious beliefs, this is, as several of you have well said, a legal issue, in our non-theocracy form of government, religion has nothing to do with the issue. I can, and she can, practice her religion in any way she wishes inher church, or in her home, but not in her job as an official - elected or not - of any unit of government. She is an agent of the government. She took an oath to uphold the constitution, not an oath to Christianity. If she feels she can no longer uphold that oath, her option is to resign.

As Barb says, if this is a protest, she is UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, entitled to break the law and TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. That is the purpose of civil rights protests. MLK and other civil rights protestors expected to be arrested to make their issue a news item, but they also recognized, and trained protestors, that they would be arrested.

I think she has created a wonderful vehicle for discussion, however, the discussion should be on the facts, not on mythology, such as "this is a war on Christians". Facts indicate that Christians are far and away still in the majority in the US, in numbers and in power positions,and have all of their religious rights in tact. Those who say otherwise are creating a red herring, or don't remember their civics lessons, if they ever had them. This is why it is disastorous that schools are taking history and civics out of the cirricula around the country.

Jean

[Steph]

I am somewhat torn about the european situation. I understand the people ffleeing, but and this is a big but in Europe just now. They are all muslim or the great majority is. Many of the european countries are having problems bigtime with the arabs who have come to their countries and are trying to bring in
sharia law and customs which are not from the countriees. So when this crisis is over, what will happen. Will all of these people stay in the host countries and try to change them? Will they obey the laws? Unemployment is high in many of these countries. What will happen with that.. I think the smaller countries have real problems. I also dont have an answer. I feel for the refugees, but not quite sure how to get them to assimilate.

[MaryPage]

Great points, Jean, especially the last.  For simply ages now, every time I find myself on the other side of an issue which calls forth that now getting old battle cry of "It's a war on Christians," I have to do a sort of double-take and say to myself:  "Let's see, have I changed my affiliation overnight and forgotten to tell myself?"

We might also, in this particular instance, take into account the fact that the vast majority of same sex marriages in this country are made up of two Christians.

But one also senses this is pretty much a one sided "war."  That is to say, there is not a whole lot of warring nature on the side that wants equal civil rights for all.  There is just a strong sense of peace, love and hope.  The ugliness of  a warring faction, on the other hand, shows up in glaring technicolor when the evening news shows demonstrations outside of Christian churches in which funerals are being held for American men and women who have fallen in foreign lands.  They hold up huge signs that say "God Hates Fags!" and they shout out that our soldiers have died because God does not approve of fags.  I find myself thinking the motif here seems to be that if only the United States would hold to a policy of killing all fags, then Peace would fall upon the land and there would be no more wars for our military to die in. 

Anyway, I am not part of that, or any other war.  But since I seem to be on the "side" with the opposing viewpoint, and if that other side is the "Christian" side, than my question is this:  What is MY side called?  All of my documentation, baptism certificate et al, identify me as a Christian, but this other "side" thinks otherwise!

Beats me!  As we used to say down home, "Deed it does!"

[BarbStAubrey]

Steph I've had the same thoughts ever since this crisis hit the news - what did help was to see the small percentage to the over all population these immigrants or refuges represent. The other thought is those who band together and hole tightly to their Sharia Law are doing so for comfort since they are not accepted - this open hearted attitude now if it continues may make a difference - I wonder if that has anything to do with the drive for Germany - we have not heard the Germans ostracizing the Muslims as we do in England and France - France has had this to sort out for 50 years or more - ever since the Algerian war they had had folks from North Africa clambering onto their land. But once in France, although their French is impeccable and they had not been pushing Sharia Law for the last 10 or 15 years the Muslims in France have become more insular and expect to live with their customs so that head scarves became an issue.

All I can say is that the drama around Ms. Davis has been a huge eyeopener for me - because that had been my 'only' concern seeing the mass migration in our country from one part of the world and seeing the enormous changes in Austin where we are 38% Mexican American - I should say southern nation American because there are many among the population from El Salvador and Guatemala - there is a nice mixture represented in Government, Teachers, and Police and the city has adapted much of the culture and there are folks in all economic circumstances so where there is a ghetto to use a term that says it - those areas are where the new, mostly illegal and poor live. But then this state has ALWAYS had a strong Mexican influence even when the Mexican's were hated and the all the atrocities during the Texas War for Independence was and to a degree still is blamed on the Mexicans.   

However, putting all that aside here I was concerned about a mass migration affecting our laws and customs while Ms. Davis showed me it is not from without we have to worry about it is from within. I now have to wonder where the push to get Civics out of the Classroom originated. I believe it is gone from all public school curriculum and only appears in a few private schools. It is not Sharia Law or the religious persuasion of immigrants we have to worry about, it is the Christian Right and our loss of ethical law makers that are periodically exposed but not near enough so that for the last 50 years money and corporations run our nation. The Christian Right is I think not only the result but useful for politicians to divide and conquer to assure re-election and to complicate the issues of the day with all the drama taking our eye off the real issues. We already have Huckabee and Jindal adding to the drama for no other reason than their political future.

And so it will be interesting if we could find out how Germany handles their immigration - up till now they have not had a flood of immigrants from another part of the world with different customs - they have not had the issues that face Britain and France - if these folks can assimilate and continue to be treated with open arms it may be a different story but we shall see - the other issue that we may be denied seeing is it is usually the kids born in a Muslim Family living in the west who all of a sudden become very pro Muslim - so that would be the youngest of the children and those yet not born - we will have to live another 25 or 30 years to see what becomes of German Muslims - that puts me at 112 - nope do not thing so...

[mabel1015j]

One of Hillary's many barriers to cross........women have a higher standard to meet to be considered "authentic". Men get much more acceptance, or a pass.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-women-problem-explained-369153

And I think that's only one of many subconscious prejuduces that any woman has to contend with, but when you are going for the presidency those biases may be amped up significantly.

I may have told this story on SL before, but I think it fits here.....

I have a naturally lower-toned voice which when I was teaching I thought gave me an advantage as being perceived as having authority. I sound sure of myself, confident - often more so than I was, I think. When I started teaching high school I was still 21 years old, I had some male students who were 18 years old and much bigger than I was.  I asked myself through that first semester "what do I do if they won't obey me?" It never happened! In 25 years of teaching high school and college, I never had a discipline problem with any student.

When working for Dept of Army I, on about 3 or 4 occasions, had men tell me that I was intimidating, which surprised me. On one occasion, I was a peer of the man and had hired him to train some facilitators in my program. I sat in as a participant of the training. At one point he said it was absolutely necessary to have a 5 year and 10 year career plan if you are to be successful. I countered, in what I thought was a pleasant way, that the two jobs that I had held in Dept of Army had each not been in existence 10 years before I got the job and the one he and I both held at that moment had not been in existence 5 years before, so we could not have planned them, that sometimes you have to be open to opportunity. ......He was not happy with my response.

A few days later each trainee had to do a sample facilitation with the group. I did mine and waited at the front of the room for feedback from the group. He said "I think you were intimidating in your presentation." I thought "o.k. Jean, listen up, you may learn something." And I asked what I had done that Was intimidating. He said, "you walked up to the easel, planted your feet, squared your shoulders and seemed overly confident." I said "o.k.." Fortunately I didn't have to say anything else because two women who knew me slightly answered him. One was a young Captain who said," that's exactly how officers in the military are trained to make a presentation, you know what your goal is and you stand tall on two feet and present. I thought Jean showed confidence and competence about what she was doing and led the group just the way we have talked about all week." I could have kissed her! A civilian woman spoke up saying "I don't think anybody on Ft Dix thinks Jean Perry is intimidating. She's trained all of us at one time or another and she's a good trainer." More mental kisses......

I find women have a very fine line to tread and it isn't always easy to see, or feel, the line. Most of the time I think we don't even know we've crossed someone else's line as to what they think is ACCEPTABLE for OUR behavior. My good thoughts go out to any woman who is stepping up/out/over the line that has been drawn for us over centuries by the power group who has made the rules and don't understand the "other's" experiences, which they haven't have, but judge the "other" nontheless.

Jean

[MaryPage]

I think the vast majority of men have been conditioned from birth to expect women to be pliable and easily subjugated, and it really does confuse their expectations and cause them to experience a sense of being threatened when they come upon a confident and knowledgeable woman.  Not women's fault at all, but men just cannot view men and women through the same lens.  They cannot.

Except when they have very carefully been taught otherwise. 

[BarbStAubrey]

What still rings in my ears all these years later - when talking with one of my grandsons when he was all of 4 years old and with 3 boys so close in age - Sally quit being a school teacher and took a position at the local day care which then she had her 3 boys at the day care - so talking with Cody about who he knew and played with when they played out of doors, Cody is one of the twins who was a very physically active and sociable little boy - his response - he only played with boys now and could no longer play with, I forget the girls name - because girls and here he gets up on tip toe with his fingers daintily together - cannot get their dress dirty or their hands dirty. Then, in a higher voice he imitates what he hears them say. And so he then gets sorta sad that he lost his friend but then with a great show of enthusiasm announces all the neat things his new 'boy' friends and he did in the playground.   

We do it - we want our girls to look cute - and it begins early...

[mabel1015j]

Yes, oh yes!

But it appears that the girl's parents had a hand in this.........why can't she get her hands and dress dirty!?!?! Why was she wearing something to day care that would not allow her to be free and inquisitive and creative?

Don't misunderstand me, i was not a let-it-all-hang-out Mother. But children need to be allowed to be children and to be investigators, and girls no less than boys.

Yes, Marypage, but even my very carefully taught son, altho usually very equitable, has had to be reminded by his Mother on occasion to listen to himself and realize what he just said. There are so many forces out there battling against our teachings. 

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Jean yes, it starts with those in the family giving moms the cutest little dresses and then she shops in the girls department and then we have teens and what are girl teens all about - clothes and nails and hair even if they are playing sports unless they are on the way to being top notch in their sport. But for most girls it is not cool to be a tomboy so where does it start and if there is to be a change where does that happen -

Certainly I too fell for the pretty and cute baby this and that and making the special back to school dress and special Christmas dress - yes, my daughter played in the backyard wearing jeans and shorts but she played more on the swing than in the sandbox not because I said anything - somehow there were sublet messages because she did her fair share of hiking and swimming and canoing and even fishing and hunting but no softball much less baseball or long distant bike riding or spending time with a friend exploring the areas be the creek or following the deer trails or getting into trouble for exploring houses as they were being built like her brothers and the other boys in the neighborhood.   

Only saying there is something more than the obvious because yes, the little girl must have been told not to get her dress dirty - I doubt it was a very good dress - it was probably knowing the area something picked up at Walmart for girls to wear to school. But like some Moms say to the kids as the go out the door 'be careful' which I detest thinking they do not need to be hampered but need to be encouraged to explore and there are Moms that say do not get dirty - they sure are able to not get dirty or stay safe on their computers in the house - no wonder moms do not urge them out of doors and now everyone is afraid their kid will be molested or kidnapped -

So girls are still warned to not get dirty and the boys do not get this message - we think it is cute to empty their pockets when doing laundry and finding worms and toads and pieces of sticks - but not many moms think that is cute if they are emptying the pockets of the daughter's jeans. 

[MaryPage]

I wore nothing but dresses when growing up, because that was all I was allowed to wear (exceptions were snowsuits and bathing suits), and I ran with the boys and did all the boy things.  I constantly had a sash torn from one side of my dresses (remember all those sashes that made a bow in the back?) and the back, always the back for some reason, of my hem torn open.  There was a lot of mending going on in front of the radio in my home!

[Steph]

Dresses in school and public, but home,, my much loved jeans and jodhpurs for riding.. Farm kids got dirty, so it never occurred to me not to. Never liked dolls, my horse and  dogs were my best friends and constant companions. i was so lucky in a Dad who made sure I got to be what I wanted to be.

[BarbStAubrey]

I do though still remember how it was a no no if a girl attended class in pants of any kind - my daughter was in school when that became an issue - I think they finally relented when they saw the hurrah that was taking place over short skirts so that pants became the lessor evil.

I think like all of you most girls do wear clothes that they can tear around in and get dirty when they are home but school was where you interacted with boys and girls and where appropriate public behavior was expected - it was only a couple of years ago when the furor about girls wearing leggings to school erupted - kids act differently in what they wear and if they did not then inner city charter schools would not be affecting behavior by a uniform dress code -

I just see that boys on their own with no 'discussions' by a parent learn that girls cannot join them on the playground and when they are very young they do not understand why and girls dressed for school are expected to act a certain way that squelches what we label the Tomboy but in reality is what we hope is the way for an equal shot at life as adults. So far schools teach separate but supposedly equal and we all know has separate but equal worked out for the Blacks.

[Steph]

was in college in the late 50's and we could not wear pants to class or upstairs in the dorm. picnics, yes, but even fraternity parties , it was a no..

[CallieOK]

I was in El/Hi school from 1941 through 1953 and college from 1953-57.  We could always wear pants to school; in fact, my crowd's "uniform" in high school was jeans rolled up twice, a sloppy shirt, penny loafers and white socks.   Don't remember wearing anything like that to class/parties/etc. in college but certainly could in the dorm or to casual campus events.   
The socks always had to be white, though.  Girls who wore colored socks were "not nice". 

In college, we only wore earrings if we had on "heels" and then they were to be "discreet".  Friends who went to other colleges wore great big earrings with everything.   (Pierced ears weren't "in" at the time).

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow your school district was ahead of things weren't they - having attended Catholic School and graduated High School  a tad before you in '51 of course no pants but my daughter attended Public High here in Austin between '69 and graduated in '72 and still the dress code included no pants and the mini skirt was causing problems but being a skirt it took a year or so and then it had to at first come to the knee then it had be so many inches from the floor and girl's skirts were measured if they appeared to a teacher too short.  She had graduated before the dress code changed to include pants.

As to my grandboys in the Day Care Centers that my daughter-in-law took a job - one was in El Paso and the other in Lubbock - it was in El Paso that Cody realized he could no longer play with the girls even if they were his friends. Having visited the day care (I would make the long drive for Easter, Thanksgiving, and the boys Birthdays while visiting my other grands for Christmas, 4th of July and those 2 boys Birthdays) anyhow back to seeing them in Day Care and never saw a little girl in that day care with pants or shorts - they all wore dresses - now up in Lubbock a few wore denim overalls but most wore skirts - Found a pattern from 1992 that includes pants for little girls and those split skirts that were the cross over from skirts to pants that started about then.


And still when you go to Walmart where many shop for school clothes there are racks and racks of skirts and jumper type dresses with leggings and dresses make of Tshirt fabric - not as many fussy dresses but far more dresses than pants for girls wearing the small sizes - across the street I see the children in the playground at the elementary school and lots of girls in skirts and dresses and seldom tearing around or playing basketball with the boys.

To me it is not just what they do or don't wear it is the non-mixing playtime where you learn the give and take that appears more separated now than even when most of us were kids and still played outdoors with all the kids in the neighborhood - I see moms making playdates mixing boys and girls till they are about 4 or 5 and then it stops. I've heard many a mom say - oh the boys were too rough for ___ her daughter's name.

[CallieOK]

Barb,  I began teaching in Amarillo in 1957 and definitely could not wear pants to school! Since I taught 2nd Grade, heels weren't practical but I wouldn't have even considered wearing "sports shoes"  (did we even have those back then?).

Wish we had had the tights/skirts back in high school instead of those darned crinoline petticoats!   One of my college sorority roommates used to pile hers on my bed - until I started gathering them all up and putting them out in the hall! 

[Steph]

We wore those stupid crinolines.. Sigh. I have pictures of me with the darndest wide skirts on.. My granddaughter wore pants most of them time and still does.She is not fond of dresses except for parties.

[MaryPage]

Did anyone catch Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning?  Me, I never watch the whole show, because that is not, for me, sitting down and watching television time.  But I DO turn it on in my bedroom while making my bed and tiding up, getting dressed and so forth.  Well, remember when I was expressing my deeply visceral dislike of football?  It came into full bloom for me again this morning as they had on the author of FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS.  Apparently this is the 25th anniversary of that book coming out, and the author has had an anniversary edition published with an epilogue that tells what has happened to the people in the original book.  While being interviewed by the gang this morning, he was asked about the present condition of what the book describes as a "religion" in Texas, and he does not seem to find anything changed:  he tells of one town in Texas that has just spent FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS on a new football stadium for their High School, while another has just spent SIXTY MILLION on the same!  And he goes on to lament the subjects no longer required of these players to take and pass before graduating.  And something in me curls up and dies, because High School is supposed to be all about preparing young people intellectually to take on their adult positions in this world, and in this instance it is all about satisfying the sport that thrills the innards of the adults of the communities those clueless children are being raised in.

[BarbStAubrey]

Could be MaryPage - however, I do not hear or know about any other endeavor that so unites a community, all ages, to get behind any initiative that raised that kind of money - libraries are donated and a few get behind maintaining the book selections, playgrounds are installed through taxes etc. but there is no unifying activity that so energizes a community to contribute everything from baked goods, to in the early days making uniforms, to their enthusiasm, there yell, creating all sorts of sidelines like cheerleaders, kids practicing their music in order to put on a half time show, the florists hiring extra help on football weekends, the teams nearly all have doctors from the community on the sidelines, on and on every skill and bit of energy is behind this endeavor which binds a community together - it is a team activity and a team attitude is created in the community.

A community that does not have theater, which let's face it not as many in the school or community would be as involved, usually the community does not have even a movie house. The teens cannot attend the dance halls without an adult and dancing has not grabbed nearly as many adults as those who like watching others play. It has to be an activity that can take place during the school year when the students are not working and the organization of their week leaves Friday and Saturday night without any urgency for any accomplishment.

In these small towns the only thing for kids to do on a Friday night is illegally buy their beer and go cow tipping or make out in each other's houses or some other secret place as we hear so many teens who are bored and have no interaction with the adults in their community. Not to say there are not teens in this state who do just that however, there are more of them involved in their community pride than in those areas without a team.

Where there is a strongly engaged support for a community effort it sets the stage for the future when communities get behind bringing back to life another community that experienced some devastation. There is not another state that got behind and adopted so many who lived through Katrina and the same when the Blanco flooded the communities along its banks. That ability to make things happen by a community of people all donating their time, energy, money etc. is born in a community with a strong spirit that usually has been built around the team sport called Football. I see it right here in my neighborhood as individual concerns become the neighborhood's concerns, so much so they roll up their sleeves and do something rather than fill the air with complaints. 

I think to judge the choice of activity we are saying that we like the spirit of the community if it were just behind another activity - fair enough except, there does not appear to be another activity that the sport itself creates community among the players and fully engages the entire community to give it their all for support and enjoyment. 

[mabel1015j]

Ludicrous! My only counter question is do the f-ball programs bring in enough money to pay for the stadiums/programs?

Oh, yes, I wore skirts all thru my public school days, (the 40s and 50s) thru snow storms and bitter cold days, often with slacks under them til I got to school, and college and at my first teaching job in the middle if the 60s. I didn't mind wearing them as a teacher since that gave me some status.  I was teaching secondary, not primary, school, so I didn't have to get down on the floor, or stoop to face the students - altho, as I think about it now, NONE  of  my elementary teachers Got down on the floor with us. Lol. Teaching has changed.

At my second job at the end of the 60s, we did begin to wear dress slacks. When I first started to work for Dept of Army, all FOUR of the civilian women (out of about forty people) who went to the Chief of Staff's meetings wore skirts on those days. Slowly that evolved to nice pants suits, partly because the one or two military women present were wearing their BDUs (the camouflage that you usually see military men and women wearing) which was their daily work uniform.

I wonder what the fashion is for C of S meetings today? Things have gotten so casual in the workplace today that I recently heard that "casual Friday" has now become " dress-up Friday". 😊😊

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Jean like any community activity football is not meant as a money earning enterprise - it is to support kids, and to bring together the community which there will always be a few who know their way around money to make sure these stadiums can be built. Even migrants for years when they came to work from some small community in Mexico that is not even named on the map the first thing they did was pool their money to build in their home town a soccer field or a baseball field which brings all the people together in a joyous way. They had no medical no schools lots of poverty but they had their sports field that united everyone. This is not about profit and loss this is about building teams and a community getting behind that team making themselves into a team. I think we have to ask is there anything - any other activity that brings together an entire community all offering their bit.

[MaryPage]

When “Friday Night Lights, A Town, A Team and A Dream” first hit store shelves in 1990, the Texas town featured in the 432-page book was so incensed over the portrayal of itself and its football team that death threats came to author H.G. “Buzz” Bissinger and a planned book tour was scrapped. So next month, a 25th anniversary edition of the book is being published — and Bissinger will follow that up in September with a long-postponed book tour to Texas. “The book is now recognized as a classic and we think he will be welcomed in Odessa,” said David Steinberger, the CEO of Perseus Books, which will publish the updated edition under its Da Capo Press imprint. The book was tapped by Sports Illustrated as the best football book ever and ESPN calls it the best sports book of the past quarter-century. Bissinger is now a contributing writer at Vanity Fair who wrote the Caitlyn Jenner cover story for the July issue. At the time, he was a 34-year-old journalist who shared a Pulitzer Prize for an investigative series on corruption for the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Friday Night Lights” was his first major non-fiction book. “I knew it was a great story at the time,” he told Media Ink on Tuesday. “As a journalist, you know. But I never anticipated what it would become. I think it resonated with people everywhere because they all went to high school and they said it reminded them of their own high school.  I still get three or four inquiries or emails a week about it. ”It didn’t hurt that there was a 2004 movie starring Billy Bob Thornton as Gary Gaines, the team’s coach, followed by an NBC/DirecTV television drama where Kyle Chandler, starring as the coach, and Connie Britton, as his wife, both won Emmys for their roles in the drama. A new “Afterword” will update readers on what has happened to quarterback Mike Winchell, running back James “Boobie” Miles, who suffered a tragic injury in the book, and four other teammates, Brian Chavez, Jerrod McDougal, Ivory Christian and Don Billingsley. Originally published by AddisonWesley — which sold its trade books division to Perseus in 1998 — it has sold more than 2 million copies. “I’m more curious than anything about going back,” said Bissinger, who lived in Odessa while writing the book. Permian High School, once the winningest football program in the state, is not the same powerhouse it was in the late 1980s. Back then, Bissinger said, there were 19,000 people in Ratliff Stadium every week. The crowd, he said, was a lot more intense than those at NFL games. “They were looking to kids to fulfill their hopes and dreams,” he said. The book followed the fortunes of the 1988 Permian Panthers, who came within a hair of winning the state championship. Bissinger will spend three days in Odessa in September before moving to Houston, Dallas and Austin.