I was going to excerpt the blog post below, but the whole is worth reading, especially as it speaks, in general, to empowerment versus resignation. I wonder if as Quakers, where, mercifully and grace-fully, in my experience, women are not subjected to routine sexism, we can coalesce around speaking truth to those who stereotype women as "whiners." This is not about politics, "rights," or controversial issues, but simply about speaking up and saying that women are fully human, fully adult, and, whatever your specific religious language, made in the same image of God as men. And maybe we can laugh along the way--even at ourselves, but not at the caricatures of us that others invent. :)
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/03/25/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Women and the vote
My cyber friend Diana has an interesting blog on English suffragettes:
http://lightbrightandsparkling.blogspot.com/2010/05/buried-in-santa-monica-visit-with-dame.html
We forget how much women a century ago endured to open the door to women today having a part in the political process. Does anyone know if Quaker women in Britain were involved in the woman's movement there? I also wonder what would motivate a wealthy, aristocratic woman like Lytton to see so thoroughly through the eyes of the underclass--the view from below--that she would throw herself wholeheartedly into the woman's movement of her time.
http://lightbrightandsparkling.blogspot.com/2010/05/buried-in-santa-monica-visit-with-dame.html
We forget how much women a century ago endured to open the door to women today having a part in the political process. Does anyone know if Quaker women in Britain were involved in the woman's movement there? I also wonder what would motivate a wealthy, aristocratic woman like Lytton to see so thoroughly through the eyes of the underclass--the view from below--that she would throw herself wholeheartedly into the woman's movement of her time.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Old Testament women: Were they "Quakers?"
How do we get "religion"--ritual, rules, the doctrines and dogmas that subtly twist the faith into something it's not meant to be--out of the way without losing our moorings? This is, of course, near and dear to the Quaker heart, perhaps always running in the back of our minds, but now forefronted for me.
In the early books of the Old Testament, several women take matters into their own hands and do the right thing without--according to the text--being explicitly told to do so.
In one example, when the Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, Pharaoh tells the midwives Shiphrah and Puah to kill the sons born to Hebrew women. They decide not to--and don't. (Moses, in contrast, has to hear explicitly from God in the burning bush about freeing his people. Why do you think people like Moses had to receive explicit instructions from God?)
Earlier on, Rebekah too, makes independent decisions. She's caught in a system of primogeniture which will give headship and the wealth of the clan arbitrarily to the firstborn of her twin sons, whether or not he is the most fit for the task. Esau, the firstborn, hotheaded and impulsive, doesn't necessarily put the needs of the community ahead of his own. Jacob, however, is thoughtful and deliberate.
It has always bothered me that Rebekah used trickery to gain the blessing and birthright for Jacob. It betrayed her oldest child. It seemed cruel to interfere and favor one child over the other. I wondered what it must have done to Esau to know his mother thought so little of him.
On the other hand, the system of inheritance that gave all the spoils to the oldest son was also potentially--inherently-- cruel. It penalized Jacob for the accident of being born a few minutes after Esau. (It hit me for the first time that it's probably not incidental that Esau and Jacob were twins: it underscores the arbitrariness of primogeniture: In this instance, you can't make a case that the older son's age makes a difference). But even this is not the real issue.
I'm now seeing Rebekah as a wise woman, with little power in her social structure, using what power she had not to promote a favored son, but to help safeguard the clan as a whole. This was not just a domestic matter but a higher stakes situation in which the entire group would suffer if the wrong person ended up in charge. Rebekah acted to benefit the community as a whole. Jacob was more fit to lead, and Rebekah, rather than stand by helplessly, used her wits to subvert an arbitrary system. Primogeniture was a form, not a thing to be idolized for itself, but a means for preserving the community intact rather than dividing and subdividing its wealth into ever small parcels. Rebekah, in acting as she did, preserved the intention, if not the letter, of that law.
These stories are hopeful and address the need to challenge systems that are not working for the benefit of the community. They teach that one compelling way to speak truth to power is simply to do the right thing.
But what does this have to do with getting religion out of the way? These women had such a close relationship with God that they didn't let arbitrary structures of authority get in the way of doing the humane/human/image of Godlike thing. They obeyed the inner light. They didn't get confused by doctrine or custom. In the end, the Bible affirmed their choices.
In the early books of the Old Testament, several women take matters into their own hands and do the right thing without--according to the text--being explicitly told to do so.
In one example, when the Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, Pharaoh tells the midwives Shiphrah and Puah to kill the sons born to Hebrew women. They decide not to--and don't. (Moses, in contrast, has to hear explicitly from God in the burning bush about freeing his people. Why do you think people like Moses had to receive explicit instructions from God?)
Earlier on, Rebekah too, makes independent decisions. She's caught in a system of primogeniture which will give headship and the wealth of the clan arbitrarily to the firstborn of her twin sons, whether or not he is the most fit for the task. Esau, the firstborn, hotheaded and impulsive, doesn't necessarily put the needs of the community ahead of his own. Jacob, however, is thoughtful and deliberate.
It has always bothered me that Rebekah used trickery to gain the blessing and birthright for Jacob. It betrayed her oldest child. It seemed cruel to interfere and favor one child over the other. I wondered what it must have done to Esau to know his mother thought so little of him.
On the other hand, the system of inheritance that gave all the spoils to the oldest son was also potentially--inherently-- cruel. It penalized Jacob for the accident of being born a few minutes after Esau. (It hit me for the first time that it's probably not incidental that Esau and Jacob were twins: it underscores the arbitrariness of primogeniture: In this instance, you can't make a case that the older son's age makes a difference). But even this is not the real issue.
I'm now seeing Rebekah as a wise woman, with little power in her social structure, using what power she had not to promote a favored son, but to help safeguard the clan as a whole. This was not just a domestic matter but a higher stakes situation in which the entire group would suffer if the wrong person ended up in charge. Rebekah acted to benefit the community as a whole. Jacob was more fit to lead, and Rebekah, rather than stand by helplessly, used her wits to subvert an arbitrary system. Primogeniture was a form, not a thing to be idolized for itself, but a means for preserving the community intact rather than dividing and subdividing its wealth into ever small parcels. Rebekah, in acting as she did, preserved the intention, if not the letter, of that law.
These stories are hopeful and address the need to challenge systems that are not working for the benefit of the community. They teach that one compelling way to speak truth to power is simply to do the right thing.
But what does this have to do with getting religion out of the way? These women had such a close relationship with God that they didn't let arbitrary structures of authority get in the way of doing the humane/human/image of Godlike thing. They obeyed the inner light. They didn't get confused by doctrine or custom. In the end, the Bible affirmed their choices.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Race or Gender II
I have been thinking about the New York Times piece on race and gender, which argues that it is much easier to overcome race than it is to overcome gender.
I have long thought about this. It's easier (not easy!) to overcome race because race, at least as we understand it in this culture, is simply a cultural construct. We arbitrarily decided at some point that people with darker skin would be treated as an underclass.
Studies of the human genome have underscored how culturally constructed race is. While there are some genes that lead to superficial differences in appearance, I understand that a random white person is as likely as not to have more genetic similarity to a random black person than to another random white person. And vice versa. In other words, I may have more genetic similarities to a sister in Cameroon than a sister in Norway.
Gender, on the other hand, is not merely socially constructed. Men and women really do have pronounced genetic differences. Women can have babies, men can't. There are anatomical differences and hormonal differences between men and women. There are also culturally constructed differences. The problem becomes eradicating the culturally constructed differences that hurt women while valuing and taking into account the genetic differences.
For this reason, I worry that placing the grid of the civil rights over the women's movement, while a politically very potent tool for gaining rights, has been a false fit in many ways. While there is a one-to-one identity between black males and white males, black females and white females, that same one-to-one doesn't work between males and females.
I think we need to construct a better paradigm. But how?
I have long thought about this. It's easier (not easy!) to overcome race because race, at least as we understand it in this culture, is simply a cultural construct. We arbitrarily decided at some point that people with darker skin would be treated as an underclass.
Studies of the human genome have underscored how culturally constructed race is. While there are some genes that lead to superficial differences in appearance, I understand that a random white person is as likely as not to have more genetic similarity to a random black person than to another random white person. And vice versa. In other words, I may have more genetic similarities to a sister in Cameroon than a sister in Norway.
Gender, on the other hand, is not merely socially constructed. Men and women really do have pronounced genetic differences. Women can have babies, men can't. There are anatomical differences and hormonal differences between men and women. There are also culturally constructed differences. The problem becomes eradicating the culturally constructed differences that hurt women while valuing and taking into account the genetic differences.
For this reason, I worry that placing the grid of the civil rights over the women's movement, while a politically very potent tool for gaining rights, has been a false fit in many ways. While there is a one-to-one identity between black males and white males, black females and white females, that same one-to-one doesn't work between males and females.
I think we need to construct a better paradigm. But how?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)