Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Prof: Love Stories & romantic love.

Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements. If the life was so wonderful then why were there so many women of those times trying to alert their society to the problems they were facing? Why the Wollstonecraft, Austen, Bronte, Gaskell, Eliot etc, not to mention male authors like Dickens and Zola. Why was the mortality rate for women and their babies so high? I posted earlier about an experiment done by the BBC in creating a 1900 house and putting a family in it for six months to live like an Edwardian lower middle class family, with one daily servant. They hated it and the mother hated it the most even though she, like the women you mention, was formerly an admirer of this period of history. Much of what we see of the past from TV, films and nostalgic 'romantic' books is presenting the past through rosy tinted spectacles and there is a tendency for people to accept that view. From all historical accounts, reality was very different, especially for the majority. If you were upper class, of course, money could shield you from a lot of problems although the child mortality rate actually affected women of all classes. Queen Anne of England, for instance, died at the age of 49 and had around 15 children; all died as babies except one which survived until the age of 11. This was not an uncommon story up until the turn of the 19th century. TB was rife, syphilis was rife, cholera, typhus and smallpox epidemics were frequent.




Everyman wrote:

foxycat wrote:
There's more to us than biology. Are you negating the strides women have made in the past 100 years? Many of us have decided that mating and procreation is only one of many choice in our lives.

Whew! Lots of points packed into so few lines. :smileyhappy:

Yes, there's more to us than biology, but less more than we would like to think, I think. As I said in another post, biology is a more powerful force in the end than rationality.

I don't discount the strides women have made, but I also don't discount the fact that not all change is progress. Certainly many women, probably most of those here, see those strides as positive. But some women see them as retreat from a privileged position they preferred and which they are losing or have lost. Now, I admit that they may be over-romanticizing the past, but I also know women who think the the life of women before World War I was preferable to the life choices they have today.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate on this, frankly, because it's just based on individual opinion, not on facts, and I'm already pretty convinced that I know what virtually everybody on this board will say. But I think it's useful to recognize that it is not universally accepted by all women that the life choices they face today are better than those they faced a hundred years ago, whether you think those opinions are based on reality or fantasy.


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elementary

Another derivation is:-

'The derivation of the word trivia comes from the Latin for "crossroads": "tri-" + "via", which means three streets. This is because in ancient times, at an intersection of three streeets in Rome (or some other Italian place), they would have a type of kiosk where ancillary information was listed. You might be interested in it, you might not, hence they were bits of "trivia." '

But I like Laurel's better:smileyhappy:.



Prof wrote:
Thank you, Laurel. Is this from a dictionary?

Are words more "elementary" than numbers? Should college students be taught quadrivia before trivia?


Laurel wrote:
"Trivial entered Middle English from Latin trivium 'place where three roads meet', from tri- 'three' and via 'road, way'. A medieval trivium was an introductory course at a university involving the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. In the Middle Ages seven ‘liberal arts’ were recognized, of which the trivium contained the lower three and the quadrivium the upper four (the ‘mathematical arts’ of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). This association with elementary subjects led to trivial being used to mean 'of little value or importance' from the 16th century."

© Oxford University Press, 2004



Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elementary

The word history is from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which I have on this very neat little pop-up gizmo:

http://www.babylon.com/

"Grammar" in the trivium refers not to a subject but to a method of teaching. It is the method used during the hear and repeat stage of education, the primary grades. An excellent modern explanation of the trivium and quadrivium is Dorothy Sayers's "The Lost Tools of Learning." I'll dip into it for you here and then give a link to the essay:

"The grammar of Mathematics begins, of course, with the multiplication table, which, if not learnt now, will never be learnt with pleasure; and with the recognition of geometrical shapes and the grouping of numbers. These exercises lead naturally to the doing of simple sums in arithmetic. More complicated mathematical processes may, and perhaps should, be postponed, for the reasons which will presently appear."

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

I'm not sure why the Oxford dictionary says "university," though.



Prof wrote:
Thank you, Laurel. Is this from a dictionary?

Are words more "elementary" than numbers? Should college students be taught quadrivia before trivia?


Laurel wrote:
"Trivial entered Middle English from Latin trivium 'place where three roads meet', from tri- 'three' and via 'road, way'. A medieval trivium was an introductory course at a university involving the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. In the Middle Ages seven ‘liberal arts’ were recognized, of which the trivium contained the lower three and the quadrivium the upper four (the ‘mathematical arts’ of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). This association with elementary subjects led to trivial being used to mean 'of little value or importance' from the 16th century."

© Oxford University Press, 2004



"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Pendulum swinging...

[ Edited ]
Thankyou Foxycat. I am the culprit who has been calling you Foxylady!

It is good to see the pendulum swinging although I don't see much evidence over here as yet. I do not agree with the comment that earlier feminists promoted 'casual' sex though. Sex outside of marriage, sex with more than one partner maybe but casual sex, one-night-stands etc was a development of the next generation. The drunken, sexually promiscous behaviour seen today was rarely seen in the 60s except at the big Rock concerts where some of the more 'way out' people congregated. It is a mistake to compare ordinary feminists or young people in the 60s/70s with what was happening on the music scene vis a vis The Rolling Stones, Sex Pistols etc. I was at the heart of the London intellectual (and Jazz) scene and though reasonably liberalised sexually it was not promiscuous or drunken, nor were drugs taken excessively. Most of my friends have never taken drugs nor were they given to drunken-ness. The occasional 'joint' was passed but not partaken of by all.

The sexual liberation came about with the availability of 'the pill' when women began to realise that they could enjoy sex without risk, as men had been able to do for centuries. Although, of course, there are always risks with sex because STDs have always been with us. At the turn of the 19th Century one in ten people had syphilis in the UK; it was a bigger epidemic than AIDS and did not cease to become a problem until the invention of penicillin. IMO any sensible woman recognises these risks to herself and a possible baby and does not engage in promiscuous behaviour or the drunken-ness that may lead to it and that was how I found it in the hey-day of feminism and is how I see it amongst my feminist daughters and their friends today.





foxycat wrote:
I read a number of newspapers online. This is in the Wall Street Journal today, and it relates both to this generation's ant-feminism and our talk about the pendulum swinging to extremes:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118254928882245220.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
.....
I'm with Choisya, Everyman. She's having an academic discussion about the general state of affairs, not attacking anyone in particular. She's always very careful to talk in general terms.

.....
BTW--Choisya or Everyman, not sure who said it, I'm FOXYCAT, not FOXYLADY.
Foxy is one of my cats.:smileyvery-happy:



Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 05:07 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Prof: Love Stories & romantic love.



Choisya wrote:
Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements.

If that were to be the standard for posting around here, the boards would be silent. We all make judgments about the lives, desires, and intentions of people in whose moccasins we have not walked.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Moccasins.

This is a good example of something raised on another board - of using the Quote facility to take a statement out of context. My full post explained my position. Maybe 'judgement' was the wrong word and the first sentence unnecessary but my following explanation was clear enough. If you are saying that there are women who know about and yet wish to risk all these things then fair enough. Fear of childbirth and of your children being stillborn or dying young would be enough to put most women off I would have thought.



(Full post: Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements. If the life was so wonderful then why were there so many women of those times trying to alert their society to the problems they were facing? Why the Wollstonecraft, Austen, Bronte, Gaskell, Eliot etc, not to mention male authors like Dickens and Zola. Why was the mortality rate for women and their babies so high? I posted earlier about an experiment done by the BBC in creating a 1900 house and putting a family in it for six months to live like an Edwardian lower middle class family, with one daily servant. They hated it and the mother hated it the most even though she, like the women you mention, was formerly an admirer of this period of history. Much of what we see of the past from TV, films and nostalgic 'romantic' books is presenting the past through rosy tinted spectacles and there is a tendency for people to accept that view. From all historical accounts, reality was very different, especially for the majority. If you were upper class, of course, money could shield you from a lot of problems although the child mortality rate actually affected women of all classes. Queen Anne of England, for instance, died at the age of 49 and had around 15 children; all died as babies except one which survived until the age of 11. This was not an uncommon story up until the turn of the 19th century. TB was rife, syphilis was rife, cholera, typhus and smallpox epidemics were frequent.)





Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements.

If that were to be the standard for posting around here, the boards would be silent. We all make judgments about the lives, desires, and intentions of people in whose moccasins we have not walked.


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Moccasins.

The context didn't help counter my point. Knowing intellectually some things about their lives still isn't walking in their moccasins. Until you have lived a 18th century life, which I don't believe you have, you haven't walked in their moccasins. Nor is trying to replicate that life by modern people for a TV show really walking in their moccasins -- they were born to that life, they hadn't gotten used to and have to give up phones and TV and radios and the Internet and microwaves and comfortable shoes and jeans and not dressing for dinner ... I didn't see the show you mention, but I watched the show which I think was called Manor House, which was a similar sort of show only apparently higher class.

Over the past several years on both BNU and BNBC you have told us a great deal about your own life, both past and present, but I would never claim to have walked in your moccasins.

The fact is that none of us can truly walk in anybody else's moccasins, and claiming that we know what the lives of other people from other cultures or centuries is really like is just fooling ourselves. If we are to make judgments at all, and we do a lot here, we're going to have to make them on the basis of the best information we can find filtered through our modern world prejudices.

But we can't ever walk in their moccasins, and shouldn't even try to set that up as a prerequisite for judgment.


Choisya wrote:
This is a good example of something raised on another board - of using the Quote facility to take a statement out of context. My full post explained my position. Maybe 'judgement' was the wrong word and the first sentence unnecessary but my following explanation was clear enough. If you are saying that there are women who know about and yet wish to risk all these things then fair enough. Fear of childbirth and of your children being stillborn or dying young would be enough to put most women off I would have thought.



(Full post: Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements. If the life was so wonderful then why were there so many women of those times trying to alert their society to the problems they were facing? Why the Wollstonecraft, Austen, Bronte, Gaskell, Eliot etc, not to mention male authors like Dickens and Zola. Why was the mortality rate for women and their babies so high? I posted earlier about an experiment done by the BBC in creating a 1900 house and putting a family in it for six months to live like an Edwardian lower middle class family, with one daily servant. They hated it and the mother hated it the most even though she, like the women you mention, was formerly an admirer of this period of history. Much of what we see of the past from TV, films and nostalgic 'romantic' books is presenting the past through rosy tinted spectacles and there is a tendency for people to accept that view. From all historical accounts, reality was very different, especially for the majority. If you were upper class, of course, money could shield you from a lot of problems although the child mortality rate actually affected women of all classes. Queen Anne of England, for instance, died at the age of 49 and had around 15 children; all died as babies except one which survived until the age of 11. This was not an uncommon story up until the turn of the 19th century. TB was rife, syphilis was rife, cholera, typhus and smallpox epidemics were frequent.)





Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements.

If that were to be the standard for posting around here, the boards would be silent. We all make judgments about the lives, desires, and intentions of people in whose moccasins we have not walked.




_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Male & Female Roles Reversed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/#storyContinued

Read this article and tell me what you think.

Kathy S.
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Male & Female Roles Reversed



KathyS wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/#storyContinued

Read this article and tell me what you think.

Kathy S.




I remember that article, Kathy! I was a first-grade teacher in a former life, and I can testify that little boys certainly have their problems. (I think that one reason women have been told in times past to be submissive to their husbands is to give the men a chance, but I guess I'd better not come right out and say that.)
"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Moccasins.

Beatrice and Benedick, you are beginning to bore me.
"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Male & Female Roles Reversed



Laurel wrote:


KathyS wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/#storyContinued

Read this article and tell me what you think.

Kathy S.




I remember that article, Kathy! I was a first-grade teacher in a former life, and I can testify that little boys certainly have their problems. (I think that one reason women have been told in times past to be submissive to their husbands is to give the men a chance, but I guess I'd better not come right out and say that.)


Laurel, I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Male & Female Roles Reversed

Good thoughts, Kathy. I have never felt resentful or bitter about being a woman and being treated differently than men. I think women have some great advantages, and we should enjoy them to the hilt. I guess I've always been too busy to spend time brooding over what I am not. And yes, I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved.



KathyS wrote:
I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.


"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎06-05-2007
0 Kudos

University

Laurel, did Ms. Sayers, or someone else, think of applying the original university liberal arts program to earlier levels?


Laurel wrote:

I'm not sure why the Oxford dictionary says "university," though.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Male & Female Roles Reversed?

Laurel -- I can only guess at some of the data and facts that you might bring forward to buttress your conclusion that "I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved," but I certainly cannot agree with you, or, if that is true, it has still been worth the price. If nothing else, Paradise Lost convinces me of that! But, more seriously, do we really want to give up the right to vote or ... or ...? It is so easy to forget or minimize what has been gained and to see primarily the problems that have arisen, including the "I told you so" problems. And, yes, there could have been and may still be some better routes.

I will not deny that we have serious questions and challenges ahead -- from the type outlined in the Newsweek article to the willingness of BOTH women and men to tackle the most serious challenges of today and the century ahead, whether those be population, terrorism, environment, genocide, poverty, tolerance, liberty, justice, water supplies, or ...

Okay, you touched a passion for me and I reacted, as much from the gut or the heart as the head. Anyway, it is a sunk cost problem -- the past is not ours to change, only the present.



Laurel wrote:
Good thoughts, Kathy. I have never felt resentful or bitter about being a woman and being treated differently than men. I think women have some great advantages, and we should enjoy them to the hilt. I guess I've always been too busy to spend time brooding over what I am not. And yes, I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved.



KathyS wrote:
I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.




"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Education

Peppermill and Laurel,
I don't think it's a matter of giving anything up, unless it's time and energy being put into thinking of ways to figuring out how to resolve the fall-out these problems have caused. When rights are fought for and won, how many times are the consequences looked at first?

I lived near, and watched, the cities burned in LA, where people are still being killed because of civil rights. And I see the children become the victim of drive-by shootings. It may be a different situation I'm discribing, but it's all a result of the times we are living in. And Band-Aids seem to be the only answers given to these poor children.

One major problem with any changes like these, where rights are concerned, it's done always with passion and zeal, and many times anger, and it's always looking back at it in hindsight.

In regards to these role reversals, whether the current problems are more now for these boys and girls [than it was before], shouldn't be what we are concerned with. At least someone has recognized there is a problem, and there are studies being done to see if these problems can be fixed. I would hope so.

But now education plays a major part in all of this - not just within the schools, with educating of teachers in their roles, but with the parents, and caregivers of these children who are the by-product of our adult negligence and lack of forethought.

A friend of mine, a high school teacher, had sent me that article right after it came out. It is of a bigger concern than I think the majority of the population realizes. We had some very long emails discussing this. We don't want to see this problem perpetuate, and we don't want to throw out common sense when looking at this problem, either. We have to realize just exactly what common sense is these days. Life doesn't move in slow motion anymore, it's as instant as one of these posts. Evaluations take time, and how many people are willing to stop and look and realize....it all takes time. And how many people are willing to admit the mistakes that have been made?

I don't, again, have any more answers to these problems, other than through public awareness. Maybe one day the boys of now, will become tomorrows' men in revolt...I hope not. I hope these children will become healthy adults of understanding.

Kathy S.

Peppermill wrote:
Laurel -- I can only guess at some of the data and facts that you might bring forward to buttress your conclusion that "I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved," but I certainly cannot agree with you, or, if that is true, it has still been worth the price. If nothing else, Paradise Lost convinces me of that! But, more seriously, do we really want to give up the right to vote or ... or ...? It is so easy to forget or minimize what has been gained and to see primarily the problems that have arisen, including the "I told you so" problems. And, yes, there could have been and may still be some better routes.

I will not deny that we have serious questions and challenges ahead -- from the type outlined in the Newsweek article to the willingness of BOTH women and men to tackle the most serious challenges of today and the century ahead, whether those be population, terrorism, environment, genocide, poverty, tolerance, liberty, justice, water supplies, or ...

Okay, you touched a passion for me and I reacted, as much from the gut or the heart as the head. Anyway, it is a sunk cost problem -- the past is not ours to change, only the present.



Laurel wrote:
Good thoughts, Kathy. I have never felt resentful or bitter about being a woman and being treated differently than men. I think women have some great advantages, and we should enjoy them to the hilt. I guess I've always been too busy to spend time brooding over what I am not. And yes, I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved.



KathyS wrote:
I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.







Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Moccasins.

You can at least try hard to walk in moccasins and look at things without the rosy spectacles, although I agree that it can never be the same.

Manor House wasn't at all like the 1900 house, which was much more realistic and less of a 'entertainment' type show, more of a documentary. Indeed it was quite harrowing to watch at times as when the mother was struggling to do family wash by dolly tub and mangle - a challenge whichever era you lived in. Yes it is different if you are born to a certain life - any one of us who has had a drastic change in their home circumstances knows that. Nevertheless, as many authors showed, it was a very difficult life for the women of those times.




Everyman wrote:
The context didn't help counter my point. Knowing intellectually some things about their lives still isn't walking in their moccasins. Until you have lived a 18th century life, which I don't believe you have, you haven't walked in their moccasins. Nor is trying to replicate that life by modern people for a TV show really walking in their moccasins -- they were born to that life, they hadn't gotten used to and have to give up phones and TV and radios and the Internet and microwaves and comfortable shoes and jeans and not dressing for dinner ... I didn't see the show you mention, but I watched the show which I think was called Manor House, which was a similar sort of show only apparently higher class.

Over the past several years on both BNU and BNBC you have told us a great deal about your own life, both past and present, but I would never claim to have walked in your moccasins.

The fact is that none of us can truly walk in anybody else's moccasins, and claiming that we know what the lives of other people from other cultures or centuries is really like is just fooling ourselves. If we are to make judgments at all, and we do a lot here, we're going to have to make them on the basis of the best information we can find filtered through our modern world prejudices.

But we can't ever walk in their moccasins, and shouldn't even try to set that up as a prerequisite for judgment.


Choisya wrote:
This is a good example of something raised on another board - of using the Quote facility to take a statement out of context. My full post explained my position. Maybe 'judgement' was the wrong word and the first sentence unnecessary but my following explanation was clear enough. If you are saying that there are women who know about and yet wish to risk all these things then fair enough. Fear of childbirth and of your children being stillborn or dying young would be enough to put most women off I would have thought.



(Full post: Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements. If the life was so wonderful then why were there so many women of those times trying to alert their society to the problems they were facing? Why the Wollstonecraft, Austen, Bronte, Gaskell, Eliot etc, not to mention male authors like Dickens and Zola. Why was the mortality rate for women and their babies so high? I posted earlier about an experiment done by the BBC in creating a 1900 house and putting a family in it for six months to live like an Edwardian lower middle class family, with one daily servant. They hated it and the mother hated it the most even though she, like the women you mention, was formerly an admirer of this period of history. Much of what we see of the past from TV, films and nostalgic 'romantic' books is presenting the past through rosy tinted spectacles and there is a tendency for people to accept that view. From all historical accounts, reality was very different, especially for the majority. If you were upper class, of course, money could shield you from a lot of problems although the child mortality rate actually affected women of all classes. Queen Anne of England, for instance, died at the age of 49 and had around 15 children; all died as babies except one which survived until the age of 11. This was not an uncommon story up until the turn of the 19th century. TB was rife, syphilis was rife, cholera, typhus and smallpox epidemics were frequent.)





Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Until you have 'lived in the moccasins' of those earlier women I do not think it is possible to make such judgements.

If that were to be the standard for posting around here, the boards would be silent. We all make judgments about the lives, desires, and intentions of people in whose moccasins we have not walked.







Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Education -- Is this discussion about pendulum swings from extreme to extreme?

Kathy -- well put. I'm going to have to spend some time elsewhere today (and this week), so I won't try to participate fully in a conversation right now. However, I will comment here on one aspect:

One major problem with any changes like these, where rights are concerned, it's done always with passion and zeal, and many times anger, and it's always looking back at it in hindsight.

While anger, passion, zeal, even fear are often needed to sustain the energy and power required for change, since so much inertia and so many resources and vested interests are entrenched in the status quo, I always remember Rosa Park's "My feet were just tired." (paraphrased)

I do know that throughout my life and career in what had been largely a man's world (and still was), lots of little pieces here and there undoubtedly left traces. (See also Choisya's excerpts from Edith Wharton's bio on the Women's Lit board.)



KathyS wrote:
Peppermill and Laurel,
I don't think it's a matter of giving anything up, unless it's time and energy being put into thinking of ways to figuring out how to resolve the fall-out these problems have caused. When rights are fought for and won, how many times are the consequences looked at first?

I lived near, and watched, the cities burned in LA, where people are still being killed because of civil rights. And I see the children become the victim of drive-by shootings. It may be a different situation I'm discribing, but it's all a result of the times we are living in. And Band-Aids seem to be the only answers given to these poor children.

One major problem with any changes like these, where rights are concerned, it's done always with passion and zeal, and many times anger, and it's always looking back at it in hindsight.

In regards to these role reversals, whether the current problems are more now for these boys and girls [than it was before], shouldn't be what we are concerned with. At least someone has recognized there is a problem, and there are studies being done to see if these problems can be fixed. I would hope so.

But now education plays a major part in all of this - not just within the schools, with educating of teachers in their roles, but with the parents, and caregivers of these children who are the by-product of our adult negligence and lack of forethought.

A friend of mine, a high school teacher, had sent me that article right after it came out. It is of a bigger concern than I think the majority of the population realizes. We had some very long emails discussing this. We don't want to see this problem perpetuate, and we don't want to throw out common sense when looking at this problem, either. We have to realize just exactly what common sense is these days. Life doesn't move in slow motion anymore, it's as instant as one of these posts. Evaluations take time, and how many people are willing to stop and look and realize....it all takes time. And how many people are willing to admit the mistakes that have been made?

I don't, again, have any more answers to these problems, other than through public awareness. Maybe one day the boys of now, will become tomorrows' men in revolt...I hope not. I hope these children will become healthy adults of understanding.

Kathy S.

Peppermill wrote:
Laurel -- I can only guess at some of the data and facts that you might bring forward to buttress your conclusion that "I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved," but I certainly cannot agree with you, or, if that is true, it has still been worth the price. If nothing else, Paradise Lost convinces me of that! But, more seriously, do we really want to give up the right to vote or ... or ...? It is so easy to forget or minimize what has been gained and to see primarily the problems that have arisen, including the "I told you so" problems. And, yes, there could have been and may still be some better routes.

I will not deny that we have serious questions and challenges ahead -- from the type outlined in the Newsweek article to the willingness of BOTH women and men to tackle the most serious challenges of today and the century ahead, whether those be population, terrorism, environment, genocide, poverty, tolerance, liberty, justice, water supplies, or ...

Okay, you touched a passion for me and I reacted, as much from the gut or the heart as the head. Anyway, it is a sunk cost problem -- the past is not ours to change, only the present.



Laurel wrote:
Good thoughts, Kathy. I have never felt resentful or bitter about being a woman and being treated differently than men. I think women have some great advantages, and we should enjoy them to the hilt. I guess I've always been too busy to spend time brooding over what I am not. And yes, I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved.



KathyS wrote:
I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.







"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Male & Female Roles Reversed?

[ Edited ]
I fully agree Peppermill and it is also unfair to attribute 'problems' to feminism playing itself out when they were probably already present in our over-populated, fast moving society. I would be more inclined to blame the irresponsibilities of the advertising world and the media than feminists.

We have only to look at the lesser rights that women hold in the rest of the world, in the Muslim world for instance, to see what has been gained for Western women today by the fights from Mary Wollstonecraft onwards. It is easy to turn our backs on those who have fought and died for us, both men and women, and to think their fights were unnecessary or that it would have happened anyway (which I believe is the theory of predestination/fatalism which most Christians have put behind them) but without those fights many more people would have suffered, women might not have had the vote or have been able to work, Afro-Americans might still be riding at the back of a bus and children might still have been working down mines. Who here, for instance, would exchange their lives for those of Iranian of Afghanistani women whose lives resemble those of Victorians because no-one has fought for their rights? Who feels they should live their lives disguised as a man because the profession or society of their choice is not open to them, as Charles Bronte, George Eliot, George Sand and others felt they had to do? I am very grateful for the blood that has been spilt on my behalf both by women and men and for their indefatigable energy. I am also very grateful to my Suffragette grandmother and my Trade Unionist father:smileyhappy: both of whom spent time in prison because they fought for rights which you and I enjoy today.

I would guess that most of us here are middle-class women with a good education who might feel that everything has been done but there are still downtrodden women in other classes and in other countries who still need fighting for. Women are still paid less than men in most jobs and suffer from discrimination - the 'glass ceiling' is still there. There are still 'honour killings' of women who do not conform to their culture's norms regarding marriage, in our own societies and in the world at large. Women still have to suffer the dangerous practice of circumcision to please their men, in our societies and in the world at large.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nhonour117.xml

http://www.soundvision.com/info/misc/honor.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1033732.stm

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.10.12_FGM-ban/

The fight is far from over, just as it is far from over for the poor and for ethnic minorities. It is not a matter of brooding over things we do not have which men have, it is a matter of justice and for many it is a matter of life or death. It is also a matter of economics and until women are fully integrated into the workforce our economies will not be as efficient as they could be - this is particularly the case in parts of the developing world upon whose wealth we are interdependent.




Peppermill wrote:
Laurel -- I can only guess at some of the data and facts that you might bring forward to buttress your conclusion that "I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved," but I certainly cannot agree with you, or, if that is true, it has still been worth the price. If nothing else, Paradise Lost convinces me of that! But, more seriously, do we really want to give up the right to vote or ... or ...? It is so easy to forget or minimize what has been gained and to see primarily the problems that have arisen, including the "I told you so" problems. And, yes, there could have been and may still be some better routes.

I will not deny that we have serious questions and challenges ahead -- from the type outlined in the Newsweek article to the willingness of BOTH women and men to tackle the most serious challenges of today and the century ahead, whether those be population, terrorism, environment, genocide, poverty, tolerance, liberty, justice, water supplies, or ...

Okay, you touched a passion for me and I reacted, as much from the gut or the heart as the head. Anyway, it is a sunk cost problem -- the past is not ours to change, only the present.



Laurel wrote:
Good thoughts, Kathy. I have never felt resentful or bitter about being a woman and being treated differently than men. I think women have some great advantages, and we should enjoy them to the hilt. I guess I've always been too busy to spend time brooding over what I am not. And yes, I think feminism as it has played out has caused possibly more problems than it has solved.



KathyS wrote:
I'm no authority, that's for sure, I only see what's transpired over the last bazillion years(is that vague enough?:smileywink: I think the feminist movement was a wonderful thing....at that time in history. It certainly called attention to rights, and everything that was needed to change what existed for women. Mostly for the better, but there is a time to stop, and evaluate what has taken place.

I've seen this in all areas of the workplace, and in the home life as a child growing up, and as a woman in the work field. Rights, as you've noticed, is my main concern for every human being on this earth. And I'm not making light of any of this....just the opposite.

But when things/situations start to turn themselves around, in excess, these situations, no matter what we're talking about, start reversing themselves, and the conditions that were deplorable then, have now become deplorable again. Out of blind reactions, the famale situation has now become the male situation. I don't know if I will live long enough to see this ever level out.

The female and male were the role models.....teaching their children as they grew up. What the son, or daughter, sees themselves as in the family role, or the business role, has been taught to them by these parents. The person/role model in the house, no matter the gender, should teach these children the equality each gender deserves.

Kathy S.








Message Edited by Choisya on 06-26-2007 11:54 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Boredom.

[ Edited ]
:smileysurprised::smileysurprised: Many things bore me on these boards but I am too polite to say what or who!




Laurel wrote:
Beatrice and Benedick, you are beginning to bore me.



Message Edited by Choisya on 06-26-2007 11:20 AM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Moccasins.



Choisya wrote:
Manor House wasn't at all like the 1900 house, which was much more realistic and less of a 'entertainment' type show, more of a documentary. Indeed it was quite harrowing to watch at times as when the mother was struggling to do family wash by dolly tub and mangle - a challenge whichever era you lived in. Yes it is different if you are born to a certain life - any one of us who has had a drastic change in their home circumstances knows that. Nevertheless, as many authors showed, it was a very difficult life for the women of those times.

From the perspective of people used to automatic washing machines, certainly. I imagine that to them, a documentary (if they had had TV then) of life in 1400 would have looked very harrowing; and to the 1400 viewers, life in Neanderthal days would have looked very harrowing.

I'm sure that 150 years from now, people will look back and wonder how we could possibly have lived with some of the things we now take for granted in our lives.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.