I just watched the movie UP - yes I'm way behind the times I know. I've been thinking so much about what it means to be a human being lately... It is getting exhausting. I read the first chapter of War and Peace (I would like to finish it someday...) and this also has been churning the gears in my brain.
First of all, UP is a story of a boy who meets a girl and they have dreams and aspirations - but life gets busy and they grow old and never meet those dreams and aspirations. It is a compelling story about how little time we have to really achieve what is important for us in life.
War and Peace (chapter one anyhow) appears to be making the case that war is possibly the greatest abomination known to humanity - and I have to agree. I cannot fathom what in a human being allows us to make butchers of each other. Perhaps it is not what is in us, but what we lack. The absolute horror of war is so real to me, the reality that we, as peoples, send warriors to destroy each other and determine who will survive. How does it ever come to this? How does it ever become the case that two groups of people decide that the best course of action is to annihilate each other?
I've been rolling this concept of power around in my mind a lot lately. There is a bumper sticker I saw that makes the claim, "No well-behaved woman has ever made history". Now I think that the point being made here is that women need to stand up for their equality, and that to do so will make them stand out as 'bad'. What is interesting to me though, is that the argument makes a couple suppositions that I don't really agree with. First of all, do we want to make history? There are a great many people who weren't well-behaved and made history (Pol Pot, Idi Amin), and anyone wanting that kind of reputation is already dubious from my perspective. So I disagree with the assumed claim that to make history is desirable.
Secondly, I disagree with the claim as a whole! Mother Theresa? Florence Nightingale? Clara Barton? Marie Curie? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that women shouldn't desire or even work towards equality. All I'm saying is that the bumper sticker takes a concept and tries to wrap it up in one sentence, which isn't worded too well. I think it might be more effective if it read, "Women for equality", or even, "Equal rights for women". I just get the impression that the "No well-behaved woman has ever made history" quote is inflammatory; women should seek to be disruptive if they want to be known. I disagree that this is the most effective way about it. Perhaps in seeking equality they may become disruptive, however the starting point is different.
This has been part of a larger theme in my mind that people feel the need to show 'power' through how much they can disrupt others' lives. I've been thinking lately, that this is not real power. Of course it looks like power when people exert their will over others. Is this really power though?
From a Christian perspective, I have to say no. As a Christian, and believing that God is the ultimate power, I would say that real, good, power is in the interest of giving and sustaining life. What was it that made Jesus powerful to those around Him? His ability to give and sustain life - healing the blind and sick, casting out demons from the afflicted, raising from the dead..... these are all to give and sustain life. Even feeding the 5,000. And what was Jesus's ultimate purpose in coming to us? To die, so that we might have life.
This ultimately leads me to thoughts on life and death in general, and my ability to play a role in this dynamic whenever it comes up. I am little able to give life (I take care of some plants... and they do ok) and am more able to take it (any of us are capable of dealing out death in some capacity, whether it is an insect, animal, or human being). It leads me to thoughts that wars are the most abhorrent events that can take place in human history.
A friend of mine (a Christian friend) asked me recently if I thought that we should have a National Guard, or a military force of some sort. I said of course I do, that yes we should indeed. And now, I go back on myself. Why did I say that? What are we really telling the world here? We are a Christian nation that looks no different from any other nation - we destroy and kill just as any other nation does. You know what is really funny? When Jesus walked in Israel, everyone expected him to take the throne, and kick Rome out of Israel. To lead an army, to make Israel rise up like any other nation and kill and destroy the people that disagreed with them. Instead, Jesus said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesars"! Can you believe it?!?! Imagine telling this to Americans today! Render to America what is America's. Render to the Lord what is the Lord's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You said a lot in this posting, but there is one part in particular with which I have contention. Have you guessed it? You probably have. It is indeed your critique of the bumper sticker saying, "No well-behaved woman has ever made history". I'm bringing this up not because women's issues are often what I read-think-talk-debate about, but because I agreed with the rest of your posting!
ReplyDeleteThe statement, “No well-behaved woman has ever made history” is probably seen infrequently because the two statements that are most popular read, “Well behaved women seldom make history” and “Well behaved women rarely make history.” “Well behaved women seldom make history” is most valid since it is also the title of a book written by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Of course the statement “No well-behaved woman has ever made history” is not a sound claim because it is a generalization. This claim is fallacious and there is no reason to argue for it. However, changing the wording to include seldom or rarely tolerates argument take place because it is not generalizing all women who have “made history.”
I have not read Thatcher Ulrich’s book; however according to a summary of the book, I’ve gathered that the author explores the lives of women through all time periods who have been historically documented based on their inability to follow the societal roles for women and the recoil experienced because of that.
My response is not intended to explain the quote according Thatcher Ulrich’s because I have not read her book. So the response I have come up with is based on my own interpretation of the quote.
You seem to believe that this quote is about women gaining power through making history, rather than what you understand to be the true meaning of the quote, which is to gain equality for women. You say, "There are a great many people who weren't well-behaved and made history (Pol Pot, Idi Amin), and anyone wanting that kind of reputation is already dubious from my perspective. So I disagree with the assumed claim that to make history is desirable." I do not believe the quote means that women need to make strategic decisions that lead to the slaughter of entire groups of people, such as the men you exampled.
You say, “I just get the impression that the ‘No well-behaved woman has ever made history’ quote is inflammatory; women should seek to be disruptive if they want to be known.” It seems like you look at the words “make history” to mean being famous for something in the past. This statement is definitely saying that, but look beyond that. The quote is not about getting famous, being known and becoming a star! It is saying women who follow the rules of a patriarchal society never change anything in the present which in turn never builds a foundation of equality for future women and men. Books do not pick up on people who follow the norm. People whose actions are normative only exist historically as the ethos of a culture during a particular time. Women who act against social norms get written about in books, which means women do have a voice--men are actually writing about them and putting them in history books! Future generations get to read, understand and continue the work of women who did not follow social norms or "behave". In a world that commands women to obey their husbands, preachers, teachers, fathers, brothers, politicians, and owners it is almost impossible to create change without breaking the rules set for women, without creating conflict.
The quote is about creating equality for people through change. Conflict theories recognize that any type of change requires a conflict. Lewis Coser, who is considered a conflict theorist, contends that conflict, “is a ‘transaction’ between people” (Robbins, Chatterjee & Canda, 2006, p. 78). It is something that happens to direct the norm towards change.
(My response is too long for the comment box! It continues in the next comment box.)
Here are some examples of women who contributed significantly to social change by “mis-behaving”:
ReplyDelete-Rosa Parks did not behave when she sat in the front of the bus. She made history.
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton is one of the Founding Mothers of the women's movement. She helped create the Declaration of Sentiments which is based on the Declaration of Independence, but for women in the United States. Cady Stanton did not allow for the word "obey" to be used in her wedding ceremony. That in some circles is considered non-Biblical or just wrong. She was not a well-behaved woman, especially considering she lived in the late 1800s and died before the 19th Amendment was even passed. (Side Note: After I decided to include Elizabeth Cady Stanton in my response I found out Thatcher Ulrich also lists her in Well behaved women seldom make history.)
-Mary Barret Dyer lived in the mid 1600s and came to the Americas as a Puritan. After her beliefs changed (she was involved in Quakerism) she was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony time after time (going back to England before returning again). They actually hung her in 1660 because of her beliefs and misbehaving of trying to come back to a place that ultimately stood for religious freedom.
-In the 1970s women in Iran chose to wear or not wear veils as statements against the policies in place--some women wore the veil because it was the law for their social status, others wore it to show solidarity with women forced to wear it. Breaking rules, going against tradition and making statements are all sentiments of the politics of veil wearing. These groups of women made history--their actions did change laws (sometimes negatively, but changed none the less).
You know that the quote is rooted in equality for women and all people; however, when has working toward equality ever meant that a person followed all the rules or all the laws in place in a nation? Even Jesus was not "well-behaved" according to the Pharisees--they condemned him for healing people on the Sabbath because it was considered work. Work on the Sabbath was not acceptable according to their culture and interpretation of the law. Jesus caused quite an uproar! Sure, Jesus was following the rules of something higher and he also said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” but he simultaneously engaged in conflict by not following the norms of society.
References
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/172251905.html
http://www.greatwomen.org/home.php
http://www.iranian.com/Women/2003/May/Veil/p.html
Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (2006). Contemporary human behavior theory: A critical perspective for social work. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
To read a little more about Thatcher Ulrich’s book: http://discover.binghamton.edu/iii/encore/record/C|Rb2714837|SWell+behaved+women+seldom+make+history|Orightresult|X5?lang=eng&suite=def