Most of the Suffragists/Feminism readings

I really enjoyed reading about Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. What strong minded and strong willed women!

Lucy Stone: She related the struggles of women to get into college and to widen the array of jobs open to them. She also illuminated the different ways in which women were made invisible legally, once they were married. Stone gives the example of how a woman who earned any money didn't get to keep it; her husband got the money, and could use it however he wanted, including to get drunk and he was allowed to beat her, if he so chose. This reading brought to mind the scene in Mary Poppins, when Mrs. Banks appeared to be very pro-feminism, and would sing songs, but when Mr. Banks got home, all the banners and ribbons had to be hidden, because "you know how the cause infuriates Mr. Banks". Near the end of the article, when she talked about how women had heard and understood the suffering of the slaves, because they too were silenced in public and refused basic rights, I wondered what Douglas would have said to Lucy Stone.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: I found her speech to be really amusing! She starts out by telling men not to worry; women aren't going to abandon everything, like dresses. In fact, she says, you can keep your pants, dresses and flowing outfits are better- just look at the bishops, priests, judges, barristers, lord mayors, and the Pope and his cardinals- they all wear flowing outfits. Basically, she says not much will really change, we just want the basic rights we deserve. We want to be able to vote, we want to be able to pursue an education and career of our choice. We still want to be women and womanly... we like our clothes, we like our children, we like beauty and dignity... but we want our rights.

The Declaration of Sentiments, Conflict over US Woman Suffrage Movement, Amendments: I found these to be more helpful in understanding timelines, as opposed to actually getting a feel for the movement. I did like the strong parallels between the Declaration of Sentiments and the Declaration of Independence. I think it would have been very appropriate for the audience as well as something strongly believed in.

Civil Disobedience- Thoreau

Thoreau basically argues that he never signed up to be a part of the society he was born into. He doesn't agree with many of the things 'his' government does, and so practices civil disobedience, for example, by not paying his taxes. He says that he doesn't know where his money will end up, and since he doesn't want to be responsible, no matter how indirectly, for something such as war, he refuses to participate in any form. He lives simply and unattached from the society he is in the midst of. The most striking quote to me was when he said, "I am not the son of the engineer", by which he meant it is not his responsibility to fix society's problems. However, he freely admits that he gets use out of the society (pg. 60). If he is willing to use the society, is he not in some form participating in it? And then should he not take at least some minimal responsibility for it?

Coe and Page- Violence, Non-violence, and the uses of coercion

These two short articles tried to decide what violence is and is not, as well as when, if ever it is acceptable to use violence.

Coe says that violence is "the taking away of the means of life and action" and "preventing men from securing these means". He brings up the point then of an embargo. By refusing to do something, you can cause "violence". To him, the line between violence and non-violence is very unclear. In regards to the use of violence, he asks the question, if we do nothing aren't we harming the next generation by not protecting them? His answer is that if by resorting to coercion we give the next generation a better chance to grow into adults who can live and thrive, coercion is acceptable. But if it won't help, then some other method needs to be found and used. Coe does question whether force will ever accomplish any good. Finally, by action or inaction, good and bad can come from it, but good things must still be done- "in any case the children should be fed".

Page believes that unless we find a way to use nonviolence effectively and administer justice alongside negative peace, the victims will just take up violent means to get what they think they deserve. To him, the hazy line is between what is acceptable coercion and unacceptable- ethical and unethical. Finally, he gives three options for how we can deal with human suffering, all of which may lead to more suffering, but says that "suffering is inescapable".
1)resistance by violence
2)inaction
3)nonviolent coercion

Cultural Violence- Johan Galtung

Galtung described, in very simple language, different types of violence: direct, structural and cultural. According to this model, violence can be an event, a process or an invariant (a permanent way). He also spent some time describing how culture can give rise to violence. While I don't fully understand the logic behind some of this examples, he used six cultural tools to describe how violence can be integrated into society:
1)religion- chosen v. unchosen, men superior to women
2)ideology- nationalism, self v. others
3)language- possibly sexism, in that humankind is often referred to as mankind, leaving no room for women
4)art- social/cultural stereotypes continued by art (?)
5)empirical science- comparative advantage favors European and developed nations, and is designed to benefit them (?)
6)formal science- mathematics has right and wrong answers, and is too black/white, yes/no-- I really didn't understand how this one promotes violence

Jesus' Third Way

I really enjoyed reading the article, Jesus' Third Way by Walter Wink. I don't often completely agree with the readings for this class, or any other for that matter, but this description and explanation of a Biblical passage that I have misunderstood for years. Wink explains the true meaning behind Jesus' words in Matthew 3, verses 38- 42. I won't go into much depth, but the verses appear to advocate compliancy and submission on the part of the Jewish people to grossly unfair laws placed upon them by the Roman government.
The first example Jesus gives is that of turning the other cheek. It appears Jesus is telling His listeners to submit to physical beatings with no response. However, Wink explains that in order to strike a person the second time, with the right hand (as the left was considered dirty) and to the right cheek, it would have been backhanded. "We are dealing here with insult, not a fist fight." In offering the second cheek, the Jew, or other "inferior", was saying "you can't humiliate me". The "oppressor" has lost his power because he was unable to instill fear in his victim.
The second example involves poverty and clothes. Many of Jesus' followers were desperately poor, and Jewish law said that for the very poor, they would give their cloak (the outermost clothing that also served as a bedding) to pay the debt, but that the cloak must be returned each night so that the debtor might have somewhere to sleep. In telling His followers to not only give their cloak, but also their shirt, Jesus reversed the humiliation. Now, the one collecting the debt was humiliated, because according to Jewish law, nakedness was "taboo" but not to the naked party... to the one causing nakedness. So imagine going to court to settle a debt... you're required to give all your clothing and you leave stark naked. But in the Jewish culture, you wouldn't be humiliated... the one who has your clothes is shamed.
The final example involved the Roman military. Jesus said that the Jews should walk the extra mile, so to speak. According to Roman law, the soldiers could grab random civilians and make them carry their packs for one mile. This law was often abused, and many decrees about enforcing it had been issued. Jesus told His listeners to not only going the one mile, but to go the second mile, which would cause much confusion for the soldier. Instead of being proud and happy about the fact that he had a slave for one mile, the soldier now was wondering, "Am I going to get in trouble for this? What is this man doing? Give me back my pack!"
So while it at first appears that Jesus is saying, "Be a virtual slave for your oppressors", he was really advocating serious nonviolent resistance. He was providing a way for a much repressed group to regain their dignity, without and before a physical revolution.