"The true woman will not be exponent of another, or allow another to be such for her. She will be her own individual self... Stand or fall by her own individual wisdom and strength... She will proclaim the `glad tidings of good news' to all women, that woman equally with man was made for her own individual happiness, to develop... every talent given to her by God, in the great work of life."-Susan B. Anthony

Forum: Not For Ourselves Alone -- Where Are We Now?

Responses:

---

Subject: Women in Positions of Power and Authority The Final Frontier
From: Lara
Date: 11 Nov 1999 11:13 PM

I, too, have just come to my computer after watching Part I of "Not For Ourselves Alone." And I am also stunned--both by how far we've come and how far we have yet to go. I continue to shake my head and wonder HOW these women and their colleagues and contemporaries managed to accomplish so much in the 1800s. I get discouraged in the late 1990s! Though I work as an administrator of a denominational women's organization (with the benefit of an all female staff and board), I see the struggle for women in positions of power and authority all around me in the other denominational agencies. I sit on a council composed of CEOs from my denomination's boards and organizations. At the last meeting, I was the ONLY woman present in a group of 15 except for the recording secretary who, I might add, does not speak except to clarify items for the minutes. After learning more about Cady Stanton and Anthony, I'm not sure whether to feel inspired by all they could do (despite the turmoil and anguish it caused them) or to feel simply overwhelmed by work still to do and my own questionable energy to fight what feels like such a corporate battle when all the language is that of equality, but the actions betray those words. What a sad reality--for the organizations, the denomination, and women.

---

Subject: Women protest - men whine
From: Martian Bachelor
Date: 11 Nov 1999 10:27 PM

"I continue to shake my head and wonder HOW these women and their colleagues and contemporaries managed to accomplish so much in the 1800s."

It's easy, men are more generous than women and generally want to do what pleases them. The reason there's little in the way of a men's movement these days is because women won't allow it -- which is why it's made up almost exclusively of single and divorced men.

"Looking at all the men in business and government and concluding that they have all the power is like looking at all the women in the supermarket and concluding they have all the food."
- Jack Kammer

So long as women demand marrying up and receiving payments from men (like dinners and diamond rings), men will have to compete more for the material rewards women require. It's called earning your way to equality with women. Women know what's in their best interests when they vote for (paternalistic) male candidates. Since women control the vast majority of wealth in this country, there's nothing keeping women from running for office. But few do, because they don't have to. The power of money is not in its earning, but in its spending. A casual glance around the mall will show who has the power.

Many men are stuck, invisibly, in the "glass basement" of the "death professions" -- and no one is keeping women out of these fields, which just happen to pay more. Yet the number of women working in blue-collar occupations is at a post-WWII low. The difference is between looking at work as an obligation and looking at it as something akin to self-fulfillment. There won't be more women leaders until more women support men and their families, just as men have been doing for generations. That would be equality. What women want these days is just more privilege.

Women's suffrage should be suspended until women are required to register for the draft, as men are. But that will never happen so long as women are the majority of the electorate. They're too callous to think beyond their self-interest, IMO.

---

Subject: wowmens priviledge?
From: Stephanie
Date: 11 Nov 1999 11:17 PM

Did you ever stop to think that maybe women are against the draft for themselves and all people because they are agianst using violence as a "means" to resolve conflict, which has nothing to do with wanting a priviledge

---

Subject: womens priviledge?
From: Stephanie
Date: 11 Nov 1999 11:21 PM

Women do not control the vast majority of wealth..it is precisely that reason that they have to drop out of the election race..Elizabeth Dole dropped out because she ran out of money..people are much more likely to back a male candidate than a female one..this is a common fact

---

Subject: womens priviledge
From: Stephanie
Date: 11 Nov 1999 11:29 PM

Men choose to remain in unfullfilling jobs that pay more..perhaps if they entered fields that give them more internal than external rewards, they would be happier..also, why do women have to leave female dominated professions that pay less when they truly love the work and are good at it?..why are they not rewarded monetarily for using their female skills of negotiation and teamwork building in female dominated professions?..perhaps the patriarchal system needs to learn to reward women for using "female skills" rather than the sexist idea that if you can think more like a man and go into male dominated professions, you "deserve" to get lots of money?..wonder who made that rule up?! ...its still sexism because the male occupations are paid more , using "male" skills

---

Subject: Women protest - men whine - response
From: Michon Scott
Date: 11 Nov 1999 8:00 PM

Anyone who wonders how far women have to go need only to read Martian Bachelor's comments: "Men are more generous than women," "Women are too callous and self-interested," "women's right to vote should be suspended." Replace the words "men" and "women" with the words "white people" and "black people", and you've got a racist.Many women also feel that we should be expected to register for the draft so long as men are. (Considering there hasn't been an actual draft in over two decades, however, this is a fairly academic argument.) What Martian Bachelor has conveniently forgotten is that when a woman sought admission to the Citadel, the ones who fought her admittance the most vociferously were men. (Fortunately, we of the lesser sex can all do our duty in continuing to fund institutions like the Citadel.)In response to Martian Bachelor's complaints about not enough women in combat, I point to the words of a well known politician not so well known for liking women. In his famous "giraffe" speech, Newt Gingrich pointed out that women can't be in combat if it involves squatting in a ditch for very long; we'll all get infections.As for women only working for self-fulfillment, that certainly wasn't the case for my mother. She worked for 30 years to help pay the bills. My dad worked hard his whole life, but he didn't make enough money to pay for everything. And as a self-supporting woman, I work for the prosaic purposes of paying rent and buying groceries. What obviously infuriates men like Martian Bachelor about the women's movement is that it has given women the opportunity to support ourselves, providing an alternative to marrying men like, well, Martian Bachelor.

---

Subject: Original Resolutions
From: Steven K
Date: 11 Nov 1999 10:34 PM

It seems to me that all the resolutions of the original conference in Seneca have had progress of sorts. One arena that perhaps has had the least progress is in the religious arena. In most cases this goes beyond the US of course but so does the movement of equality between women and men.

Hard facts are hard to find in this but i think the Baha'i Faith has the largest percentage of women in national leadership and world wide responsabilities. In the Baha'i Faith the percentage of women in freely elected national leadership positions has improved from a world averaged low of 24% up to 32% (regional averages vary from 16% to 41%) even as the number of total positions has grown from 108 to over 1500 in the last four decades(most of this information is available in the magazine _The Baha'is_ which can be requested at 1-800-22UNITE for free.)

And this is all *because* of rather than inspite of scripture and interpritation. I just thought it worth a mention.

To go beyond the simple aspect of authority pro or con it is worthy to note that the administrative structure is based on non-partisan politics: no one runs for office, everyone votes privately and you vote for the person you feel most qualified from the entire body of adult population. If there is a tie the knod goes to the member of the minority if there is one.

But the heritage of pro-women's activism traces to the very root of the history of the Baha'i Faith. See this link for further information:

Tahirih

---

Subject: Gains of Women in Religious Authority Positions
From: Stephanie
Date: 11 Nov 1999 11:32 PM

In the area of religious leadership of organized religion, it seems the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists have had a long tradition of women leaders who serve as clergy. It is interesting to note that both of these Protestant faiths derived orginally from the puritans of New England. During Ms. Anthony's time, women held clergy authority positions in the Quaker church. In the Unitarian Universalist faith, women now hold about 50%-60% of the clergy positions. I am not sure about other faiths in the US who have a tradition of women as spiritual leaders..doubtless, there must be Native American tribes who utilized female spiritual leaders...Stephanie

---

Subject: RE: Gains of Women in Religious Authority Positions
From: Steven K
Date: 11 Nov 1999 9:27 AM

I agree that Quakers have had a long tradition of leadership among women - from the show i learned that 4 of the 5 foudners of the first convention were Quaker. I don't know the total number of Quakers but i'm fairly sure they are small in number and limited in distribution around the world.

The numbers i offered for the Baha'i Faith are true world averages - from the South Africa to Russia to New Zealand etc. And the electoral process by which this happens is also distinctive - rather than relying on a personal sense of mission looking for a venue, positions of authority are filled by non-partisian voting.

---

Subject: Original Resolutions
From: Stephanie
Date: 11 Nov 1999 9:35 PM

I read in the Boston Globe last year that Unitarian Universalism (with 50-60% women as clergy leaders) was one of the fastest growing religions in the US..huge numbers of Catholics, Jews and Protestants are attracted to UUs because of its long tradition and emphasis on equality between the sexes, racial harmoney as well as a spiritual obligation to help be an activist; to help those less fortunate than yourself...My own UU church is made up of about 30% former Catholics...I would have liked to think EC Stanton and SB Anthony would have made devout UUs!

---

Subject: Not for Ourselves Alone
From: Denice Robinson
Date: 11 Nov 1999 6:15 PM

I think this movie should be shown to every high school student in the Country. It is a powerful story that needs to be told. What is so sad is that so few people know the impact these 2 phenomenal women have had in all our lives. I first found out about these 2 great ladies in July when I attended the National Business & Professional Women's Convention in Rochester, N.Y. and went to Susan B. Anthony's house. What a learning experience that was!!!Since then I have read everything I can find, and last month gave a speech to the "TriState Women Ecumenical Luncheon" group on "Failure is Impossible - the story of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton".Bravo to PBS for doing this much needed history on Women's Right to Vote!!!

---

Subject: Traditional Gender Roles Die Hard
From: Jeff Fields
Date: 11 Nov 1999 8:01 PM

Over 5,000 years of traditionally defined gender roles will take a long time to overcome. Western Civilization has defined women's role to be subservient to menfor so long, that it is practically ingrained into our collective consciousness. Thepredominant Judeo-Christian religious traditions define women as property, whose role isto bear children, keep house, and be a help-mate to her husband. As recently as 1998,the Southern Baptist Convention codified the role of wives to "graciously submit to their husbands". Pope John Paul II continues to cling fast to the tradition that onlymen can be priestly leaders in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Industrial Revolution brought women into public work places for the first timein history circa Stanton's and Anthony's births. Today, in the Post-Industrial West, women have ascended to many lofty professional positions, but not withouthaving to struggle to overcome traditional patriarchal mindsets that their malecounterparts did not have to face. Will it take another 5,000 years to totally overcome thetraditional gender roles that many westerners still believe in? Or will it take a muchshorter period of time, 500 years, or 50 years?

Practically speaking, I think it will be somewhere in between these last two numbers.I probably won't see the universal liberation of the genders in my lifetime, but Iremain hopeful that significant strides will be made, at the same time fearful thatregressions will occur.

My supervisor is a woman. Most of my co-workers that report to her are men. Wethink nothing of it, but I know that our situation is not the norm, nor are our attitudespredominant in society. Attitudes are changing, slowly but surely...