The rhetoric that shapes our lives

[CornField]

"If you believe in great things, you may be able to make other people believe in them." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

One of the best men I ever knew - a former editor of mine - had that quote displayed prominently in the newsroom. When he died a few years ago, his wife passed the framed quote onto me. She told me that Bill had believed I had understood and tried to live by that quote as much as he did in his works, both public and private. To be honest, I always felt that surrounding people (families, employees, and more) with the most loftly sentiments and beliefs would inspire them to their own lofty sentiments and beliefs.

Last night I was reading about women's history following the American Revolution. So many of the women from that time framed their personal lives around the beliefs of the war for independence. For instance, in 1800 one teenager considering her future was thankful she had the 'liberty' of refusing a man she did not like and the 'liberty' of choosing for a husband someone she did like. Women also began to question the 'principle' underlying husbands' legal authority over their families, as well as the 'principle' that men should work outside the home and women only inside it. By bringing the rhetoric of the public, national arena down to a personal level, such women were some of the first within the feminist movement.

Today, American women are doing much the same. The difference being the rhetoric is no longer idealistic and/or lofty. One of my daughter's friends, for example, informed me that I was a lucky woman because my husband provided me the 'security' I needed to start my own business. Friends and neighbors often speak to me in terms of 'values' now in lieu of 'principles.' It brings full circle the idea of America being a she: Whatever the men in Washington believe to be good for my country must also be the things which are good for me personally.

I wonder what the future of women will be as much as I wonder what the future of our nation will be. Is the quest for security one which will lead both down the path of lowered expectations in regard to freedom. How much are we willing to sacrifice in order to follow the misguided rhetoric coming out of Washington?

[rodeodance]

1. while gender may be a factor--I think of the women surrounding Bush-

his mother, Condi, Harrient Myers, and Karen Hughes--these females who tout the rhetoric of BushCo and CREATE the dominate discourse. Something else is at work her--not only gender.


.......It brings full circle the idea of America being a she: Whatever the men in Washington believe to be good for my country must also be the things which are good for me personally. ........

[Jim__]

2. A couple of thoughts, neither having to do with gender.

First, I like your quote. It is inspirational; and we should all both believe in great things and spread the word about our beliefs.

Second, as your question: Is the quest for security one which will lead both down the path of lowered expectations in regard to freedom. I think our quest for security will lead to far worse than lowered expectations in regard to freedom. This quest, being followed as it is with locked doors, big guns and aggressive policies will lead this nation to total disaster.

[CornField]

3. I tend to agree with you & I find it quite sad

I think we need to make a rhetoric overhall and perhaps lead people to think differently. For instance, it is fine to aspire to security. No doubt women and men throughout history have done so. The difference between now and then, however, is that formerly men and women searched for security within themselves through education, craft and art. It now seems many - especially women - are seeking security from others including the government.

[M155Y_A1CH]

4. The rhetoric has been deceiving

Women went to work...now you get two for one

After added childcare costs the two worker family now earns roughly the same as 1950's adjusted dollars with breadwinner/ homemaker. So basically, women work for free? Wages are not keeping up with inflation, men's work and women's work. I remember the 50's, Dad received family health care, was granted a generous retirement plan, 10% cost of living raises....all no-cost fringe benefits. He was a school teacher and could afford Mom to stay at home. How have things changed?

Capitalism benefits now by the flood of available workers and the whole family of workers puts in overtime to make ends meet.

I think many are buying the premise that we gained something by going to work outside of the home. Capitalists aren't recognizing the change in childcare needs though, with Mom trying to keep her job with them. They think they are hiring freewheeling little men. If we want to create a world where women are truely free to work outside the home then we can't be turning the kids away from childcare and schools when they are ill or unruly and we need outside-school-hours childcare available too, to replace the historic stay-at-home mom. Splitting the duties with Hubby isn't always the answer either because more often the man's job is more lucrative and needed for survival.

Too many compromises have been made to say that women are free to work outside the home. Women have been slyly kicked out of the home and now few can afford the fees to return.

There is no independence when you can't take care of your needs on your own. The men say now "she can get a job " and resent their childcare payments as two can live as cheaply as one. It is impossible for most women to raise their children without a second income yet more women are left to their independent devices because of the rhetoric and perception of independence. Do we wonder why so many Americans need welfare assistance? Is welfare enabling women's independence? More women working doesn't always translate into more independent women, as now we really depend on that job.

I'm just not sure we've seen advances for us as much advances for the capitalists as they lower wages. I think we, as a nation and as women have been hoodwinked into giving something up instead of gaining something. Freedom is not the equivalent of working outside the home. Security is not fear of one more bout of strep throat until they let you go, home empty handed. Women now earn the same as men all right...a pittance compared to the good old days.

Sometimes I think we just go to work so that our men can keep check of our daily activities. We had too much freedom at home and it was worth a cut in pay to keep us busy.

[CornField]

5. The women of the American Revolution, including Abagail Adams,

weren't really advocating for women to be "free" of house and home. The primary goal at that point was for women to have more control and freedom within the house and home. Adams wrote to her husband, "In the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necesary for you to make I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors." She went on to ask that her husband and his colleagues not "put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands." Although viewed as one of the first feminists, she wasn't really advocating the right to vote or active participation in politics -- she wanted husbands to hold less control over their wives.

Regardless, all types of women experienced change after the revolution and, for most, the reality fell far short of the desired.

Women were better educated following the American Revolution, for instance. This new trend, however, was not due to the fact that society now placed a higher value on women but because society had become more pratical. If women were to be the primary teachers and role models for the new republic's statemen, they would have to be better prepared than they were.

In fact, each significant rise in the status of women can fairly linked to a historical event which called for the men of this nation to "allow" the women to become more active. Look to Rosie during WWII... even the two-income families you've outlined above have been made possible and/or allowable through a need of the men of this society. What would happen to the American economy tomorrow if every working woman quit?

What I actually wanted to discuss and debate with this post, however, was more how the words being used to describe what our country needs at any given time, also come to rest on the heads of women. Security at what cost? Liberty at what price? Perhaps for the past 400 years American women have been reacting to what they've heard around them. Perhaps it is time for us to move beyond the rhetoric and create our own destiny.