Okay, okay! I will get off my soapbox as well for the man-hater, no need for men, campaign that many nazi-women libers are preaching. Sorry! I just get sensetive on that subject. However, I do fully appreciate the comments both by Kami and Andrea about the need for girlfriends! I, for one, have always been VERY LUCKY in this department. Everywhere I've been I've had the close friend (or small group of friends) that have really strengthened and lifted me up more than any man could ever do (though J. has done remarkably well for my sanity as well!!!). That yearning for friendship among other women has always been inate with me - - i.e. Kelly, Andrea, and others strewn along my path. And, I do see where that point is coming from in The Life of Bees.
I also appreciated Andrea's comment that women largely base their beliefs of themselves through the eyes of other people. Why do we do that?! I am, as A & KR both know, very much one of those women. It goes back to my favorite quote (again, I'm sorry):
A lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion [that] we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the convistion that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us. - - Rabbi Kushner
Recently, I've not felt this close friendship. I've felt distanced from those around me. Not that I'm not social, have no friends, or think nobody likes me; but I have had a couple of experiences in the past year that have really hurt in that one person's opinion of me (someone who really was a very close friend for some time) have truly affected how I think about who I am as a person, a friend, a daughter of God. Suddenly, the word "friendship" has a different meaning for me and I have come to doubt the need for it in my life. It's almost like I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need friends, my family is all I need. Now, in once sense, it is true. Families can be forever (yadda, yadda, yadda) but I truly believe that the relationships we make in this life are just as eternal as that family bond, and it is in the relationships that we are strengthened and have a chance to grow. Sorry, this is not turning into a pity party!! I'm just saying, that it is essential to have those strengthening, woman-to-woman, friendship bonds in our lives as women and we need to not allow ourselves to believe that one mistake merits the feelings of being unloved. AND those are two very valid points made in The Secret Life of Bees.
As for you Andrea - - don't worry - - I knew what I was getting into the minute I wrote my essay!! :-)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Secret Life of Bees--more comments
So, I couldn't really call this an essay, because it is so horrid, hence it's title of more comments. It is certainly not my best writing, I didn't keep track of quotes again either, but with so much discussion going on about this book, maybe no one will notice my poor writing (and run-on sentences).
The importance of sisterhood is the main impression I came away with after reading this book. (Well, that may have been influenced somewhat by Andrea's comments on it). I tend to agree with Andrea on her viewpoints about this book, maybe because we are sisters. Lily was seeking a mother figure, which she found in August, but in general the support all the women gave each was an impressive example of sisterhood. I think Relief Society as it's meant to be would be similar to their friendships and support.
Personally, my best friend had always been my younger sister Kayli (the punk, lazy one who considers this blog too much work, rudie!), and I never relied much on other friends growing up. When Kayli married shortly after we went to college though, my friendship with Kayli abruptly changed. It was only when I married that once again I felt closer to her again. Also, my marriage made me feel much, much closer to Andrea too. With the stresses and problems unique to marriage, I needed more of a supportive sisterhood than the friendship sisterhood I had shared with my sisters before. Who else would I dare discuss the most intimitate of topics and the pains of doing the dishes? Recently, I have developed another close friendship and have so enjoyed having a sister of sorts nearby while my sisters are so far away. The support and understanding another woman can provide is unique, and while my husband is my confidante and closest friend, it's really a relationship on a whole different level (as it should be). Having another woman to discuss "womenly" issues and even sometimes husband-relationships is a wonderful thing. It's makes me feel more normal, if that makes sense--less out of control and more at peace with my life and how's it going. Plus sympathy is just nice once in a while.
The point of this tirade, is that the Daughters of Mary, form that kind of sisterhood. Not only do the actual sisters--May, August, and June--support each other, but they help and support the other women around them, from Rosaleen registering to vote to Lily's mother recovering from her breakdown, to the simple trouble of a husband spending money on a boat (I'd whine to my sisters about that too). I think that is beautiful and part of the special relationship women can share together. Yes, I turn to my husband for help and to be lifted up and I have no secrets from him whatsoever, which couldn't be and shouldn't be said of my sisters, but I am so glad I have the extended net of sisters as well. Personally, I don't think the author was male-negative, simply sisterhood focused. One of my favorite parts was when T. Ray was trying to take Lily home, and the other women arrived. "The four of them lined up beside us, clutching their pocketbooks up against their bodies like they might have to use them to beat the living hell out of somebody. I wondered how we must look to him. A bunch of women--"
The importance of sisterhood is the main impression I came away with after reading this book. (Well, that may have been influenced somewhat by Andrea's comments on it). I tend to agree with Andrea on her viewpoints about this book, maybe because we are sisters. Lily was seeking a mother figure, which she found in August, but in general the support all the women gave each was an impressive example of sisterhood. I think Relief Society as it's meant to be would be similar to their friendships and support.
Personally, my best friend had always been my younger sister Kayli (the punk, lazy one who considers this blog too much work, rudie!), and I never relied much on other friends growing up. When Kayli married shortly after we went to college though, my friendship with Kayli abruptly changed. It was only when I married that once again I felt closer to her again. Also, my marriage made me feel much, much closer to Andrea too. With the stresses and problems unique to marriage, I needed more of a supportive sisterhood than the friendship sisterhood I had shared with my sisters before. Who else would I dare discuss the most intimitate of topics and the pains of doing the dishes? Recently, I have developed another close friendship and have so enjoyed having a sister of sorts nearby while my sisters are so far away. The support and understanding another woman can provide is unique, and while my husband is my confidante and closest friend, it's really a relationship on a whole different level (as it should be). Having another woman to discuss "womenly" issues and even sometimes husband-relationships is a wonderful thing. It's makes me feel more normal, if that makes sense--less out of control and more at peace with my life and how's it going. Plus sympathy is just nice once in a while.
The point of this tirade, is that the Daughters of Mary, form that kind of sisterhood. Not only do the actual sisters--May, August, and June--support each other, but they help and support the other women around them, from Rosaleen registering to vote to Lily's mother recovering from her breakdown, to the simple trouble of a husband spending money on a boat (I'd whine to my sisters about that too). I think that is beautiful and part of the special relationship women can share together. Yes, I turn to my husband for help and to be lifted up and I have no secrets from him whatsoever, which couldn't be and shouldn't be said of my sisters, but I am so glad I have the extended net of sisters as well. Personally, I don't think the author was male-negative, simply sisterhood focused. One of my favorite parts was when T. Ray was trying to take Lily home, and the other women arrived. "The four of them lined up beside us, clutching their pocketbooks up against their bodies like they might have to use them to beat the living hell out of somebody. I wondered how we must look to him. A bunch of women--"
Kelly's question
Kelly asked why she thought female empowerment stories are so popular today with writers and readers (okay, that wasn't a direct quote, but you know which question I am talking about). I've been thinking about that for the past day because my perspective as a very self-confident LDS woman is so DRASTICALLY different from mainstream life for American women.
I come to this question from a slightly different perspective as an ex-teacher. I totally see where Kami's answer is spot-on as ONE of the reasons. Another of the many reasons (I'm sure there are many because each area and each cultural region of the States is so distinct, as is ethnicity/religion/family life of women), is that women still mainly judge themselves by what other people think of them instead of gaining their own sense of self. At the high school teenage level it is painfully obvious. Buying the right clothes, dating the right boys, and on a darker level the rise in anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, teenage pregnancies (many of which tie into trying to please a boy to get reflected love, but also because many girls want someone to love them).
On an adult level, you still have the huge number of bad relationships, buying the right clothes, the skyrocketing numbers of elective cosmetic surgery. Enhancing ourselves to look right to other people. The women in this country are drowning in their own insecurities. Mormon women do it to, but I admit to having less patience with them because we know better. Women empowerment books (the few I've read, and since I usually avoid adult literature I'm speaking from a VERY limited experience here) usually focus on a woman's journey to accepting herself and valuing herself distinct from other people's view of her. If that means distinct from a man--I have no problem with that. Get yourself healthy girl, is pretty much my attitude.
I think we need that desperately now. I don't think the female empowerment books as a whole are helping for the reasons Julia stated--women don't have the knowledge we have of what will really make them happy and they don't know that they are daughters of God. Without that knowledge they will continue to drown in their own insecurities and continue to be unhappy with their choices.
However, Julia mentioned that she thought that more books should show women happy in the home. That's great and all for people who are in good marriages and understand why they would do it (because it is HARD!), but I agree with Kami--too many women, because of the insecurities mentioned earlier look to men for feelings of self-worth and that is generally very bad. These women need to be okay enough with themselves to end the cycles of bad relationships and learn to be okay on their own. Telling women to submit more to their husbands is NOT helpful.
Besides, I don't care how much you tell me the doctrine of our church is that the husband is the head of the home--when it all boils down if the wife and husband aren't equal partners than that marriage is not a good one. We have too many stories in our church of husband's exploiting their wives and mistreating their children all in the name of Priesthood leadership for me to think for ONE MINUTE that we should be teaching our daughters to be more submissive and obedient.
Sorry--my soapbox. I had a roommate who had to fly home to testify in a child abuse case. The accused--a stake president--had built a soundproof room in his house where he routinely beat his children. It was only after a hospital employee grew suspicious about the number of broken bones did anyone investigate anything. And what did the mother/wife say to justify not saying anything about the abuse? He is the priesthood leader of my home. Makes me sick, really.
Ju, you know I love being a wife and mother, and you know that I understand where you are coming from in the whole "head of the house" thing, but the history of abuse against women that has happened because men felt some inborn right to dominate and women submitted because they were taught to, makes me think that my understanding of the doctrine can't possibly be the same thing as what those women and men's understanding was. So again, telling women to be more subservient/obedient/whatever term you want to use makes me cringe.
I come to this question from a slightly different perspective as an ex-teacher. I totally see where Kami's answer is spot-on as ONE of the reasons. Another of the many reasons (I'm sure there are many because each area and each cultural region of the States is so distinct, as is ethnicity/religion/family life of women), is that women still mainly judge themselves by what other people think of them instead of gaining their own sense of self. At the high school teenage level it is painfully obvious. Buying the right clothes, dating the right boys, and on a darker level the rise in anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, teenage pregnancies (many of which tie into trying to please a boy to get reflected love, but also because many girls want someone to love them).
On an adult level, you still have the huge number of bad relationships, buying the right clothes, the skyrocketing numbers of elective cosmetic surgery. Enhancing ourselves to look right to other people. The women in this country are drowning in their own insecurities. Mormon women do it to, but I admit to having less patience with them because we know better. Women empowerment books (the few I've read, and since I usually avoid adult literature I'm speaking from a VERY limited experience here) usually focus on a woman's journey to accepting herself and valuing herself distinct from other people's view of her. If that means distinct from a man--I have no problem with that. Get yourself healthy girl, is pretty much my attitude.
I think we need that desperately now. I don't think the female empowerment books as a whole are helping for the reasons Julia stated--women don't have the knowledge we have of what will really make them happy and they don't know that they are daughters of God. Without that knowledge they will continue to drown in their own insecurities and continue to be unhappy with their choices.
However, Julia mentioned that she thought that more books should show women happy in the home. That's great and all for people who are in good marriages and understand why they would do it (because it is HARD!), but I agree with Kami--too many women, because of the insecurities mentioned earlier look to men for feelings of self-worth and that is generally very bad. These women need to be okay enough with themselves to end the cycles of bad relationships and learn to be okay on their own. Telling women to submit more to their husbands is NOT helpful.
Besides, I don't care how much you tell me the doctrine of our church is that the husband is the head of the home--when it all boils down if the wife and husband aren't equal partners than that marriage is not a good one. We have too many stories in our church of husband's exploiting their wives and mistreating their children all in the name of Priesthood leadership for me to think for ONE MINUTE that we should be teaching our daughters to be more submissive and obedient.
Sorry--my soapbox. I had a roommate who had to fly home to testify in a child abuse case. The accused--a stake president--had built a soundproof room in his house where he routinely beat his children. It was only after a hospital employee grew suspicious about the number of broken bones did anyone investigate anything. And what did the mother/wife say to justify not saying anything about the abuse? He is the priesthood leader of my home. Makes me sick, really.
Ju, you know I love being a wife and mother, and you know that I understand where you are coming from in the whole "head of the house" thing, but the history of abuse against women that has happened because men felt some inborn right to dominate and women submitted because they were taught to, makes me think that my understanding of the doctrine can't possibly be the same thing as what those women and men's understanding was. So again, telling women to be more subservient/obedient/whatever term you want to use makes me cringe.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Another Response
A few clarifications I had in response to Julia.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
I never said that women were necessarily making the right choices in the book or nowadays, just simply observing that many want female empowerment stories to feel validated. I think I generally disassociate my perspective and beliefs of what is right or wrong from what the characters in the book beliefs are, simply because as LDS members I think we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than most people--it wouldn't work to hold them to our ideals when they don't know them. Also, I think "running-away-from-the-terrible" is not necessarily a bad thing. Having seen women in abusive relationships, I think it takes more strength to leave than to stay.
Also, as far as the town's people accepting Lily staying with the women, I don't think any of them knew till Lily visited the lawyer with Zach the first time. And it was shortly after that when May died and the sheriff or whatever told her she should move on.
And on the religion part, I personally believe that any religion in whatever form it comes in that helps people be better, kinder, and have any sort of belief in divinity is better than nothing and is still helpful for their eternal progression. If belief in Black Mary helped these women than I'm all for letting them follow their customs. Of course a belief in Christ would be preferable, but I think Christ would rather let them follow that than be spiritually starved and lacking any faith whatsoever. Just my opinion though.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
I never said that women were necessarily making the right choices in the book or nowadays, just simply observing that many want female empowerment stories to feel validated. I think I generally disassociate my perspective and beliefs of what is right or wrong from what the characters in the book beliefs are, simply because as LDS members I think we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than most people--it wouldn't work to hold them to our ideals when they don't know them. Also, I think "running-away-from-the-terrible" is not necessarily a bad thing. Having seen women in abusive relationships, I think it takes more strength to leave than to stay.
Also, as far as the town's people accepting Lily staying with the women, I don't think any of them knew till Lily visited the lawyer with Zach the first time. And it was shortly after that when May died and the sheriff or whatever told her she should move on.
And on the religion part, I personally believe that any religion in whatever form it comes in that helps people be better, kinder, and have any sort of belief in divinity is better than nothing and is still helpful for their eternal progression. If belief in Black Mary helped these women than I'm all for letting them follow their customs. Of course a belief in Christ would be preferable, but I think Christ would rather let them follow that than be spiritually starved and lacking any faith whatsoever. Just my opinion though.
Finally, My Say
Here's my comments on a few things that have been said. I plan on writing an essay (I do!) but my husband is home and wants me to come to bed. Who can resist that!??!
Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices. I think any story that has a "universal" theme (acceptance, belonging, love, redemption, etc) will always have something to offer, whether written or just set in a period 40, 100, or 500 yrs. ago.
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
In the book August says she purposefully chose the Black Madonna for the very reason of giving the women around her someone to identify with. I think the author didn't purposefully take God out because he was a man, more than she wanted her character to be able to give the women around her something more accessible. I like how August is intelligent, intelligent enough to know what she is doing when she is choosing that symbol for her friends.
Also, having been around many Catholics since my marriage and having a mother-in-law, who despite being LDS now, is still very Catholic in many of her ideas--I'd have to say that it is extremely common for Mary (or sometimes other saints) to completely supplant Christ in Catholicism. In Hispanic culture, many not only just pray to Mary, but they'll have specific Marys, like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Virgin of the Poor, Virgin of Rosario, Virgin of Sucor, etc. They know it's all the same Virgin Mary, but the way they treat the different titles and names, it's practically like they are seperate Marys; i.e. they'll light seperate candles for different Virgins, etc. Practice of religion, especially in Catholism, rarely follows the guidelines of the church. I guess it didn't bother me as much either (the whole Black Mary thing) because I've been exposed to a lot of Latin culture (inventors of the genre mystical/magical realism) where things are accepted a lot more readily which are ascribed to "magic." For instance my mother-in-law is always having dreams and whatnot that she interrupts and states means this and that, which I think is completely ridiculous. Or she'll completely accept this or that as a "sign." It drives me nuts, but that's a lot to do with the culture (not just my mother-in-law), and I think a lot of blacks have that in their culture as well.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
Having lived in the South, I have to say I disagree--not with the softer view of God-but the classic Gospel of Black South. I cannot count how many times while working night shift at the hospital conversation turned to witchcraft, voodoo, and the like---AND how many of my coworkers who were African American had had experiences with that sort of thing. From what I understand the mixing of African beliefs with Christianity has always been a part of Afro-American culture, which falls right into place with the Black Mary beliefs described in this book.
Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices. I think any story that has a "universal" theme (acceptance, belonging, love, redemption, etc) will always have something to offer, whether written or just set in a period 40, 100, or 500 yrs. ago.
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
In the book August says she purposefully chose the Black Madonna for the very reason of giving the women around her someone to identify with. I think the author didn't purposefully take God out because he was a man, more than she wanted her character to be able to give the women around her something more accessible. I like how August is intelligent, intelligent enough to know what she is doing when she is choosing that symbol for her friends.
Also, having been around many Catholics since my marriage and having a mother-in-law, who despite being LDS now, is still very Catholic in many of her ideas--I'd have to say that it is extremely common for Mary (or sometimes other saints) to completely supplant Christ in Catholicism. In Hispanic culture, many not only just pray to Mary, but they'll have specific Marys, like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Virgin of the Poor, Virgin of Rosario, Virgin of Sucor, etc. They know it's all the same Virgin Mary, but the way they treat the different titles and names, it's practically like they are seperate Marys; i.e. they'll light seperate candles for different Virgins, etc. Practice of religion, especially in Catholism, rarely follows the guidelines of the church. I guess it didn't bother me as much either (the whole Black Mary thing) because I've been exposed to a lot of Latin culture (inventors of the genre mystical/magical realism) where things are accepted a lot more readily which are ascribed to "magic." For instance my mother-in-law is always having dreams and whatnot that she interrupts and states means this and that, which I think is completely ridiculous. Or she'll completely accept this or that as a "sign." It drives me nuts, but that's a lot to do with the culture (not just my mother-in-law), and I think a lot of blacks have that in their culture as well.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
Having lived in the South, I have to say I disagree--not with the softer view of God-but the classic Gospel of Black South. I cannot count how many times while working night shift at the hospital conversation turned to witchcraft, voodoo, and the like---AND how many of my coworkers who were African American had had experiences with that sort of thing. From what I understand the mixing of African beliefs with Christianity has always been a part of Afro-American culture, which falls right into place with the Black Mary beliefs described in this book.
Julia Comments on K, K & A's Comments! -Bees-
I don't know enough about Catholicism, Black American Religion, etc...So, I won't add to that discussion too much. However - there are some thoughts I'd like to add - -
Kelly said - One thing I've realized lately is that for a novel to work for me - I have to be able to believe that it would really happen. I can believe in books like "Les Mis", "Pride & Prejudice", "Tom Sawyer", etc., because although they aren't about real people, they are about lives that real people led and they are relatable to OUR lives. I had a hard time with "Life of Pi" (I believe I'm the only one who didn't like that book) and other books like that because it took unbelievable circumstances and tried to apply the lessons learned to a real world. I can't get over the "but this could never happen" part. In "The Secret Life of Bees" there were just too many unbelievable circumstances: worshipping Black Mary, Rosaleen spitting on shoes, Lily being instantly welcomed by August with no explanation, T. Ray letting Lily go on living there (hello, isn't this the 60s?) and other things just did not seem believable to me.
I say, I actually thought this book was quite "believable." It still was not my favorite book ,but I did think it held to some true thoughts and feelings of the time period. I think that a stubborn black woman like Rosalee just might have spit on a white man's shoes, and that there were those black/white relationships being squelched before they could begin (like Lily & Zack), and the beatings that must have taken place for the black population. As for living with the black women, I did wonder why the town was so accepting of it. A few people questioned, but for the most part Lily was ignored, and I found that to be a little odd.
Andrea said - I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted
I say - I agree that we take female empowerment for granted. However, I don't think that LDS women have always had the empowerment either. Think of Emma Smith who had to accept many things that were not easy to accept (the secrecy of the plates, the introduction of polygamy, etc...etc...) I think that we underestimate the statement in the Proclamation on the Family that husbands and wives are to work as equal partners and there was a reason for that statement being made in the 90's rather than in the 60's. Also, another note from Sister Beck's talk ( you all know the one I"m talking about). Empowerment of women still comes from being in the home, NOT from having so many options!
Andrea said - I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
This just proves mine and Kelly's point, does it not? That August was not willing to succomb to a man's authority in her life. A husband and father is still the man of the house. I don't know that she was a "man-hater" per say, but she definitley took too much liberty in freedom as an individual, I believe.
Kelly asked - Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I liked Kami's answer here:
Kami - I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
One last note, along with Kelly I also appreciated the symbolism in this book, the connection with the life of bees, and the relationship between Zack and Lily. It really was a very well-written book, and I'm very glad I read it! Plus, this discussion has been FABULOUS!
Julia
Oprah's Bookclub and other things....
You said: For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I actually don't remember saying that...I could be remembering wrong.
I agree with what you wrote about Lily's character. I think that is all spot-on. This experience with all those women was definitely a good thing for her.
I agree that LDS women have a different idea of female empowerment and feel more value in society.
As I originally said, without the Black Mary storyline I really did like the tale. I think we may just have to split ways there. :-) I was glad that Lily was able to grow as a woman. I liked her relationship with August. I was happy as all get-out when she got out from under T. Ray's house. Those things I liked and I think they are pertinent to a girl in any age.
Question:
Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I agree with what you wrote about Lily's character. I think that is all spot-on. This experience with all those women was definitely a good thing for her.
I agree that LDS women have a different idea of female empowerment and feel more value in society.
As I originally said, without the Black Mary storyline I really did like the tale. I think we may just have to split ways there. :-) I was glad that Lily was able to grow as a woman. I liked her relationship with August. I was happy as all get-out when she got out from under T. Ray's house. Those things I liked and I think they are pertinent to a girl in any age.
Question:
Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Non people-pleaser
Kelly, I am glad you posted that you are enjoying the discussion. Kami and I were a little worried since Rasmussen's don't pull punches and they LOVE to discuss things and disagree and state their opinions. We certainly never want to make you uncomfortable, but just know that we were raised to be very strong-minded and opinionated, and it is hard (and frustrating) to pussy-foot around.
Feel free to disagree as much as you like!!!
Feel free to disagree as much as you like!!!
Female Empowerment
Maybe the central disagreement we (meaning Kelly and Ju and I--Kami has been too busy to put in her two cents yet) are having is about the idea of female empowerment since that is how you are interpreting the Black Mary--as another way of taking men out of the equation. Quite personally, I believe that female empowerment was desperately needed in the 60's. Just listen to any cd of Loretta Lynn's.
Femi-nazi's have slaughtered the term "feminism" with the introduction of lesbianism into the mix, but that doesn't mean that pre-1980s feminism was bad or wrong, or that our current understanding of feminism is the same as female empowerment.
For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I can't see that. Just because a woman chooses to live without a man doesn't make her anti-man. It showed that she understood the limitations of a married woman in the 60s, and they were MANY.
How I see it, is if Lily had stayed living with T. Ray, she would have grown increasingly desperate and less sure of herself and the very first guy who came along and told her sweet things, she would have thanked her lucky stars and jumped head-first into whatever that boy offered--whether that was good for her or not. And it would probably have ended badly because needy women usually find predatory males who take advantage.
Instead, Sue Monk Kidd created a situation wherein Lily could become stronger--more sure of herself. She could, in fact, find some absolutely essential female empowerment. She could learn to love herself. She could learn that she could depend on herself for the confidence and love she needed. She learned that she didn't need a man--in this case, T. Ray, to love her for her to be a valuable person.
What are the chances that she will now eventually end up in a negative relationship with a man later on? A lot less. That is female empowerment. Now I recognize that in the eternal plan of happiness we need our mates to reach eternal exaltation and that is well and good, but it is not necessary to be married on earth for our lives to be worthwhile and for us to be worthwhile. Knowing that is female empowerment. If something happened to Timothy, I know that I am educated and can get a job and can take care of my family. That is female empowerment. Teaching our girls that they are daughters of God and their worth comes from inside them and not from anyone or anything else (which is what August taught Lily) is female empowerment.
I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted. There was no Heavenly Mother getting praise and recognition at any of the Southern Black churches, and those preachers would have been telling those women to obey their husbands without anything being said about treating your wives nice or being equal partners, and although I agree that Black churches did a better job of creating an environment where each person could have a personal relationship with the Savior--nobody was telling them to read their scriptures to gain their own understanding--it was a male preacher telling you that you should listen to him because he knew the path to salvation and you didn't.
I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
I'm not trying, in any way, shape, or form, to say that women don't need men. We do. But not in a needy, desperate, tell me what to do because I'm just a girl and need a big strong man for my own good, sort-of-a-way. Women need to be healthy though, before they can have healthy relationships, and to be healthy you have to really understand your own value.
As to her accepting Lily at first sight--it was stated repeatedly that she looked just like her mom, so August knew who she was from the beginning. It doesn't seem farfetched that a woman would take in the daughter of a woman she helped raise.
As for creating their own religion--people have been creating their own religions since Cain. I don't see much farfetched in that either.
Femi-nazi's have slaughtered the term "feminism" with the introduction of lesbianism into the mix, but that doesn't mean that pre-1980s feminism was bad or wrong, or that our current understanding of feminism is the same as female empowerment.
For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I can't see that. Just because a woman chooses to live without a man doesn't make her anti-man. It showed that she understood the limitations of a married woman in the 60s, and they were MANY.
How I see it, is if Lily had stayed living with T. Ray, she would have grown increasingly desperate and less sure of herself and the very first guy who came along and told her sweet things, she would have thanked her lucky stars and jumped head-first into whatever that boy offered--whether that was good for her or not. And it would probably have ended badly because needy women usually find predatory males who take advantage.
Instead, Sue Monk Kidd created a situation wherein Lily could become stronger--more sure of herself. She could, in fact, find some absolutely essential female empowerment. She could learn to love herself. She could learn that she could depend on herself for the confidence and love she needed. She learned that she didn't need a man--in this case, T. Ray, to love her for her to be a valuable person.
What are the chances that she will now eventually end up in a negative relationship with a man later on? A lot less. That is female empowerment. Now I recognize that in the eternal plan of happiness we need our mates to reach eternal exaltation and that is well and good, but it is not necessary to be married on earth for our lives to be worthwhile and for us to be worthwhile. Knowing that is female empowerment. If something happened to Timothy, I know that I am educated and can get a job and can take care of my family. That is female empowerment. Teaching our girls that they are daughters of God and their worth comes from inside them and not from anyone or anything else (which is what August taught Lily) is female empowerment.
I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted. There was no Heavenly Mother getting praise and recognition at any of the Southern Black churches, and those preachers would have been telling those women to obey their husbands without anything being said about treating your wives nice or being equal partners, and although I agree that Black churches did a better job of creating an environment where each person could have a personal relationship with the Savior--nobody was telling them to read their scriptures to gain their own understanding--it was a male preacher telling you that you should listen to him because he knew the path to salvation and you didn't.
I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
I'm not trying, in any way, shape, or form, to say that women don't need men. We do. But not in a needy, desperate, tell me what to do because I'm just a girl and need a big strong man for my own good, sort-of-a-way. Women need to be healthy though, before they can have healthy relationships, and to be healthy you have to really understand your own value.
As to her accepting Lily at first sight--it was stated repeatedly that she looked just like her mom, so August knew who she was from the beginning. It doesn't seem farfetched that a woman would take in the daughter of a woman she helped raise.
As for creating their own religion--people have been creating their own religions since Cain. I don't see much farfetched in that either.
And can I just say that as a past people-pleaser I find this discussion very exciting and exhilarating! I don't run into people I can safely disagree with too often (I have to be polite to people in town and my friends all tend to agree with me - or else I want to keep them as friends). So I'm very glad that we can do all this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
