Transcript for:
Intersections of Gender, Society, and Christianity

hi everyone it's Amy here from the blog I think therefore I teach welcome to your next philosophy installment this one is for the second year DCT topic of gender and Society one of my favorites so let's get going now this one isn't too long not as long as gender and theology but it sets the foundations to really appreciate how gender society and Christianity have all had an influence on each other so the first thing I assume to do is just to discuss different ideas of gender and what the implications towards different genders are we then go straight into the idea of socialization so socialization is how we learn the Norms of our society from this we develop our gender identification and expression so I get my students to write down five ways that gender is acquired in our society so distinguishing expectations of being a boy or a girl and so my students talk about things like gender reveal parties they talk about the clothes the books the colors that are associated at a young age the toys that you play with the sports that you play at school that you are that you do and do not have access to and then we talk about how the ways that this is changing so how girls can maybe take up football or rugby now how and I'm trying to think of other examples that we talk about how people are less focused on the pink and the blue so they might put babies in different colors how um areas are maybe doing more Children's wear rather than a girls in a boys section so we talk about the different ways that this is changing things like unisex toilets rather than male or female toilets we then start with this idea of patriarchy patriarching feminism which is a core idea throughout the whole of this topic the idea of patriarchy most Societies in the world are patriarchal this means men tend to dominate social structures such as governments or the law making and workplaces also they're seen in domestic relations such as the man being head of the household so the question that I get my students to consider and then discuss is why how has it happened that all of these societies societies that over the years have not had any relationship with each other have all ended up being male dominated and male run and so we look right back to the evolutionary idea of when there was um give people how the women were pregnant often are looking after the children and so therefore the men had to be the hunters and the forages in order to be able to survive but then there's other studies that now show that when women were pregnant or with children that they were just as much hunters and gatherers as the men were so we look at how this has happened we look at the personalities of men and female and how what might have concluded that societies on the whole are patriarchal there isn't of course no answer to this there is no right or wrong it's just denied it's just an interesting thing to discuss one area that you could link this to is education and the fact that women were not educated as often or as as much as men so it was the boys that were educated first and often because education was so expensive parents did not have the person that have the money to educate both boys and girls and one of the best early feminist texts was written by Mary walstoncraft in 1792. it was called the Vindication of the rights of woman in this she set out an argument for educating both women and men to the same standard and of course we cannot talk about education without bringing in Malala here she says I raise up my voice not so I can shout but so that with those without a voice can be heard we cannot succeed when half of us are held back Malala is an absolutely extraordinary individual if you've never come across her before please look into a look into the work that she's still currently doing but basically Malala grew up in an environment where women were not allowed to be educated and so she stood up against the Taliban she struck against the patriarchal system to say we will be educated and in one event she was on the way to school or the school environment she had created with some of her female friends with their books Etc the Taliban stopped the boss got on the bus and said where is Malala which is the name of her book um no sorry it's I am malara is the name of her book because basically she stood up and said I am Malala at that point they shot her in the head and she survived and so she was given Asylum and refuge and she survived but rather than cowering back she has stood up and fought the system she has fought the system that tried to repress her and fought the system that tried to kill her an amazing individual we then bring in feminism feminism which was originally called the women's Liberation movement so that's why feminism is often associated with women because originally it was it was the women's Liberation freeing of women and they worked on removing the restrictions of a patriarchal society so that women could enjoy the same freedoms as men and so obviously feminism has many faces now it has changed many times and so this idea that feminism was originally for women but maybe now promoting modular quality to both sexes is where we are evolving to we then have a quote from Aristotle Aristotle in the history of animals who do you think he's talking about men or women more mischievous less simple more impulsive more compassionate more easily moved to tears more jealous more querulous more apt to scroll than to strike more prone to despondency and less hopeful more void of shame or self-respect more false of speech more deceptive of more attentive memory also more wake for more shrinking more difficult to arouse to action now of course Aristotle here is talking about women and there's and students are often quite split when they were talking about men or women here because they see Aristotle was quite Forward Thinking when it comes to women he wasn't as much and he would the way that he saw women he would not see men in the same way so for example when I discussed this with my students we look at this idea of more void of shame or self-respect that's a judgment you put on somebody else and Aristotle in the time that he lived in in the ancient Greeks men had no shame they went to the baths they walked around naked they were very open sexually men had no restriction to Tulsa there was no shame put on men it was women that had the restrictions and therefore shame was put upon them this idea of more force of speech means lying more difficult to rush to action means lazy and more jealous more argumentative more uh prone to despondency and less hopeful this idea of depressive nature so this negative connotations that he's applying towards women yes talk about compassionate and easily move to tears but that again sounds slightly of a criticism more than a compliment so do you agree with all these statements how would you engage yourself with this quote and for an exam you would not need to write that whole quote down just picking a small part of it to you as part of your argument would be brilliant we need to continue then to look into the ancient ideas so we cannot forget about political we start looking at our ancient ideas the historical views of male and female gender roles Plato believed along with the rest of his generation that women were inferior inferior is a word that comes up an awful lot through the history of how women are spoken about it is only males who are created directly by the Gods in a given Soul so basically women are soulless we are without Souls this is in his book Timaeus in other words being born a woman was just unfortunate however in Plato's defense he did support the idea that women should be treated fairly and should not be treated as possessions of men well that's very nice of you to point that out later I'm pleased we established that I should not be treated as a possession and should be treated fairly even though inferior now the reason why I think it's important that students cover Plato and Aristotle's come in again next is so that you can recognize that it is not just Christianity that has pushed out these views about women that actually whether without Christianity the patriarchal system the male run Society both Aristotle and Plato both educated men whereas the women will not have been educated as much have really had a huge impact on the way that Society historically has seen men and women their their influence was huge and so for people like Plato to talk about women as inferior has had a massive negative effect this is so it's not just Christianity to blame and so when you use Plato for example in an essay please be clear he is not linked to Christianity in any way he is not supporting Christianity he is not criticizing Christianity but it's a way for you to show that Christianity is not solely to blame for the way that we view women Aristotle Aristotle's opinions were highly influential on Western Farm maybe because of his support of science he was known as the father of formal logic extremely influential and he argued that women were naturally inferior again to men and this was from his observations of society therefore men have a right to rule women and women should submit so this idea now of not only are we inferior naturalists which I mean we can't help we are naturally inferior we should therefore follow the rule of men and submit to men question is why According to Aristotle because women cannot produce semen they are therefore defective he didn't know about females having eggs or having menstrual cycles for example so because of that he concluded that the male is active in reproduction and females simply passive a female is simply the incubator or the cooker for a baby and the man does everything else so without men the human population would desist that we do not need women for anything they are simply passive in the in the creation the making of it and then it's men that we need and so we can look at this now and laugh because we can say that his understanding of science was so limited based on what he knew about women and biology but the problem is that that view significantly influenced future people that's the issue we have is that he was wrong we know he is wrong but actually the the the veins of what he is say it has infiltrated the societal view so we now have this view of women we don't quite know where it's come from in order to stop it and actually one of the places it might have come from is the influence of Aristotle one of the people we know that is significantly influenced by Aristotle is of course aquiness this is one of the links between Christianity and Aristotle quiet has continued that women are inferior to men in physical strength and intelligence aquaters also use the word defective When comparing women to men however he did say that whilst inferior women have a special high place in heaven with the Virgin Mary oh isn't that lovely we can live our lives as defective and inferior but at least we get to go to heaven to be with the Virgin Mary now again we can look at this and think critically of how you know wrong it is to see women as defective because of false understandings however Aquinas is significantly influential when it comes to the Catholic Church his natural law theories don't use contraception the ideas of um what is and isn't natural like homosexuality the things that have influenced the Catholic Church have come from Aquinas Aquinas as we know is heavily influenced by Aristotle and the idea of the four causes of cosmology and so you can start to see the seeds of where these ideas have come from and these seeds that we still are living with today and so in defense of Aquinas if a defense is possible this idea of women being inferior in physical strength and intelligence well we kind of were physical strength men are stronger than women a woman can build up her strength but men are naturally without with very little effort stronger so women can still have the same strength as a man but she would have to work on it quite hard and as far as intelligence women were less intelligent because we were educated so of course men who could read and write on the whole were more educated but that again was because of the patriarchal system that did not educate women this point then it's important to bring Christianity into the mix Christianity has traditionally taught that men and women were created by God to have different complementary qualities the Bible teaches us that within a marriage a man should be in charge and his wife should submit and so without further Ado it's worth looking at the wedding vows as prince in the book of common prayer once again you do not need to remember all of this or write all of this in your exam that just being able to pick out the key differences would be enough sorry my cat you would just need to pick out the key differences so groom I Harold take the Winifred to be my wedded wife to having to hold from this day forward for better for words for richer for poorer and sickness and in help to love and to cherish till Deckers do part according to God's holy ordinance and there too I apply to thee my trolls bride I win a frictic the Harold to be my wedded husband to having to hold from this day forward the better for worse richer for poorer and sickness than hell to love cherish and a bit sorry till death was due part according to God's holy ordinance and there too I give thee my truth now once again you do not need to remember that whole quote learning remembering that it's in the book of common prayer is important and then picking out the key differences this would be a whole theme in your essay you could really go to town with this and what it implies and so for example women have to not only love cherish they also have to well-bear and so getting the definition of obey just put type in obey definition into Google and getting the definition that really helps you put into context but if you do if you do sorry my cat's been fussy and if you do you'll see the word submit there so it's the idea of odd birds a bit God together but what's far more interesting is the difference in the use of the word I plight thee my trough and I give thee my truth that's where the interesting pack comes in and now I've been teaching this for many many years and it was only recently that with my classes that I actually Google definitions plight and so if you put plight again into Google definitions the meaning of it is something like dangerous territory or something that you really don't want to be part of it is so negative is the word plight by definition so basically it's saying that the man is if he must even though he doesn't want to and it's dangerous territory he gives you my truth promise whereas a woman has to just give she gives her promise freely the man has to under sufferance so there's quite a good bit of discussion that you could have there feminists argue that women should have the same rights and freedoms as men they object the idea that men have a natural authority over women and In fairness they are correct that there shouldn't be a natural authority over women but in the same right women should have the same rights and freedoms as men men should also have the same rights and freedoms as women so one of the things that I discussed with my class is the idea of single dads or weekend dads or dads that are looking after their babies and you will often find that baby changing rooms are in the female toilets where does a man change his baby or if a dad's taking his daughter out for the day and uh you know a young child and when it comes to toilets to bathrooms you can't really take us a little girl into a male bathroom when there's troughs there so but he can't really go into the female loose so you've got that massive inequality there where people are expecting the female to be with the daughter at all points and everyone's expecting the mother to always be with the babies in order to change and that's why they're in there in the in the toilet so it's an interesting one that if we want the same rights and females for women which we should the same should also be for men which I know is a lot of what feminists are arguing that it's a quality across men women are equal and worth men and women have equal words but have different skills and aptitudes certain occupations are better suitable to men it is not a specific gender is better and so this is best seen in this idea that women cannot become priests or other positions of authority within the church now as I said to my students and this should be a little bit clearer actually so it's my fault in that not all denominations of Christianity are against ordaining women the Church of England have ordained women I think Methodist of ordained women it's merely Catholicism that do not ordain women so when I use the word church I'm using it too Loosely really I should say within the Catholic Church more because other denominations of Christianity have come fold and changed that they should not take on any role where they are representing Christ's a Holy Communion for example the body and blood of Christ you need a man to be able to give the body and blood of a man Jesus a woman cannot do this according to the key views for example the Catholic church does not ordain women to praise unless Jesus only had male disciples the question now is Diddy did Jesus only have male disciples now this is more of a conspiracy theory than anything of any accuracy or Academia but what you've got to question is did Jesus really have only male disciples or are we only aware of the male disciples as in men wrote the Bible men edited the Bible therefore did men edit women out of the Bible was it actually that Mary Madeleine there was a view for many years that she was a prostitute there was no evidence for Mary Madeleine in a prostitute whatsoever it was probably more than likely that Jesus had an extremely close relationship to Mary Magdalene and more than likely she would have been a disciple of Christ when you look at it the way that Jesus treated women whether you've got the stunning of the adulterous woman the bleeding woman that touched his Club Jesus was extremely patient kind and open towards women yet the view That Was Then depicted in the Bible wasn't quite fitting always with this impression that we got from Jesus why would Jesus only have had male disciples at the end of the day the first person Jesus visited when he came back from the dead when he resurrected was Mary Magdalene a woman she like was the gardener at first but he came back to a woman it was a woman that mopped his brow when he carried the cross he was extreme extremely close to his mother in the famous picture of the Last Supper we can depict that one of them potentially Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene was an awful lot of places with Christ so it either implies she was in a relationship with with Jesus or and or she was also a disciple but it might be their father that her texts have been taken out of the Bible rather than the fact that she never was recorded as one also God chose Jesus to be a man not a woman and again I shouldn't discuss why now it's very important to remember that God Jesus may have not been the first one God sent God might have sent a woman to us chances are a woman back in them days would have lasted all of about four days before being stunned to death as a heretic or uh going against the you know the views of society a woman would never have been able to come and said I am you know the Incarnation of God God is working through me a woman could never have done that we needed Christ and don't forget it was you know Jesus did not have an easy time at all Jesus was not well accepted by Society think back to your person of Jesus topic it's not that Jesus was accepted more it was just that it was slightly easier because people listened to men more than they did women once again because of the patriarchy because Christianity at this point didn't even exist however the church of England does ordain females argue that God calls people not gender specific Christianity is therefore sometimes blamed for perpetuating Injustice by giving support to the idea that women need not be treated as well as men the idea of perpetuating Injustice is a fabulous phrase to use it's the idea that Christianity is basically constantly adding fuel to the fire constantly keeping this Injustice going maybe partly but not on the Hall of Christianity so the question then is do you think Christianity should change in order to keep up to date or should it work on maintaining Traditional Values and for me I don't think Christianity can win as in if Christianity stared traditional everybody had criticized Christian too traditional as in they still reject homosexuality women in the church and you know they they want um you know very much promoting the the different roles of men and women Etc they if they really push these Traditional Values they'd be criticized but then when they changed keep up to date people said that it lacks integrity and historical value so can Christian Christianity actually win because Christianity is constantly changing you've got the propellant cyclical so the porps updates um each you know each time he does them you have the idea of the Vatican 2 where they completely reworked most of the you know key text so we still have the Bible but there are updates updates like the ordaining of women updates like the recognition of homosexuality that you can be ordained as a priest even if you're homosexual things like that so there is movement but do we still criticize Christianity for that then can they actually win traditional Christian views so God created Mankind in his own image in the image of God he created the male and female he created them is there any hint of male superiority there now when I first wrought this power plant many years ago and I read that I thought no there's you know there's not really much male superiority it really implies quite a an equal idea I showed it to my first class and they're absolutely tore it apart and In fairness they picked up things I hadn't recognized or realized so yes a male pronoun is you describe God his own image God he created them he created them so this idea that God has given a male pronoun and so this is the idea that if God is male then male is God and that's where Mary Daley goes in the next topic so is it just because so is the defense that a pronoun had to be used and that though they did not have enough pronouns back then to be able to talk about God in Me the term so is it just simply that certain pronouns are given to certain ideas so for example a ship is often seen as a female term a female pronoun mother nature mother earth is a female so is it the idea that we just always Associated god with the male pronoun with no deeper connotations or is it because God is associated with male we then have the fact that male and female that they pop male first rather than female first but then that would create an unequal balance and I think it's quite nice that both male and female are recognized there mankind is more of a translation in that it does mean human can is a translation It's Made It mankind so that really isn't any any issue with that one to work with but for me this idea that God still created them in his own image in his own likeness he created them this implies as sense of maybe a little bit of a level of equality so not fully from the court in Genesis and this is again a really important quote so I do recommend you write it down and you learn it where does this male superiority come from the problems come in further when you look at the Second Genesis story Adam and Eve and the fall of Man so male is created first so Adam is created first Adam is given stewardship over all the animals and God says you can name you can look after them and you are the ruler and Steward over them and then Adam turns around to God and says God I'm lonely I want somebody that's like me the animals are lovely but there's no one like me so Adam goes to sleep God takes rip of Adam and makes woman and so a woman is made from the rib of man so Evie's made from the rib of Adam and so this is the idea that she was then created as a companion and a helper she was an afterthought she wasn't originally made it was an afterthought and obviously you have all the different layers and connotations of Lilith as well look into the head of Lilith Lilith was the first woman created and that all went wrong so it's very interesting looking into the Lilith starring and but it's the idea that woman was created as his companion and his help he was still in charge a woman only exists because man asked for her the problems of course continue who can forget that woman was first to succumb to Temptation this passage sometimes used to support the blade that women are weaker will than men results in a view that men should take the lead in decision-making and should not always be swayed by a woman the question is couldn't have had and have said no so people really focus on the tree it's not about the tree at all the point was it was the first Covenant established by God and man and so humans had to have free will we are in the image of God but with free will Adam and Eve could do anything they wanted to in Paradise that means there's no free will if you can do anything you want you don't have free will Free Will means you have to have a free choice between different Avenues I truly freeze I've not I freely choose to do that Avenue rather than that Avenue whereas when you can do anything there's no choice so God said in order to make your free will meaningful I'm going to give you you know here's the rule the rule is do not touch the tree Don't Go Near the tree don't eat from the tree the large gonna evil Don't Go Near the tree and saw Adam and Eve said no God we won they made a promise to God that was the first Covenant so it's not the fact that they took the Apple it's the fact they broke the promise and so the snake comes along temps Eve take the Apple take the appetite the Apple she takes the apple and gives it to Adam who then eats it and passes it back to Eve now all of this would have been made so much better if Adam at around all no woman put the Apple down but he didn't he took it and ate it so woman was weaker willed for taking the Apple so why was money better then is it man just as weak willed for then taking it and eating it if man is so much better as far as decision making you'd have thought he'd have said no I'm not eating it put it down but he didn't what I said to my students is is that I think however this story would have been written women would have come off worse if Adam had taken the apple and given it to Eve and even have eaten it she'd have been the weaker wild one for eating it Eve just happened to take the apple and give it to Adam she was weak because she took it I think that however that would been written women would have ended up worse because again when you drive your own agendas as a lot of the male writers of the Bible and then future like Saint Augustine's for example when you are driving your own agenda it you can easily make the story work to what you want so do you think Genesis Stars portrayed women as naturally weaker than men Ephesians now this is one of my favorite areas Ephesians 5 22. wives submit to your own husbands just to be clear it's no one else's husband own husbands as you do the Lord for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the church now I get my students to discuss those two questions do you think this has positive or negative connotations what does this tell us about the Christian teachings and the roles of men and women in family and Society so first glance at this quote it's fairly shocking women have to submit men just have to love their wives this idea that a woman has been compared to a church building that the husbands you know submit to your husbands as you do the Lord that means husband and Lord are associated in the same way so this means again that husbands and men are seem on par with Jesus the idea that the husband is head of the wife so the husband is still in charge of the wife just as Christ ranlan was head of the church and all men have to do is just love your wife so on the outset with that quad it seems extremely condemning of women however I highly advise you to read the whole Passage that is taken significantly out of context that is significantly shorter than the whole part I think it's 52 and 53 and uh 22 and 23. the actual Hall passage shows it's in a very different light you also have to put this in historical context so this quote has been taken out of the historic the historical context the history this quote has been taken out of the rest of the context of the text to be used in order to say women submit and men just love your wives that is not the case or the aim of this text so back in biblical times back in the times when um they were writing about men could have many lovers they could and dispose of women freely they could have Mistresses concubines they're really women were there for a man's pleasure and that's it only and so once a woman had lost her virginity once a woman was no longer pure then she was no good to any other man so what men would do is they would promise the woman the Earth sleep with them then dispose of them when the next attractive female walked by and so that woman then that's left that's no longer a virgin he's uneducated so I can't gain any food any money so as an educated is no longer a virgin therefore nobody will marry her she is completely desolate she she can't do anything and so then she'd become a beggar on the streets or or something worse and so it's the idea that what Christianity brought in was this idea of no if you want to be with that woman you are with that woman and only that woman and you are going to look after her and you are going to love her just as Christ loves the church so actually this is quite condemning on men women yes have to submit to their husband but women have always had to submit to a man there to submit to their dad because the men again are the ones that were educated so women always needed men what this is actually saying is that the husband needs to actually love the wife as much and the text goes on to say that the husband has to love the wife like he loves himself so how much he loves his own body he needs to love the wife in the same way and so this is actually condemning of men having to remind them that you have to love your wife you have to look after this woman you've signed up for you have to look after this pure you know unblemished individual that you know is maybe no longer a virgin because you've you've taken that Purity away you are now stuck with them and so just as Christ loved the church the church is the body of Christ on on the planet you know the church is so important and so just as Christ loved the church you have to also love your wife and so this is reading the rest of the text and I'm sending it historically about how men abused and discredited women actually puts it in a whole different understanding patriarchal biblical patriarchy is where the Bible decides the justification for men having complete Authority in the home so if you take out that quote from the rest of the text as I've said that's example of biblical patriarchy when Mary Dylan the next topic says God is male therefore male is God that again is biblical patriarchy you are picking out parts of the Bible to justify men having complete Authority Christian egalitarianism on the other hand is where husband and wife within marriage should be mutually respectful and supportive without dominating the others so that prop egalitarian equality and so yeah I get the students to read the full text that I give them oh it's up to 33. and so and again how this changed their initial judgment on that quote you don't for your exam have to know all of it but I think that really understanding the true context of it is extremely important Pope John Paul II then we bring John Paul back in he wrote an upper letter in 1988 called the malarious dignity and it's very very important that again you're referencing that you know about this this is on the dignity and rights of women this was in a response to accusations the church was sexist oh who on Earth would argue the church is sexist the pope wrote about the different skills and qualities of women and focus on examples of Christian devotion set by female European Saints he emphasized that men and women have different but complementary characteristics God came to the Earth as Jesus but this was only possible because of a woman the Virgin Mary aha we would not have had Jesus if it wasn't for a woman brilliant our whole inferiority complex now has been removed because Jesus is only here because of us yeah I'm not sure that that's really going to appease the amount of sexism that's been promoted it gets worse Pope John Paul II then says that the Fulfillment of female personality we are fulfilled as females in two ways being virgins and then mothers that is how we fulfill our female destiny motherhood this enables a woman to be self-giving as she has a special openness to a new person I really hope the special openness isn't what I'm thinking about anyway women are naturally disposed to Motherhood now that's an area that you could really argue question potentially disagree with but it's this idea that he's saying that women are natural mothers that therefore if you don't want children are you not fulfilling your film personality that you are therefore unnatural if you aren't a mother and so both physically and psychologically we are dispersed to Motherhood this is a gift from God whilst Parenthood is shared a husband or is a special special debt to the woman or is it that God finally the husbands recognize you owe me a special debt I am physically and psychologically dispersed to Motherhood you should have that on your fridge however he does repeat the word passive to describe pregnancy as something that happens rather than actively done needless to remind you that Pope John Paul II Not only was not a woman so therefore has never actually given birth or been pregnant from 12 to talk about he probably never have sex either certainly not when he started moving up the ranks because he would have practiced celibacy so it reminds me of that quote about speaking about things you are aware of and otherwise staying quiet and but he talked about how pregnancy was something that happens rather than actively done and that the pain of childbirth is due to Original Sin but also gives insight into the pain of Christ wow there is so much there and so many potential problems there so first of all the pain of childbirth is due to Original Sin thanks pentecostine once more for that yes it is in the Bible that one of the punishments of Eve was painful birth so that does stand there but this idea again of original sin you know the fact that we should have Painful child but because of Eve get over it no it's because of evolution and but then this idea that it also gives insight into the pain of Christ so let me get this straight women cannot be priests because Jesus only had male disciples and a woman cannot give over some bread and consecrated wine because she is not a man yet a woman actually experiences potentially multiple times in her life the pain that Christ went through on the cross does that not seriously Trump men at the end of the day a man just gets to be a priest because he has the right genitalia of Jesus whereas a woman he's arguing actually has deep insight into the pain that Christ suffered yet because again she is not a man she cannot be ordained into priesthood the contradiction there seems just immense but again it gives you a nice discussion for an essay do check out the molaris dignitatum in order to get your quartz nearly there motherhood then liberating or restricting feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir wrote in the 1940s about the ways that motherhood forces women to suspend their own interests and personality in order to take care of children this view was certainly unconventional but struck a card with many women who still did not have birth control readily available it wasn't until the 1960s women married women could receive the contraceptive pill in 1974 for single women now in 1974 will seem like a million years ago for you you you a lot because you're old 2 000 babies but for me that's really close to when I was born you know that's only about 10 years I don't give Arctic that's really frightening that only 10 years from when I was born the single women had only just been able to have the contraception a contraceptive pill and so the reason for that again is because of the male patriarchy deciding when women should be able to control their sexual activity and so Associated if you were married well why on Earth would you want contraception because the purpose of sex is to reproduce so therefore if you've stopped reproducing you stop having sex why would you need contraception so it took till the 1960s to realize actually we still want to have sex and intimacy we just don't want any more children so therefore birth control was brought in but it wasn't until the 1974 where oh God forbid a single woman might have sex outside of marriage and therefore wants to protect herself it was until 974 that was actually not necessarily even recognized or allowed but it was just like oh fair enough here's the contraception uh you know we'll we'll just turn a blind eye to it if we must um but you might think that things like this now are a bit silly and that you know it seems to seems Daft that contraception was not readily available but look what's happening in Texas with abortion when you look at what's happening in Texas and the fact that abortion has now been made illegal in certain areas that ruling has been brought in by Congress men this is the idea of men who are middle class mostly in their 50s and 60s making decisions about what a woman should and should not do to her body so whilst this seems really archaic in the fact that we didn't make birth control really available we are going backwards in certain areas and again you can talk about that but Simone above why I studied a part of her when I did gender at University is superb she's marvelous very very interesting woman so do check her out we then bring in an ugly sociologist who wrote about the negative side effect of motherhood interviewing women who said during giving birth they felt powerless is when men doctors take over the maternal Instinct due to socialization not biology and how frustrating it is to be a stay-at-home mother now I've never looked into this study in more detail I don't know which women she asked what their backgrounds their situation their age their economic and anything about this study and it always was very interesting to look into actual studies and the research methods used in order to be able to see whether the the context of their findings are to be taken you know seriously but part of what she's saying there is I did it during giving birth they felt powerless well I don't know if men have anything to do with that because I imagine giving birth you would be pretty powerless anyway whether there is a man there or not and that men doctors take over that's what a doctor's job is I imagine more swimming giving birth want that oh no I can't intervene I'm a man I'm a male doctor I can't jump in but the baby's gonna die the woman's gonna die oh no you know at the end of the day the man does the you know the male doctors do intervene and obviously there might be female doctors as well we're over generalizing but it's the fact that a doctor is a doctor his job is to help both the the mother and the child um you know and help them most midwives are female as well so this idea that men take over I think that's the point of their job um maternalists is due to socialization not biology that's a very very interesting one this idea that little girls are given dollies and Barbies and cooking sets and this idea of having you know little babies that they look after and little bottles and cleaning and things like that cleaning the baby and stuff so you know that definitely could you could limit into how we it's part of our socialization not just biological and then this idea of how frustrating it is to be a stator term mother I think my only thought there is that in today's society a woman that can financially afford to stay at home and be a stay-at-home mother yes whilst it would be frustrating I think he's very fortunate and because there's a lot of women on the other side that would like to stay at home with their babies and that they can't because of financial reasons so I think it's frustrating whichever side and I think you know many things in life can be seen as frustrating and to be honest with you if you get anybody on a bad day um a parent they would say something similar and so again it's take this with a pinch of salt as to far as how accurate it is without looking into it in more detail I might be completely wrong though and it might be an extremely thorough study finally let's start the Mary daily drum roll because Mary Daley is where would be going next maradelli is already on YouTube as far as the video that I've done for her check it out it is just mind-boggling the things um I had to put in the marriage the things I have to go through and save the merry daily PowerPoint is just things you would never ever expect someone to say 1928 to 2010 I'm only disappointed that she never was really in the age of social media I think she'd be an absolute Menace I think she'd have been brilliant on social media but oh boy here we go the pun is intended daily argued that women's abilities and knowledge are superior to those of men and therefore women ought to govern men as this would result in a much peace much more peaceful society and would be also better for the environment so we should rule the world we should govern men it would lead to a much more peaceful society and better for the environment there she is I saw women that were repressed this is when she was teaching in schools and said that she would not teach men only women when they're in classes with young men they're shut up all the time they laughed at if they have unusual ideas they have to be sexy then they can't really think clearly never been in a modern day philosophy class for example but her view there and therefore she stopped teaching men she would not teach she would not teach boys at all she'd only teach females she is a very educated woman it's interesting looking into her background and her history especially a relationship with Christianity but she is extremely outrageous whether she can be called a feminist at all is up to you to decide if if she may be seen as a radical feminist again that's your decision but do check out the PowerPoint on Mary daily for gender and theology otherwise a quick discussion question I get my shoes to think about and write should official Christian teachings resist current secular views of gender so official teachings you would have to establish what do official Christian teaches mean so what are you actually talking about there should there resist currents or what are the current secular views and should they resist them so what anger are you going to argue what words you're going to define and explain in your introduction and which arguments names and views would you apply in your essay hopefully have found that useful don't forget to subscribe so that you never miss out on any of the videos if you have any questions or comments please post them below or just any general thoughts that you might have done gender Society or Christianity and I look forward to reading them otherwise bye for now everyone bye for now