Recovery Continues
Today I feel bored. Actually relieved. Yesterday I told Julie that I could take on a plumbing repair job in her house - and couldn't. Fortunately, it all worked out okay.
A few days ago we went to see the DaVinci Code down at Harvard Square. As we got there early for the 6:30 pm show, we decided to get something to eat. I got chocolate and coconut ice cream in a cup and Julie got a peanut butter cone. So much for a healthy supper.
We both thought the movie was good. True, it did follow the book almost to the letter, except at the end, and, as I had read the book twice, I did find it a little boring since I knew what was going to happen every step of the way. At any rate, I liked the special effects and thought it moved along at a good pace. The big criticism by the critics was that it followed the book; my guess is if it hadn't the critics would have cried blasphemy. My thoughts are that the critics panned the movie as a part of a larger conspiracy in an effort to quell the numbers of folks who might see it.
What was of more interest to me was the interest the movie has spawned by others to capitalize on its interest. For example, both Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report did extensive articles on Mary Magdelene and the role of the church over the years in its effort to suppress and discredit women. In addition, the articles went into the manipulation and control by the men of the church throughout the ages to subjugate women.
It seems that the movie has really opened up the eyes and minds of the public. I think its good to question authority, especially when the authority tells the public to believe in them - without question. Isn't that what the Bush administration has been telling us? I would think that anytime anyone tells us that their way is the only right way, that then is the time to be questioning them the most.
In the case of the catholic church it's taken about 1500 years for people to really and openly start questioning what it's done, among other things, to the role of women in/out of the church but hey, better late than never. The thing is, what was there to hide to begin with? When Peter felt threatened by Mary because she had more information than he did about Jesus' reseurrection, he got angry; she, instead, shared the information. Who was the bigger person?
I've now been recovering from surgery for 23 days. About 16 days into it I started feeling good and so began exercising. Julie questioned whether that was safe for me to do and gave me her thoughts on what I was doing. I called the surgeon and told him about the conversation between Julie and me. He said that while he would deny saying anything after my follow up visit on 6/29 with him, he told me to listen to Julie. Hmnn. Now, seven days later, I'm glad I listened to her.
A week or so ago I started reading "Washington's Crossing," by Fischer. It's similiar to "1776," by Mcullough. Both books are about the revolutionary war and the role of George Washington, especially in the revolution's beginning. I have found Fischer's book to be more interesting, though a little more tedious to read. McCullough's book was easier and read more like a novel; Fischer's book is heavily annotated and has a large appendix.
One of the things that Fischer has put into his book, though certainly in a minimal fashion, is the role of women in the American Revolution. They were on the battlefield, in the field hospitals, everywhere the men were. Their roles were more related to the "care" of the men, e.g., cooking, tending wounded and such, although more than a few picked up weapons and fought. What I found to be the most dis-heartening, however, was that while the women took care of the men, when the women fell ill, there was no one to take care of them.
I probably won't do any research into this, but I wonder what books have been written about the role and scope of women in the revolutionary war. It was mentioned throughout the book how the wives, lovers and female siblings of the soldiers, especially the officers, were with them every step of the way. George Washington had Martha with him virtually throughout the war.
Stories abound about the prostitutes and hangers-on during the war but those women were evidently in the minority of those who were there to support "their men." From what Fischer puts in the book, women played much more than a minor/subservient role.
You know what I think? I think women have been given a raw deal throughout modern history. It occurs to me that while the Republicans are making all these efforts to amend the Constitution the one change that should be made is the wording - "all men are created equal" to read "all people [and living things] are created equal."
We are all equal - men and women. I wonder what it will take for us to realize this and to stop with the gender inequality thing.
I wonder why I ended up with this train of thought? I didn't think I was headed in this direction when I started. I'm a guy! I'm not supposed to think this way, am I? Maybe more of us guys should. Maybe it was because I was raised in a house full of women. Hmnn. Maybe it's just because it's right.
A few days ago we went to see the DaVinci Code down at Harvard Square. As we got there early for the 6:30 pm show, we decided to get something to eat. I got chocolate and coconut ice cream in a cup and Julie got a peanut butter cone. So much for a healthy supper.
We both thought the movie was good. True, it did follow the book almost to the letter, except at the end, and, as I had read the book twice, I did find it a little boring since I knew what was going to happen every step of the way. At any rate, I liked the special effects and thought it moved along at a good pace. The big criticism by the critics was that it followed the book; my guess is if it hadn't the critics would have cried blasphemy. My thoughts are that the critics panned the movie as a part of a larger conspiracy in an effort to quell the numbers of folks who might see it.
What was of more interest to me was the interest the movie has spawned by others to capitalize on its interest. For example, both Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report did extensive articles on Mary Magdelene and the role of the church over the years in its effort to suppress and discredit women. In addition, the articles went into the manipulation and control by the men of the church throughout the ages to subjugate women.
It seems that the movie has really opened up the eyes and minds of the public. I think its good to question authority, especially when the authority tells the public to believe in them - without question. Isn't that what the Bush administration has been telling us? I would think that anytime anyone tells us that their way is the only right way, that then is the time to be questioning them the most.
In the case of the catholic church it's taken about 1500 years for people to really and openly start questioning what it's done, among other things, to the role of women in/out of the church but hey, better late than never. The thing is, what was there to hide to begin with? When Peter felt threatened by Mary because she had more information than he did about Jesus' reseurrection, he got angry; she, instead, shared the information. Who was the bigger person?
I've now been recovering from surgery for 23 days. About 16 days into it I started feeling good and so began exercising. Julie questioned whether that was safe for me to do and gave me her thoughts on what I was doing. I called the surgeon and told him about the conversation between Julie and me. He said that while he would deny saying anything after my follow up visit on 6/29 with him, he told me to listen to Julie. Hmnn. Now, seven days later, I'm glad I listened to her.
A week or so ago I started reading "Washington's Crossing," by Fischer. It's similiar to "1776," by Mcullough. Both books are about the revolutionary war and the role of George Washington, especially in the revolution's beginning. I have found Fischer's book to be more interesting, though a little more tedious to read. McCullough's book was easier and read more like a novel; Fischer's book is heavily annotated and has a large appendix.
One of the things that Fischer has put into his book, though certainly in a minimal fashion, is the role of women in the American Revolution. They were on the battlefield, in the field hospitals, everywhere the men were. Their roles were more related to the "care" of the men, e.g., cooking, tending wounded and such, although more than a few picked up weapons and fought. What I found to be the most dis-heartening, however, was that while the women took care of the men, when the women fell ill, there was no one to take care of them.
I probably won't do any research into this, but I wonder what books have been written about the role and scope of women in the revolutionary war. It was mentioned throughout the book how the wives, lovers and female siblings of the soldiers, especially the officers, were with them every step of the way. George Washington had Martha with him virtually throughout the war.
Stories abound about the prostitutes and hangers-on during the war but those women were evidently in the minority of those who were there to support "their men." From what Fischer puts in the book, women played much more than a minor/subservient role.
You know what I think? I think women have been given a raw deal throughout modern history. It occurs to me that while the Republicans are making all these efforts to amend the Constitution the one change that should be made is the wording - "all men are created equal" to read "all people [and living things] are created equal."
We are all equal - men and women. I wonder what it will take for us to realize this and to stop with the gender inequality thing.
I wonder why I ended up with this train of thought? I didn't think I was headed in this direction when I started. I'm a guy! I'm not supposed to think this way, am I? Maybe more of us guys should. Maybe it was because I was raised in a house full of women. Hmnn. Maybe it's just because it's right.
posted by Frank at 2:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home