The gist of the articles is that State Senator Kay O'Connor made comments that she didn't support women's sufferage and that she wouldn't vote for it if asked today.
quote:Asked if she supports the 19th Amendment, the Republican lawmaker responded: "I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) we wouldn't have to vote.
"I'm sorry women have not been taken more care of," she said. "We have gotten the short end of the stick."
If the measure were up for ratification today, she said, she would not support it.
And later the article goes on to say...
quote:"My husband is the head of the household and I am the heart. And the head can't live without the heart," she said during the interview. "I offer my suggestions, but I give (my husband) the right to make the final decision."
As a state leader, O'Connor said, it is more important to stay true to her convictions than simply mirror the views of her constituents.
"And if I don't get re-elected, my only punishment is to go home to my husband and my roses and my children and my grandchildren," she said. "And if the trips to Topeka get to be too much and my husband asks me to quit... I would."
The entire situation simply drips with irony...a woman, who doesn't support sufferage, and doesn't believe women should have to make these decisions, is a state senator? I also think it begs the question about what her decisions are really based on. Basically she endorses the old idea of "coverture"...in other words, that a woman is 'covered by' her husband, her responsibility is to mirror his views. So if this is her stand, and that is more important to her than to stand for the people who elected her...then who is really casting her votes? And, is she being honest and fair with her constituents by not necessarily representing them? Does she make her decisions, or does she simply mirror her husband's political opinions?
Wow, that's pretty strange. Some "old-fashioned" people must have voted for her, because I don't know that any progressive persons would. I certainly wouldn't. She's negating the entire feminist movement by saying that women need to be taken care of by men. Obviously, we've proved that theory wrong. I'm not going to say that staying home (if that is a woman's personal choice) is wrong in any way, but it is not the only option for females. There's millions of options. I wonder if she's pro-life too.
------------------ "Do what you will, always.. Walk where you like, your steps... Do as you please, I'll back you up.." ~DMB
Hmmm...well that's the kind of view my mother has really, although hers is slightly more moderate and for religious reasons. However, I cannot begin to imagin the number of arguments we have had over it, and how heatedf those arguments have got at times! I suppose, as long as your views on a woman's place don't interfere with any other women's lives, then you're entitled to them. But that's diffifult if you're a Senator! Then again, I can see how if you really believe the bible, it would be easy to interpret it that way. (I don't believe the bible, but I have read it several times so I'm not just assuming!) eg, 1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ, in turn the head of a woman is the man." 1 Corinthians 11:9 "and what is more, man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man" 1 Corinthians 14:34 "let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them e in subjection as the Law says."
Well, interpret them as you will but those scriptures make me pretty damn mad! (No disrespect to anyone who believes the bible, as I'm sure you interpret them in a more moderate way. Anyway, the Senator in question is quite likely a devote Christian, and I can see where she got her views from.
Posts: 394 | From: Manchester, Lancashire, England | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well actually if you look at the context of the letters to the Corinthians, the fact the woman seem to be ruled by the men just would not be questioned at the time. Christianity was a very progressive Religion and so in some ways it did not want to challenge every single belief held by people at the time. So women's places should really be considered a side part to Christianity and not a main part of it.
I am certain you can be a feminist and still a devout Christian.
I dunno what to say about the senator to be honest. Shouldnt she really be in the kitchen rather than in politics if she believes that?
If that was a man making those comments then a phrase involving a wall, shot, put up against, first and when the revolution comes would come to mind (sorry if thats rather strong). But with a woman saying it, its impossible to feel anger, just amazement at her pitiable backwardness.
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.