Moving back to the main discussion of women’s rights and roles; the feminist beginnings in the 19^th century really catapulted the entire movement for women. It was the first time that women connected in the movement together, “both European and American women attended the same conferences, corresponded regularly, and read one another’s work” (521). The untiy between women had never been seen before.

Some women who were heavily involved in the movement refused to take their names (much like today) or wore pants under their skirts. There was even a women named Elizabeth Cady Stanton who published a bible for Women, eliminating the parts she found offensive. “By the 1970s, feminist movements in the West were focusing primarily on the issue of suffrage and were gaining a growing constituency. Now many ordinary middle-class housewives and working-class mothers joined their better-educated sisters in the movement.” (521). Times were changing from the 50's and before, where women were expected to stay home with their children and look after their husbands. Women were showing that they were more complex and could take on much more than previously thought or allowed.

“By 1900 , upper- and middle class women had gained entrance to universities, though in small numbers, and women’s literacy rates were growing steadily.” (521). The exercise we did in class really helped put this type of life into perspective for me. As a woman in 2013 I expect an equal opportunity at an education as the males sitting in class with me. Its easy to forget what life would have really been like for the original women who fought so hard to be recognized.  Florence Nightingale, a leader in this period, “professionalized nursing and attracted thousands of women to it, while Jane Adams in the US virtually invented social work, which also became female dominated profession” (521). 

Not surprisingly, feminists received opposition, although I might argue that they still do not receive much respect. “Thus feminists were viewed as selfish, willing to sacrifice the family or even the nation while pursuing their individual goals.” (522). Women are still blamed, although maybe not to this extent, for focusing both on a career and family.

Breaking away from identifying and writing about women and their roles in history, I am now going to touch on slavery; one could even argue that the two are not very far apart anyway.  “During the 400 years from the mid-fifteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, that trade in humankind took an estimated 11 million people from African societies, shipped them from across the Atlantic in the infamous middle passage, and deposited them in the Americas, where they lived out their often brief lives as slaves. Countless millions more died in the process of capture and transport, before ever reaching American shores” (449). Once the Atlantic slave trade began, the world was never again the same. “Beyond the multitude of individual tragedies that spawned –capture and sale, displacement from home cultures, forced labor, beatings and brandings, broken families—the Atlantic slave trade transformed the societies of all its participants (449). The slave trade, especially in the Americas, added an immense “African presence” to the mixture of European and Native American people. “It also introduced elements of African culture, such as religious ideas, musical and artistic traditions, and cusine, into the making of American cultures” (450).

When researching the history of slavery, one seems to always come across a somewhat fundamental question, “Is it human nature to gain power or dominion over other individuals; eventually leading into something like slavery?” Unfortunately, based off of what history has shown us…all over the world, the answer to this fundamental inquiry is “yes”. “The Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the Americas represented the most recent large-scale expression of an almost universal human practice—the owning and exchange of human beings” (450).  …”With origins that go back to the earliest civilizations, slavery was widely accepted as a perfectly normal human enterprise and was closely linked to warfare and capture. Before 1500, the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean basins were the major arenas of the Old World slave trade, and southern Russia was a major source of slaves. Many African societies likewise both practiced slavery themselves and sold slaves into these international commercial networks. A trans-Saharan slave trade had long funneled African captives into Mediterranean slavery [ex. Sand Roads, and an East African slave trade brought Africans into the Middle East and the Indian Ocean basin. Both operated largely within the Islamic world” (450).

Although forms of slavery have been around since what seems like the beginning of humankind, “the slavery that emerged in the Americans was distinctive in several ways” (450). “Within the Islamic world, the preference was for female slaves by a two-to-one margin, while the later Atlantic slave trade favored males by a similar margin. Not all slaves, however occupied degraded positions. Some in the Islamic world acquired prominent military of political status. Most slaves in the pre-modern world worked in their owners’ households, farms, or shops, with smaller numbers laboring in large-scale agricultural or industrial enterprises” (450). In the Americas, slavery was different because of the immense volume they were being brought in, the dehumanization of them, the fact that “they lacked any rights in the society of their owners”.

Where does the Atlantic slavery originate from? “The origins of Atlantic slavery clearly lie in the Mediterranean world and with that now common sweetener known as sugar. Until the Crusades, Europeans knew nothing of sugar and relied on honey and fruits to sweeten their bland diets. However, as they learned from the Arabs about sugarcane and the laborious techniques for producing usable sugar, Europeans established sugar-producing plantations within the Mediterranean and later on various islands off the coast of West Africa” (451). Because of the intense work, the size of the market of consumers and the dangers of the work itself; it all seemed to point towards slavery…

            What many people do not know is the fact that slaves were not originally African. “Initially, Slavic-speaking peoples from the Black Sea Region furnished the bulk of the slaves for Mediterranean plantations, so much so that ‘Slav’ became the basis for the word ‘slave’ in many European languages. In 1453, however, when the ottoman Turks seized Constantinople, the supply of Slavic slaves was effectively cut off. At the same time, Portuguese mariners were exploring the coast of West Africa; they we relooking primarily for gold, but they also found slaves available for sale. Thus, when sugar, and later tobacco and cotton, plantations took hold in the Americas, Europeans had already established links to a West African source of supply” (451).

            Why were the African peoples subjected to slavery in particular? “Largely through process of elimination, Africa became the primary source of slave labor for the plantation economies of the Americas. Slavic peoples were no longer available; Native Americans quickly perished from European diseases; marginal Europeans were Christians and therefore supposedly exempt from slavery; and European indentured servants were expensive and temporary. Africans, on the other hand, were skilled farmers; they had some immunity to both tropical and European diseases; they were not Christians; they were, relatively speaking, close at hand; and they were readily available in substantial numbers through African-operated commercial networks” (451).

            Slavery is the dark passenger of our past as a human race. It has been there with us for a long time. Is it in our nature? I would have to argue yes, but that is not to say that we can fight against it. Recognizing the damage slavery has caused in the long run as well as understanding the history of it should help us make better decisions in the future, if we are willing to admit and reflect. There will come a time when we our country is at a crossroads again. I hope that when that time comes we can look back, examine and learn from our history; both the good and the bad.

Continuing on with the originally unplanned, now planned tradition…We hear so much about women in the Middle East and what role they play in regards to men. The media fills our heads with horrific stories of women who are persecuted, even killed because they simply try to get something like an education. It’s easy and unfortunately a common mistake to assume that all people in the Middle East fit this negative view of what we see in the media. I personally believe that people should never take what is on television, especially the news, for the 100% truth.

In our text, Strayer explains the Quran in regards to women rather simply…“At the level of spiritual life, the Quran was quite clear and explicit: men and women were equal” (314). Now, if we were to close the book after that one sentence, we might have an inaccurate view of women and their roles according to the Quran. Keep in mind the above statement addressed only the spiritual role of women, “…in social terms, and especially within marriage, the Quran, like the written texts of almost all civilizations, viewed women as inferior and subordinate” (314)….a somewhat disturbing quote straight from the Quran is as follows: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them” (314). This is to say the least, a disturbing command to ask of the male followers and an even more disturbing demand to make of the female followers.

In the Quran’s defense, the Quran provided a mixture of many rights for BOTH men and women…“The earlier practice of female infanticide, for example was forbidden. Women were given control over their own property, particularly their dowries, and were granted rights of inheritance, but at half the right of their male counterparts. Marriage was considered a contract between consenting parties, thus making marriage capture illegitimate” (315). Clearly there were improvements taking place, but it hasn’t even gotten to the best part yet… “Within marriage, women were expected to enjoy sexual satisfaction and could sue for divorce if they had not had sexual relations for more than four months” (315).

For every improvement in the case of roles of women advancing there seems to always be something put in place that makes the last improvement rather invalid, “Divorce was thus possible for both parties, although it was far more readily available for men. The practice of taking multiple husbands, which operated in some pre-Islamic Arab tribes, was prohibited, while polygamy (the practice of having multiple wives) was permitted, though more clearly regulated than before. Men were limited to four wives and required to treat each of them equally. [Yeah right!!] The difficulty of doing so has been interpreted by as some virtually requiring monogamy. [Duh] Men were, however, permitted to have sexual relations with consenting female slaves, but any children born of those unions were free, as was the mother once her owner dies. Furthermore, men were strongly encouraged to marry orphans, widows and, slaves” (315).

It gets much worse…“Other signs of a tightening patriarchy –such as ‘honor killing’ of women by their male relatives for violating sexual taboos and, in some places, clitorectomy (female circumcision) – likewise deprived from local cultures, with no sanction in the Quran or Islamic Law. Where they were practiced, such customs often came to be seen as Islamic, but they were certainly not limited to the Islamic world. In many cultures, concern with family honor, linked to women’s sexuality, dictated by harsh punishments for women who violated sexual taboos” (316). When learning about this I couldn’t help but wonder, why not men? Is there such a place where men who abuse sex (i.e. rape, molestation etc) …can they be sexually mutilated as well? If so, let’s send all the men in the prisons guilty of these crimes there :o) If a person abuses a gun, they legally are not allowed to have a firearm…now if a man uses his…as a weapon…should he not lose the privilege as well?  

Women and their roles throughout history seem to be a topic that has continually grabbed my attention. I find it fascinating that there seems to be this constant back and forth of the progress and lack thereof that women experience throughout history.

During the Song Dynasty, although it’s commonly marked as a “golden age” for China, it was much less than that for women. Confucianism played a big role in a woman’s place being less than that of a man’s. “The Song Dynasty historian and scholar Sima Guang (1019-1086) summed up the prevailing view: ‘The boy leads the girl, the girl follows the boy; the duty of husbands to be resolute and wives to be docile begins with this” (246). First of all, let me just say “ahhhh!!!” I could have never lived during this time. If someone so much as mentions the word docile to me, insinuating or telling me that my behavior needs to be this way, it usually ends in some choice words on my part.

“Women were also frequently viewed as a distraction to men’s pursuit of a contemplative and introspective life. The remarriage of widows, though legally permissible, was increasingly condemned, for ‘to walk through two courtyards is a source of shame for a woman’.” (246). I find this part especially interesting. As history goes on we see women (widows) being pushed to do the opposite but for virtually the same reasons. If a woman was widowed (at later parts in history), we often saw her being pushed in the direction of remarriage because she was not seen as capable of taking care of herself. In the time period of the Song Dynasty as well as later time periods, women are both viewed as delicate creatures, ones who may not have the capability of thinking for herself, taking care of herself or making a life without a man heavily involved.

This view of delicacy was a main thread throughout a women’s role during the Song and Tang Dynasty’s. “The most compelling expressions of a tightening patriarchy lay in foot binding. Beginning apparently among dancers and courtesans in the tenth or eleventh century C.E., this practice involved the tight wrapping of young girls’ feet, usually breaking the bones of the foot and causing intense pain. During the Tang Dynasty, foot binding spread widely among elite families and later became even more widespread in Chinese society. It was associated with new images of female beauty and eroticism that emphasized small size, delicacy, and reticence, all of which were necessarily produced by food binding” (247).  This foot binding seemed to go hand-in-hand with the Confucianism tradition, forcing women to stay off their feet, in their house and subservient to men.

As if feet-binding wasn’t already painful enough, “The growing prosperity of elite families funneled increasing numbers of women into roles as concubines, entertainers, courtesans and prostitutes. Their ready availability surely reduced the ability of wives to negotiate as equals with their husbands. It set women against one another ad created endless household jealousies” (247).  

An era I am certainly glad I did not live in, filled with inequalities between the sexes and classes. One could argue these inequalities still go on today (of course, not to this extent)…and sure, I may agree but I definitely don’t see any foot binding going on. I’ll take 2013 in the Bay Area over anything else any day.