![]() |
|||||||||||
|
links ɩ Touching Stories ɩ Events ɩ Prayer Request ɩ Counseling ɩ MEMBERSHIP ɩ BLOG |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Miss King was raised by her forceful maternal grandmother and her father, while her mother worked to support the family. Her parents were strong-willed people with very little in common, but they stuck together contentedly as long as they had Miss King to raise and the grandmother to put up with. Miss King's grandmother raised her to be a "lady," one who outwardly observed certain proprieties and thus was able to insist on respect and deference from men. As her father observed, quoting Cervantes, "A lady is a woman who can make herself respected even among an army of soldiers." Miss King's most important lesson in the book was that, as a "lady," she was able to do exactly as she pleased in private and still get along perfectly with her conservative neighbors. This neglected concept is the key to current problems of sexual harassment, Allen argued. Rigid, formal systems of manners put a high value on human dignity and privacy, and frustrate the aims of over-reachers and control freaks.
Being inflexible, they protect everyone equally and constrain the powerful. Therefore, Allen blamed the explosion of sexual harassment cases on the trendy informality adopted by workplaces in the 1960s and '70s, and on the utter abandonment of any predictable rules governing social life and mating. Both these trends unfortunately coincided with women's increasing presence in the workplace. Allen said employers -- and women themselves -- should insist on observance of the formal, businesslike manners that used to be standard in the workplace. She thought this would prevent harassment more effectively than more laws would, because the law only sets a minimum, while manners set a higher standard. Allen had harsh words for the right wing, as well as for the left. Both sides idealize an over-wrought, sentimental vision of families, she said. The right wants to force everyone to go back to the often unsustainable nuclear model, while the left expands the definition of family so that even the nation is supposed to be a family, bound tightly by gushing sentiments. By defining families so broadly, the left denies that actual families are something unique, not easily replaced by artificial institutions. But if right-wingers claim to be pro-family, Allen asked, why do they insist that welfare mothers with several young children work outside the home? Why do they oppose letting immigrants bring their brothers and sisters to the U.S.? Audience members hoping for a legal or universal definition of family found that Allen, like most Americans [in 1994], had not spent much time pondering issues of gay parenthood. When asked about gay families, she said her personal definition of family was as something "generational," which would not include childless people (such as herself). When specifically asked about gays raising children she said she didn't know any personally, but "Sure . . . maybe it'll work." The Mary & William Feminist Law Society and the College's Women's Studies program sponsored Allen's March 29 lecture. The following morning she tried to clarify her views over breakfast with Mary & William members at the home of Professor Valerie Hardy, who organized the lecture
About Us | Our People | Contact Us | Our Volunteers | Gospel Video Materials | Inspiration | Sibling Relationship | Damishi