The Happy Feminist

HEROISM KNOWS NO GENDER, PART II

Read about a mother who wrestled with a 700 pound polar bear in order to save her son. 

(Hat tip: Doug Phillips)

ON PUMPING IRON - UPDATED

I got a huge kick out of this post by a 52-year old woman weight lifter on the still prevalent assumption that women shouldn't build up their upper body strength or that it's ridiculous for us to try.  (Hat tip: Twisty).

My first semester in college, I and a group of my new dorm-mates tried out for the novice crew team.  The try-outs lasted a week and were incredibly competitive-- probably because my college had a very strong rowing program.  The distressing thing was that a number of my friends who were going through try-outs with me were upset at the prospect of possibly building up their back and shoulder muscles.  Several young women I knew considered dropping out of the try-outs because they didn't want to become "too muscular."  The problem was widespread enough that the coach actually called all of us together to "reassure" us that increased muscle mass would result in a leaner rather than a bulkier look.

I was absolutely distraught that young women of my generation in the year 1989 would actually view becoming stronger as a negative thing.  I remember saying to one of my friends over and over, "What could possibly be wrong with becoming more physically capable?" and "Doesn't it bother you that standards of attractiveness seem incongruent with female strength?" and "Don't you want to give the bird to those who prefer us in a state of frailty?"

Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the subversive pleasure of becoming a weight lifter myself.  I was rejected from the college crew team for being too short, and my default sport of long-distance running actually encourages a physique that is consistent with popular beauty standards for women.  But during those times in college when the topic of weight lifting came up (we long distance runners do lift a little bit even if upper strength isn't the emphasis of the sport), some young man would invariably squeeze my bicep and make some mocking comment-- as though my even daring to invade the male province of weight lifting was somehow pure silliness. 

Another observation:  I have a copy of Collette Dowling's book, The Frailty Myth, on my bookshelf at work.  To a man, every single dude who picks up this book, says, "You do realize don't you that women are actually weaker on average than men?"  Every single one says something like this!  It's really quite amazing! Talk about missing the point . . .

Here's the thing.  I want to be as physically strong and fit as I can be.  Due to severe time constraints in my life at the moment, that's not very strong or fit, unfortunately.  But one day I would love to be as strong as the woman who wrote the post linked above.  It's not about besting men (although that's potentially a fun side benefit), and it's not about trying to conform to some societal standard of attractiveness.  It's about trying to be as physically capable as possible.  Being physically capable has to be viewed as a good thing for everyone, doesn't it?!?!? To the extent that prejudices and norms of attractiveness discourage women from fully developing all of their physical gifts, I say screw that. 

UPDATE:  Check out Hugo's post entitled My Wife Could Beat Me Up: A Note on Women and Muscles.  In fact, check out Hugo's whole blog.  Hugo is my favorite evangelical Christian feminist blogger and my role model for encouraging civil and rational discussion of touchy issues. 

NINTH CARNIVAL OF FEMINISTS

The Ninth Carnival of Feminists is up   and better than ever at Mind the Gap! 

LARRY SUMMERS RESIGNS AND THE HAPPY FEMINIST TAKES A SWIPE AT HIM

Larry Summers, the President of Harvard University, has resigned, citing his rift with the faculty of the university as the primary factor in his decision. Summers's comments on gender at a conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce last year surely contributed to the faculty's recent vote of "no confidence" in Summers (although there were also many other reasons for the faculty's distaste).  Of course, people are bound to start howling again that Summers is the "victim" of campus "political correctness" run amok. 

So it is worth a reminder today that Summers's comments were, in fact, shockingly prejudiced to the detriment of women.  This was NOT an instance in which feminists simply didn't want to hear an idea that might contradict our worldview.  This was an instance in which the head of a major research university stated at an official event that he believes that women do not tend to advance to tenured positions at major research universities because (a) they don't WANT to put in the punishing 80 hour work weeks that are required and (b) genetic biological factors disfavor women's achievement at the highest levels in math and science.  He stated that this was his opinion, even while also admitting that we don't actually KNOW whether this is the case.  In other words, he WASN'T just broaching an idea for further investigation -- he was endorsing a particular point of view regarding women's inferiority in a particular field while simultaneously admitting that he couldn't support his point of view.  If that isn't prejudice, what is?  And is it unreasonable for the faculty to be concerned that the guy in charge of tenure decisions and university policy is admitting to this kind of  prejudice regarding the inherent inferiority of a particular group? I think not. 

Here are some doozies from Summers's original remarks (you can read the entire transcript here):

--  The other prefatory comment I would make is that I am going to . . . just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe [i.e. the underrepresentation of women in tenure science positions at top universities] without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality . . . I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for the underrepresentation.

Ok, that would be nice if that's what he actually did.  But instead of thinking about anything non-judgmentally or clinically, he then goes on to endorse particular hypotheses, even as he admits that we haven't studied them sufficiently.  And, of course, the particular hypotheses he endorses without sufficient study are the ones that let Harvard off the hook for any gender disparities in its tenured science faculty!    Summers tries to have his cake and eat it too -- he wants to express his unsupported prejudices while hiding behind words like "systematic" and "clinical." 

-- There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of [women's underrepresentation] . . . the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis [i.e. that women don't want high-powered jobs].   The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different  socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search.  And, in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order I just described. [emphasis mine] . . So my sense is that the unfortunate truth -- I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true - is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances [in aptitude] probably explains a fair amount of this problem. 

This guy is not just raising ideas for further study, but endorsing a point of view that women by inclination and natural aptitude are less suited than men for tenured science positions at Harvard.Summers then goes on to explain his "high powered job theory:"

. . . [T]he most prestigious activities in our society expect of people who are going to rise to leadership positions in their forties nearly total commitments to their work.  They expect a large number of hours in the office, they expect a flexibility of schedules to respond to contingency, they expect a continuity of effort through the life cycle, and they expect . . . that the mind is always working on the problems that are in the job, even when the job is not taking place.  And it is a fact about our society that that is a level of commitment that a much higher fraction of married men have been historically prepared to make than of married women . . . so I think in terms of positive understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call the, who WANTS to do the high-powered intense work? [emphasis mine].

How convenient.  The women just don't WANT these jobs.  Of course, even while endorsing this rather simplistic and overly convenient viewpoint, Summers also admits that he doesn't really know:

. . . [T]he work that Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz are doing will, I'm sure, over time, contribute greatly to our understanding of these issues and for all I know may prove my conjectures completely wrong. 

When confronted during the question and answer session with the fact that there are "very high powered women in science in top positions" in France, Summers says, "Good question.  Good question.  I don't know much about it."  He then hypothesizes that there simply isn't the same pressure to perform or work 80 hours a week in France.

Summers then moves on to the issue of why the disparities between men and women in high-powered positions is the greatest in science and engineering.  His answer is: biology.  But the thing is: No one KNOWS where nature ends and culture begins when it comes to math and science ability.  No one knows.  But does that stop the supposedly open-minded and objective Larry Summers?  Oh no, he does not hesitate to endorse the notion that women are genetically less likely to achieve in math and science at the highest levels.  He then discounts the effects of socialization on the most specious grounds imaginable.  First the kibbutz example:

I just returned from Israel, where we had the opportunity to visit a kibbutz and to spend some time talking about the history of the kibbutz movement, and it really is very striking to hear how the movement started with an absolute commitment, of a kind one doesn't encounter in other places, that everybody was going to do the same jobs.  Sometimes the women were going to fix the tractors, and the men were going to work in the nurseries, sometimes the men were going to fix the tractors and the women were going to work in the nurseries, and just under the pressure of what everyone wanted, in a hundred different kibbutzes, each one of which evolved, it all moved in the same direction [apparently towards men doing stereotypically male jobs and women doing stereotypically female jobs].

Right.  Because the differences the gender roles on the kibbutz must be genetic. I guess the notoriously low status suffered by women kibbutzniks is just natural. The socialization of the founders of the kibbutz had nothing to do with it.  The fact that the child care workers were all women from the get-go had nothing to do with it.  And, of course, there are so many opportunities for women to pursue high powered scientific research careers on the kibbutz, so this example is clearly applicable.  I'm being sarcastic obviously.  My point is that the conclusions Summers draws from his kibbutz example are a huge leap when we are supposed to be examining this issue "clinically."   

Moving on to the notorious "mommy truck" example:

So, I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise [uh huh.  So why are you leaping to conclusions without evidence?], I guess my experience with my two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something.  And I think it's just something that you probably have to recognize.

Wow.  I am pretty impressed that Larry Summers has raised his little girls in complete isolation from any societal influences.  I guess since his kids were raised in a lab, we must be able to conclude that their behavior is genetically programmed.  And, of course, since feminists deny any differences between the sexes, this example must defeat us.

OK, Ok, obviously this example is irrelevant, and insulting to boot.  First, his example proves exactly nothing.  Second, feminists don't deny biological differences between the sexes.  That's not the issue.  But with regard to achievement at the highest levels of math and science, which is ostensibly the subject of Summers's talk, we DON'T KNOW whether or how much such achievement is genetically determined by sex.  We DON'T KNOW. We have no idea. Yet Summers, who touts the notion of clinical objectivity, is ready to embrace the notion of genetic pre-determination by sex at the highest levels of scientific achievement.  Why shouldn't this clearly expressed prejudgment be troubling to the Harvard faculty?

Summers goes on to talk about how he does not believe that discrimination is a major factor, and gives some lip service to the need for further study. 

In the question and answer session, Summers again ADMITS that he is talking out of his ass.

Question:  And, you know, a lot of us would disagree with your hypotheses and your premises . . .

Summers:  Fair enough.

Question:  So it's not so clear.

Summers:  It's not clear at all. I think I said it wasn't clear.  I was giving you my best guess but I hope we could argue on the basis of as much evidence as we can marshall . . I don't presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I'd want you to be hesitant about that.

OK, so why are you, as the head of a major major research and teaching university expressing a view that women are inherently inferior at scientific achievement at the highest levels without having the evidence to back it up?  And why shouldn't the faculty be upset about your admitted prejudice on this subject?

This isn't about censorship or squelching ideas that we find unpleasant.  This is about questioning the leadership of a man with the power to influence and determine who gets the plum tenure positions at THE premiere American university and who also admits that he believes, without the evidence to back it up, that women are inherently less able to rise to certain of those tenure positions.   

(Hat tip: Feministing.)

DOCTOR-PATIENT MISCOMMUNICATION

Writing the last post reminded me of all the times I have suffered miscommunications with doctors.  It seems that doctor-patient communication is fraught with peril and there is probably fault on both sides.  The incidents that stand out most clearly in my mind are those where the doctor was at fault.  I still get intensely angry about these.  But I am sure there have been times when I have contributed to a lack of clarity by not being able to describe my symptoms well, or not remembering the types of treatments I have had and what not. 

The worst incident came after I was roughhousing with my dog (my parents' collie) the summer before law school and she scratched my cornea.  (Word to the wise: avoid having your cornea scratched at all costs.  It is incredibly painful.)  This occurred during the only 10 day period of my life when I didn't have medical insurance so I had to cover all the costs myself.  The first doctor I saw was wonderful.  I had to keep my eye closed for three days, and use drops while my cornea healed.  He advised me to see a doctor for follow-up if my eye still bothered me after six weeks.  Six weeks later, my eye was still bothering me and I was in law school in another city.  I made an appointment with a prominent eye clinic in my new location. 

The new doctor examined my cornea in a special machine and determined that it was not yet healed.  He prescribed more drops and told me to come back in three weeks to make sure that my cornea was actually healed this time.  He said he would be out of the country when I came back but that he would leave detailed notes for the doctor I was going to see for my follow up appointment.  Then as I was leaving he said, "Hey, I'm making a collection of photographs of scratched corneas for a textbook I'm writing.  Would you be willing to let me take a photograph of yours?"  I shrugged and said sure.  My first mistake.

Later I returned for my follow up appointment with the new doctor as instructed.  When he first came in to the examining room he said, "So what do you want?"  I explained how my cornea had been scratched and how I had had to come back for follow up treatment because it hadn't fully healed right away.  So he says, "Well, are you having any trouble with it now?" And I say, "Well, it seems fine but the previous doctor told me to come back and see you." And he says, "Well, what is it that you want me to do?" At this point, I'm thinking he's kind of obnoxious, but I explained that the previous doctor had said he would leave detailed notes in my file and that the previous doctor had wanted my cornea checked to make sure that it was actually healed.  The doctor, "Any problems with your eye?" I said, "No." And the doctor, "Well, I guess you can assume it's healed then."  And I explained that I had assumed it was healed before and then it had started  bothering me again, and an examination had shown that it wasn't healed.  So the doctor, seeming exasperated, says, "I guess we can give you a test then if that'll make you feel better." I explained again that this wasn't MY idea, that the previous doctor had instructed me to come back.  So the doctor says, "Ok. Come on, let's go." Of course, I'm seething at this point, but I follow him down the hall-- and to my surprise he sits me down, and has me look at an alphabet chart hanging on the wall.  I repeated that I wasn't having any trouble seeing, but he shrugged and said, "Well, you wanted this test." So I figured this must be the first part of the test, so I read off the letters on the chart.  And he turns to me and says, "Well, you passed. Are we done here?"  You wouldn't believe how mad I was.  I sort of croaked, "Are'nt you going to look at my cornea?" And the guy just stared at me.  Finally I said, "Look, the last time I was here, the doctor, had me sit at a machine with my eyes up to some goggles and look into a blue light.  I understood that he was looking at a close up of my cornea so he could tell whether it was scratched or not.  That's what I assumed you were going to do.  I know I can see fine.  I know I feel fine. But isn't that machine the only way I can find out if my cornea is actually healed?!??!?" So I got my test finally, but the guy acted like he was humoring me and doing me an enormous favor.  That's about as rudely as I've ever been treated anywhere-- and I am still scratching my head more than ten years later as to how a medical doctor could be such a putz. 

To add injury to insult, I then got a whopping $250 bill for the photograph the first doctor had taken of my cornea. It took me weeks of horrid phone calls with the clinic billing department and letter writing to get the bill retracted.  I was pissed.  Badly pissed.  That photograph was not part of my treatment and I can't tell you how angry it made me to be charged for it and to have to go through a huge hassle involving literally hours of my time to get it taken off the bill. And the billing department to the end acted like I was a raving bitch and they were indulging me by giving me some free service when they finally took it off my bill.

Other doctor-patient miscommunications happened when I was diagnosed with cervical displasia.  After a routine gynecological exam, I got a call from the nurse in which she explained that there my most recent exam had indicated the presence of abnormal cells.  I can't remember exactly how the nurse explained it although she kept talking about "level 4" and "level 5" (I don't remember the precise number) and it was like pulling teeth to get her to explain what that meant.  After the conversation, I had the definite impression that she was talking about CANCER.  Cancer is a scary word.  In fact, what the nurse was actually talking about were PRE-cancerous abnormalities that had the potential to become cancerous if they weren't treated.  Some of my friends who have had the same diagnosis (it's very common) went through the same scare.  Everyone with whom I have talked agrees that medical professionals generally do a terrible job of explaining these abnormal "pap smears." 

The other thing I wish they had told me is that an cervical dysplasia is generally understood to be caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is transmitted sexually.  I really, really, really wish I had known that from the get-go.  If I had known that I probably wouldn't have called my parents and told them about my diagnosis.  Not that I am ashamed of it-- but it's just not something that my parents need to know about.  As it was, I told my parents as soon as I heard the news -- and the very next week there was an article in the New Yorker (which my parents read religiously) about cervical displasia and cervical cancer and how it was once viewed as the disease of "fallen women" because it was known to be contracted by sexual contact.  Gee, it would have been nice if my doctor's office had told me that before I went around blabbing about it.   

And finally there was the annoying doctor at my college clinic.  I had to see him after I contracted a parasite over the summer in Africa.  My African doctor treated the parasite but instructed me to see the doctor at college after several weeks so he could test me to make sure the parasite was eradicated.  My African doctor left detailed written instructions for my college doctor. But for some reason, my college doctor was convinced that I was actually pregnant-- because I had explained that the parasite had caused a lot of vomiting.  I told the college doctor that I had never had sex, but he acted like he simply didn't believe me and he forced me to take a pregnancy test.  I wouldn't have minded if he had said, "We have a blanket rule that we require every patient with vomiting to take a pregnancy test because some people aren't honest about their sexual history," but he didn't say that.  He acted skeptical of what I was telling him and I didn't appreciate it.   

Oops, this turned into a little bit of a rant.  I meant for this to be a nice balanced piece about the difficulties of clear communication between professionals and non-professionals.  I am sure I am not always a paragon of clarity in my role as an attorney but I like to think that I at least take my clients seriously. 

THE HAPPY FEMINIST DISCRIMINATES

In most areas of life, I strive to be scrupulously gender-blind.  But I do discriminate in one area.  When my annual physical rolls around, I always request a woman doctor.  This seems like common sense to me.  Why should I tolerate a strange man poking around in my most intimate private areas when there are plenty of qualified women professionals with whom I would be more comfortable? Apparently, this is a decision to which male gynecologists do not take kindly, according to this post by Twisty Faster.  Twisty quotes from an OB/GYN listserv in which one doctor takes pleasure in tricking women into thinking they are to see a woman doctor until he walks into the room and it's "too late," and another doctor advocates not "giving in" to the patient's preference for a woman doctor. 

I am not one to rag on the entire profession of male gynecologists.  I know at least one (the father of a friend of mine) who entered the profession with a strong feminist outlook and a dedication to women's health at a time when women themselves didn't usually become doctors.  But that doesn't change fact that I have a perfect right to choose who is going to see me naked and who is not.  And I don't think that it is unreasonable to decide that I'd rather not have random members of the opposite sex seeing me naked. 

My one experience with a male doctor (a GP, not a gynecologist) confirmed my prejudice. One year I was running a bit late on a scheduling my annual physical.  My former doctor had moved away, and I couldn't seem to get a timely appointment anywhere.  I said to myself, "Happy, you need to get over your excessive modesty.  The doctor will just look at you in a clinical way.  It's not that big a deal.  You're a grown woman and you have nothing to be embarrassed about."

So I scheduled an appointment with the male doctor. When I was taken into the examination room, the nurse instructed me to take off my clothes and put on  a flimsy hospital gown.  I did so and was sitting on the examining table with my bare legs dangling off the side and just a flimsy piece of paper covering the rest of me when the GP knocked and walked.  He immediately recoiled in horror and yelled, "OH MY GOD! YOU'RE NOT DRESSED!"  Having steeled myself to be naked with this guy, I was able to respond calmly, "Well, no, I'm not. The nurse told me to put on this hospital gown." The doctor apologized profusely, explaining that he would have preferred to meet with me first while I was still dressed.  I reassured him that I was not embarrassed and that it didn't bother me a bit to meet him for the first time while wearing the hospital gown.   The doctor was blushing profusely and insisted that he was embarrassed even if I wasn't. 

He was very nice, but his attitude had the effect of making me embarrassed even when I had steeled myself not to be embarrassed.  This was about five years ago, and I have never made an appointment to have a physical of that nature that with a male doctor again.

   

SLOTH

Whoo-hoo.  It feels good to be rested.  I spent all day Saturday and Sunday at home, working, working, working.  And I was going to spend the holiday (Monday) working at home too.  But you know, when Monday morning rolled around, I just didn't feel like getting up.  I turned on the television, and the 1961 version of "The Parent Trap" starring Hayley Mills was on, and I just stayed in bed and watched it. I'd never seen it before but there is something very comforting and restful in the nostalgia and the innocence and the simplicity of old movies like that.  Then it turned out my TiVo had captured some episodes of "The Thorn Birds" so I stayed in bed longer and watched that.  Then I took a nap.  Long story short, I didn't get out of bed all day.  Not even to check in on this blog.  Years ago I would have guilty about spending the day like that, but I think sometimes your body and your mind just need to recharge.  I feel tip-top today, I'll tell you that!

SUNDAY MORNING QUOTATION BLOGGING: ON THE DIFFICULTY OF EXPRESSING ONESELF SINCERELY

From The Plague by Albert Camus:

If, by some chance, one of us tried to unburden himself or to say something about his feelings, the reply he got, whatever it might be, usually wounded him.  And then it dawned on him that he and the man with him weren't talking about the same thing.  For while he himself spoke from the depths of long days of brooding upon his personal distress, and the image he had tried to impart had been slowly shaped and proved in the fires of passion and regret, this meant nothing to the man to whom he was speaking who pictured a conventional emotion, a grief that is traded on the market place, mass-produced.

From A Passage to India by E.M. Forster

Most of life is so dull that there is nothing to be said about it, and the books and talk that describe it as interesting are obliged to exaggerate in the hope of justifying their own existence.  Inside its cocoon of work or social obligation, the human spirit slumbers for the most part, registering the distinction between pleasure and pain, but not nearly as alert as we pretend.  There are periods in the most thrilling day during which nothing happens and though we continue to exclaim, "I do enjoy myself," or "I am horrified," we are insincere.  "As far as I feel anything, it is enjoyment, horror," -- it's no more than that really, and a perfectly adjusted organism would be silent. 

THE EFFECT OF BIBLICAL SUBMISSION ON WOMEN'S SELF-IMAGE

I find the topic of "wifely submission" endlessly fascinating.  By "wifely submission," I mean the frequent (although not universal) belief by conservative Christians that a wife has a duty to "submit" to her husband.  The Biblical rationale for this and how this plays out in real life is a complicated topic that I don't have time to go into today, although I hope to write about it in the future.  But in light of some recent discussions at Crystal's site on Biblical Womanhood (link to the precise thread below), I would like to take a moment to  bemoan the deleterious effects of this concept of submission upon the self-image of women who practice it.   

First, why do I this so fascinating? After all, I am a non-Christian and this belief system has no direct effect on me.  In some ways, I think perhaps it is none of my business. But my feminism is very much motivated and informed by the fact that entire cultures, religions, and belief systems are still structured around the subjection of women.  Although I feel that I personally enjoy the same degree of freedom and equality as the men in my life, I simply can't take the feminist blessings I enjoy for granted when there are so many people, churches, and cultures throughout the world and in my own country who passionately believe that women are "different": and that we should play a different and undoubtedly subservient role.  I certainly don't believe it is my place to prevent people from living according to such beliefs if they choose, but I do think I have a right to criticize those beliefs, particularly since there are some folks out there who would, if they could, restructure society to impose those beliefs on all women.

For now I wanted to direct your attention to the fascinating thread  at Crystal's site -- the comments in particular are illuminating.  I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of the women who comment.  I am familiar with some of the commenters and I know that many of them are bright, strong, feisty women with strong convictions.  And that is exactly why it is so heartbreaking to me for me to read comments in which they seem to put themselves down.  They characterize themselves as needing or wanting their husbands' leadership and protection not only from physical danger but from their own foolishness, characterized by excessive "out of control" emotionalism and gullibility. Sure, they claim that the requirement of submission does not connote women's inferiority.  But I don't see how one can view a person as less capable of making important decisions about her own life than another person as anything other than "inferior."  That is what pains me about this Christian concept of wifely submission. It's one thing to say the rules are that your husband is the final authority on important decisions because that's how God set it up.  But ten times more awful is teaching women that not only must they submit to this external authority over their lives but that they must also believe themselves to be inferior, child-like beings who are more gullible, more emotional, and less able to understand spiritual and other important matters than men.  I don't have a problem with the concept of "submission" in general -- to lawful authority, to God, to the moral commandments -- but, notwithstanding my respect for my conservative Christian cyberfriends, I am incredibly saddened and depressed by an ideology that aims to teach half of the human race to embrace a distorted and shameful self-image. 

MY READING LIST: QUO VADIS AND THE BIBLE

I just finished reading Quo Vadis? by Henryk Sienkiewicz, the Nobel-prize winning novel originally published in Poland in 1896.  The book caught my eye at Borders because I have long been a fan of the movie that was made from the book, a campy 1951 technicolor Hollywood epic, starring goody two-shoes Deborah Kerr, a wooden Robert Taylor, and a hilarious Peter Ustinov as the Emperor Nero.  The movie is worthwhile just for the Ustinov performance, and also for the corny, overwrought, epic-scale scenes of Roman decadence. 

Quo Vadis tells the story of an aristocratic Roman soldier, Vinicius, who falls madly in love with a young princess from Lygia (which is in modern-day Poland), the adoptive daughter of a distinguished Roman family.  It turns out that Lygia (she goes by the name of her homeland) is a member of a strange new sect that worships a crucified God called Chrestos, or Christ.  Meanwhile, Rome is in the grip of its mad emperor Nero, and the decadent aristocracy and masses simply try to survive from day-to-day while sating themselves on bread, circuses and the pleasures of the flesh.  The novel follows Vinicius and Lygia's adventures as he learns more about her mysterious religion.  They also have to work around the efforts of Nero and others in the imperial court to thwart their love. They struggle to survive when Nero sets fire to Rome and then persecutes the Christians as his scapegoats.  Peter and Paul make cameo appearances.

This book was right up my alley because I am fascinated by the ancient world, including ancient Christianity.  This book has three elements that made it engrossing to me: (1) detailed and sensual descriptions of every aspect of Roman life -- from the debaucheries of the Imperial court, to the teeming slums on the other side of the Tiber, to life in a well-ordered aristocratic household, to disturbingly sadistic tortures of human beings for the entertainment of the multitudes in the Coliseum; (2) strong and memorable characters, including perceptive psychological explanations of their behavior.  When the main character, Vinicius, initially tries to abduct and control the woman he loves, he can only be described as a "batterer" in modern parlance, and the book's description of his thought process strikes me as right on point in terms o f the psychology of abusive men.  The book also does an excellent job of explaining the power of Christian ideas over the early followers, especially the idea of freedom in Christ when contrasted with the enslavement of even the most "powerful" Romans to the whims of Nero.; and (3) non-stop action and suspense, particularly towards the end. 

Unfortunately, Sienkiewicz, a man of the nineteenth century, was no feminist.   My enjoyment of the book was significantly marred by his belief in and glorification of female masochism.  All three of his portrayals of women in love involved significant abuse of these women by their lovers.  There is Acte, who had been Nero's lover in her youth, only to be cast aside and forgotten, kept on only as a household slave;yet, her whole life was defined by an all-consuming love for Nero, this monster who had treated her as less than dirt.  There is Eunice, a gorgeous woman who was a slave to Petronius, and who was so in love with him that she begged him to whip her rather than to give her to another master; when Petronius finally killed himself, she decided to die with him rather than take him up on his offer to live as a free woman and heiress to his fortune.  And finally, there is Lygia herself, who falls in love with the main character, Vinicius, even as he was trying to rape and abduct her by force.  The difference between Lygia and the others is that she loved Christ more, which led her to excercise her will in a manner independent from her lover's -- but she still fell in love with him despite his appalling behavior towards her.  Still, the book is a good enough read, that I would still recommend it to both my Christian and non-Christian readers, even if you have to hold your nose during the description of these women who love to be abused. 

Next on my reading list is the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which I started on this morning.  I reckon that I have read most books in the Bible twice, what with various high school and college courses and my independent interest in the subject.  But I have never read the Bible straight through and, as a result, a lot of it is just a jumble in my mind.  As a child, I tried repeatedly to read the Bible straight through but always seemed to drop it-- the result being that I've read Genesis a million times, and I made it as far as Deutoronomy at least once.  But in my maturity, perhaps I'll do better.