Podcasts about Elizabeth Cady Stanton

This Day in Legal History: 19th Amendment Passed in SenateOn June 4, 1919, the U.S. Congress passed the 19th Amendment, marking a turning point in American constitutional and civil rights history. The amendment stated simply that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex," legally enfranchising millions of women. The road to this moment was long and contentious, spanning more than seven decades of organized activism. Early suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony laid the groundwork in the 19th century, while a new generation, including Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, employed more confrontational tactics in the 1910s.Although the House of Representatives had passed the amendment earlier in the year, the Senate had repeatedly failed to approve it. The June 4 vote in the Senate—passing by just over the required two-thirds majority—was the final congressional hurdle. The legislative victory came amid shifting national sentiment, in part due to women's contributions during World War I and growing pressure from suffrage organizations.The amendment was then sent to the states, needing ratification by three-fourths to become law. That process concluded over a year later with Tennessee's pivotal ratification on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was certified on August 26, finally making women's suffrage the law of the land. This day marks not just a legal transformation but the culmination of one of the most significant civil rights struggles in U.S. history.Disbarred attorney Tom Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for stealing $15 million in settlement funds from his clients. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton also imposed a $35,000 fine and ordered Girardi to pay over $2.3 million in restitution. The sentence followed his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud. Girardi, who turned 86 on the day of his sentencing, had sought leniency due to age, liver issues, and dementia claims, but the court found him competent and sided with prosecutors who sought a significant term.Girardi's legacy was once tied to his successful pollution suit against Pacific Gas and Electric—dramatized in the film Erin Brockovich. However, his downfall involved stealing settlement funds in various personal injury cases, including millions owed to families of victims of the 2018 Boeing 737 MAX crash. A federal judge in Chicago recently dismissed related charges, citing the active California case, though the prosecution of Girardi's son-in-law, David Lira, is still set to proceed there. Lira denies wrongdoing.At trial, Girardi blamed the fraud on Christopher Kamon, his firm's former CFO, who has already been sentenced to over ten years after pleading guilty. Girardi's attorneys continue to claim cognitive decline, but the court maintained that he was mentally fit to face justice.Lawyer Tom Girardi sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud | ReutersA federal appeals court is set to hear its first case reviewing the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Seattle as the Trump administration appeals a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The directive, signed by Trump on January 20, his first day back in office, seeks to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.Critics—including 22 Democratic attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups—argue the order violates the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland have also issued rulings blocking the order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which heard related arguments on May 15, is considering whether to limit lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions rather than deciding on the constitutionality of the policy itself.If implemented, the order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually, according to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit before the 9th Circuit was filed by several states and individual pregnant women. The three-judge panel includes two Clinton-era appointees and one Trump appointee, potentially shaping the outcome. The administration maintains that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants, a stance at odds with long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.To be clear, this case revolves around the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States,” forming the basis of birthright citizenship. The case centers on how this clause should be interpreted, making it the key constitutional question in this challenge. On the side of birthright citizenship is, frankly, the plain language of the amendment. On the side of the executive order are racists and racist people without basic reading comprehension – full stop. There is no “other side” here, and there is no real debate. Ultimately the courts may decide to pretend there is some nuance, but that changes nothing about the clear language of the amendment. Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court reviewA group of former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees has filed a class action lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk, alleging that their departments used flawed data to justify the firing of 10,000 federal workers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that HHS and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk leads, violated the 1974 Privacy Act by using inaccurate personnel records during a mass reduction in force (RIF).The plaintiffs argue that the agencies relied on data riddled with errors, including incorrect performance reviews, job descriptions, and office locations. One named plaintiff, Catherine Jackson, reportedly received an RIF notice based on false performance ratings. Another, Melissa Adams, was allegedly terminated by officials who didn't even know her work location.The lawsuit seeks at least $1,000 in damages per affected employee and a court declaration that the government's actions were unlawful. The complaint also suggests that the terminations were ideologically driven, referencing a troubling incident where an FDA employee was warned by a man invoking DOGE shortly before receiving her RIF notice.The mass firings, which began April 1, impacted key HHS agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Kennedy defended the cuts as part of a broader reorganization to address chronic disease. The plaintiffs, however, see the action as a politically motivated purge that disregarded legal safeguards.By way of brief background, the Privacy Act of 1974 mandates that federal agencies maintain accurate records when making decisions that adversely affect individuals. It is central to the lawsuit because the plaintiffs claim their terminations were based on data that was factually wrong, violating this statutory requirement.RFK Jr., Musk Accused of Using Faulty Data in Firing HHS WorkersA new conflict over federal spending power is emerging between the Trump White House and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), centered on a $5 billion electric vehicle infrastructure program. The GAO recently concluded that the Trump administration's pause of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grants—originally authorized under President Biden's 2021 infrastructure law—violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits presidents from withholding funds for policy reasons. In response, the White House issued a sharply worded memo instructing the Department of Transportation to disregard the GAO's opinion entirely.The memo, written by OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, accuses the GAO of partisan bias and undermining President Trump's “historic and lawful spending reforms.” It signals a broader strategy to challenge the authority of congressional watchdogs and reframe presidential control over budget implementation. This dispute could serve as the first legal test of Trump's intent to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act itself.The delay in EV funding is part of a broader rollback of Biden-era policy priorities, including guidance on equity and charger placement. Meanwhile, the administration has proposed over $9 billion in spending rescissions, aimed at areas like public broadcasting and foreign aid, under Trump's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Advisors have floated a tactic called “pocket rescission,” a timing strategy that critics argue violates legal requirements for obligating federal funds.This isn't the first time a president has clashed with GAO over spending powers—Trump and Biden both previously faced scrutiny for pauses in Ukraine aid and border wall funds, respectively. However, the White House's open defiance of GAO marks a significant escalation in an ongoing constitutional debate over who ultimately controls the federal purse.More specifically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch from withholding or delaying funds Congress has appropriated unless explicitly authorized. It plays a central role in this dispute, as the GAO argues Trump's delay of NEVI grants constitutes an illegal impoundment, while the administration disputes the law's constitutionality and GAO's oversight role.White House Memo on EV Grants Sets Up Fight Over Spending Power - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  House of Representatives Passes 19th AmendmentOn this day in legal history, May 21, 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. The amendment stated simply: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After decades of organizing, lobbying, and protest by suffragists—including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul—this marked a major legislative victory in the long fight for women's suffrage.The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but languished for over 40 years before gaining sufficient political traction. The context of World War I played a pivotal role; as women took on new roles in the workforce and public life during the war, their contributions made it politically difficult to deny them voting rights. President Woodrow Wilson, initially lukewarm on the issue, eventually lent his support, which helped sway key votes.Following the House vote on May 21, 1919, the amendment proceeded to the Senate, where it was passed on June 4, 1919. Ratification by the states took just over a year, with Tennessee becoming the decisive 36th state to ratify on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was officially certified on August 26, 1920.This moment was a turning point in constitutional law regarding civil rights and voting equality, setting the stage for later expansions through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and ongoing debates over voter access and gender equality.Twelve U.S. states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, and Oregon, are challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed "Liberation Day" tariffs in federal court. The states argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. They claim the law doesn't authorize tariffs and that a trade deficit does not qualify as a national emergency.The case will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which also recently heard a similar lawsuit from small businesses. Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs were harming consumers and small businesses, estimating an extra $3,800 per year in costs for the average family. The Justice Department contends that the states' claims are speculative and that only Congress can challenge a president's national emergency declaration under IEEPA.Trump's tariff program began in February with country-specific measures and escalated to a 10% blanket tariff in April, before being partially rolled back. His administration defends the tariffs as necessary for countering unfair trade practices and reviving U.S. manufacturing. Multiple lawsuits—including ones from California, advocacy groups, businesses, and Native American tribes—are challenging the tariff regime.US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is investigating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, now a leading Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, over Republican allegations that he misled Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic while in office. The inquiry reportedly stems from a referral by a GOP-led House subcommittee, which cited Cuomo's closed-door testimony before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.Cuomo's campaign says it was not notified of the probe and denounced the investigation as politically motivated "lawfare" driven by Trump allies. Critics argue the Justice Department is being used to target political opponents, while Trump and his supporters maintain that prior cases against him were politically biased. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following a state attorney general report accusing him of sexual misconduct—which he denies—is the presumed frontrunner in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary.He is set to face incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent after facing and being cleared of federal charges. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed or commented on the Cuomo probe, and his spokesperson insists the former governor testified truthfully and transparently.US Justice Department investigating former New York governor Cuomo, sources say | ReutersA federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit by the U.S. Treasury Department that aimed to cancel a labor contract with IRS workers in Covington. Judge Danny Reeves ruled that the Treasury lacked legal standing to bring the suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 73. This marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration's broader attempt to weaken federal employee union rights through an executive order.The administration had filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Texas following Trump's directive that claimed two-thirds of federal employees could be excluded from labor protections under national security grounds. In response, the NTEU filed its own legal challenge in Washington, D.C., where Judge Paul Friedman temporarily blocked the order's implementation. However, a federal appeals court later paused that injunction while the Trump administration appeals.This decision in Kentucky slows momentum for the administration's effort to restrict collective bargaining for federal workers, though related cases continue to play out in other jurisdictions. The NTEU was represented by both in-house and private attorneys, while the Justice Department defended the administration's position.Judge Tosses Treasury's Suit to Cancel Federal Worker Contract This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textHappy close to Women's History Month, listeners! Tara and EmKay dive into the rich history of women's suffrage, led in part by the incredible Matilda Joslyn Gage. Matilda worked closely with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the fight for women's equality, but was unfortunately written out of history due to her radical goal of including ALL women in the fight. On top of all that, she was the mother-in-law of one L. Frank Baum! Join as Tara and EmKay break down Angelica Shirley Carpenter's biography of Matilda, "Born Criminal," and highlight the amazing Matilda Joslyn Gage Center in Fayetteville, NY.Stay tuned for an interview with Ciarrai Eaton, Interim Executive Director of the Matilda Joslyn Gage Center, dropping this Wednesday!Show notes:Author Talk: Born Criminal- Matilda Joslyn Gage, Radical SuffragistCommemorating 100 Years of Women's Right to Vote with Sue Boland - DTYBPBook Talk: Born Criminal: Matilda Joslyn Gage, Radical Suffragist Full EventBorn Criminal: Matilda Joslyn Gage, Radical Suffragist by Angelica Shirley CarpenterVera Bradley Wicked Collection@JoliCreates Instagram@JoliCreates Tik TokInstagram: @downtheyellowbrickpod#DownTheYBPTara: @taratagticklesEmKay: www.emilykayshrader.netPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/downtheyellowbrickpodEtsy: https://www.etsy.com/market/down_the_yellow_brick_podMusic by: Shane ChapmanEdited by: Emily Kay Shrader Down the Yellow Brick Pod: A Wizard of Oz Podcast preserving the history and legacy of Oz

On July 19th, 1848, 300 female and male delegates gathered in a church in Seneca Falls, New York for America's first women's rights convention. After two days, 100 of the attendees signed the Declaration of Sentiments, a radical manifesto affirming the equality of men and women. It was the start of the women's rights revolution.Over the next two decades, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony built a movement to push for women's suffrage. They worked side by side with abolitionists, certain their causes were intertwined. But in the years after the Civil War, racial tensions broke apart the decades-old alliance between those fighting for the end of slavery and those fighting for women's voting rights. Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to American History Tellers on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-history-tellers/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Robin brings Elizabeth Cady Stanton's anti-religionist arguments up to date, exposing the New Right's campaign to eradicate democracy. Guest: best-selling investigative reporter Katherine Stewart, author of “Money, Lies, and God.”

Robin discusses and reads from the writings of the great 19th-century radical suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who lambasted religions—Christianity in particular.

“B is for bookish, for writers who urge change, like Joan Didion's essays, Naomi Shihab Nye's range.  Brilliant poems, songs, stories, speeches and plays for those writing before us and those writing today.  We know words are vital for the empathy they bring, How Maya Angelou taught us that even caged birds can sing.”  The ABCs of Women's History is an empowering picture book from the New York Times bestselling creative team behind The ABCs of Black History, Rio Cortez and Lauren Semmer. It's a vibrant intersectional celebration of women's power, resilience, and achievement, brought to life through stunning illustrations. In a beautiful picture book in verse brimming with G for Groundbreaking women, National Book Award nominee Rio Cortez and illustrator Lauren Semmer celebrate all the joys, challenges, and historic forward movement of women's history in the United States, with a special focus on the Black women, brown women, transwomen, and others who make change happen. Featured in the book are activists and changemakers like Angela Davis and Marsha P. Johnson, painters and musicians like Georgia O'Keeffe and Kathleen Hanna, scientists and suffragists like Katherine Johnson and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and so many more trailblazing women! The ABCs of Women's History is perfect for providing a conversation starter about equality, women's rights, and the brilliant women who shape our world. It's about historic moments—Kamala Harris being sworn in as the first African-American and first Asian-American Vice President of the United States; Title IX passing  through Congress; Seneca Falls, where the first women's rights convention was held; the Riot Grrrls movement; and so much more. The book is complete with backmatter that shares the details and historical context of the women featured.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

We're back for the 2024-2025 season!  And what better way to begin than to discuss the history of a sisterhood between the Haudenosaunee women and the American suffragists.  Join us as we interview Sally Roesch Wagner, noted feminist pioneer, activist and author as we discuss her book, Sisters In Spirit.The Iroquois, alternatively referred to by the endonym Haudenosaunee, are a confederacy of Native Americans and First Nations peoples in northeast North America.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage, and Lucretia Mott had formed friendships with Haudenosaunee women that enabled them to see the real possibility of creating a very different structure for their American culture, a matriarchal one, like the one that their Haudenosaunee sisters had experienced for generations. We talk to Sally Roesch Wagner about this amazing story and how she discovered this overlooked pieced of American feminist herstory.Sean Marlon Newcombe and Dawn "Sam" Alden co-host.

Meg Wolitzer presents three stories about the tricky subject of envy that question whether the grass is in fact always greener somewhere else.In Alexandra Petri's “Seneca Falls for You,” feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton almost gets trapped in a romance novel.The reader is Ophira Eisenberg.  Ben Phillipe's sly fairy tale, “The Luck of Others,” read by Joanna Gleason, reminds us to beware of what we wish for.  And a small town charity auction surfaces envy and confusion in George Saunders' “Al Roosten,” read by Tony Hale.

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment AdoptedOn August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was officially adopted, marking a pivotal moment in American history by granting women the right to vote. The Amendment, which states that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex," was the culmination of decades of activism and struggle by women's suffrage advocates. Pioneers like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many others fought tirelessly for this fundamental right, organizing rallies, petitions, and civil disobedience.The Amendment's adoption followed a lengthy ratification process, where Tennessee became the crucial 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the necessary three-fourths majority. This victory did not come easily; it was the result of a concerted effort by suffragists who faced significant opposition. The Nineteenth Amendment not only expanded the electorate but also symbolized a broader movement toward gender equality in the United States. Its passage empowered women to engage fully in the democratic process and laid the groundwork for future advances in civil rights. The legacy of the Nineteenth Amendment continues to influence social and political movements to this day.Big Law firms are rallying behind Vice President Kamala Harris by hosting high-dollar fundraising events. Sullivan & Cromwell's Rodge Cohen is organizing a New York lunch featuring Doug Emhoff, with ticket prices reaching up to $100,000. In Washington, Jenner & Block's Josh Hsu is co-hosting an evening reception where tickets are nearly $7,000. Since Harris became the Democratic frontrunner, high-profile attorneys have been mobilizing to support her campaign, with several already raising substantial sums. Notably, Mayer Brown partner Phil Recht, a Harris supporter, notes strong momentum in campaign contributions. The host committees for these events include prominent figures from Big Law and the tech industry, such as Skadden's Nina Rose and OpenAI's Johanna Shelton. The fundraising effort has seen significant engagement, with many top lawyers eager to contribute. For example, Dawn Smalls of Jenner & Block raised $100,000 in just a week, and partners at firms like Gibson Dunn and WilmerHale are actively supporting Harris through events and donations.Big Law Throwing Kamala Fundraisers with a Six-Figure Ticket TierThe U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is set to challenge Kroger's $25 billion merger with rival Albertsons in federal court, arguing that the deal would harm consumers and workers by reducing competition. The FTC's case, part of the Biden administration's broader effort to address rising consumer prices, will focus on how the merger could lead to higher grocery prices and diminish the bargaining power of unionized workers, particularly in states like California and Washington where both chains have significant overlap. This trial marks a significant test for FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has prioritized using antitrust laws to protect workers, a shift from the traditional focus on consumer prices.Kroger and Albertsons argue that the merger is necessary to compete with large multinational retailers like Walmart, Costco, and Amazon. They propose selling 579 stores to mitigate competition concerns and promise to lower grocery prices by $1 billion post-merger. However, the FTC, supported by several states, contends that the merger would lead to store closures and weakened union leverage. The trial, expected to last around three weeks, will also examine whether the proposed buyer of the divested stores, C&S Wholesale Grocers, can successfully operate them.This case is significant as it builds on the FTC's recent focus on labor market competition, following other antitrust actions that have challenged the impact of mergers on workers, such as those in the college athletics and publishing industries. The outcome could pave the way for more scrutiny of mergers based on their effects on labor markets.US FTC's bid to block Kroger-Albertsons merger heads to trial | ReutersKroger case tests FTC Chair Khan's bid to protect workers | ReutersThe US Chamber of Commerce, a conservative business organization, is urging Congress to maintain the 21% corporate tax rate and extend key provisions of the 2017 Republican-led tax law. The Chamber argues that these measures will support sustained economic growth, aiming for at least 3% annually. As Congress prepares for a major tax code overhaul next year, the Chamber is actively lobbying to preserve lower international tax rates set to increase in 2025 and to reinstate certain deductions for research and development, interest expenses, and full asset expensing. While Republicans generally support extending parts of the 2017 law, despite concerns about the growing deficit, Democrats advocate for raising the corporate tax rate to 28% and increasing taxes on the wealthy to cover the law's costs. The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School estimates that extending the law would only offset about 4.4% of its projected $4 trillion cost through economic growth.The US Chamber of Commerce is known for its conservative stance, particularly in advocating for pro-business policies and lower taxes. Historically, the Chamber has supported Republican initiatives and has often opposed regulatory measures that it views as detrimental to business interests.US Chamber to Ask Congress to Preserve 21% Corporate Tax RateCitgo Petroleum, originally founded in 1910 as Cities Service Company, became a significant player in the U.S. refining industry. In 1986, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA, purchased a controlling stake in Citgo, integrating it into Venezuela's oil export strategy. Citgo operates as a major U.S. refiner with its headquarters in Houston, Texas.Currently, Citgo is at the center of a complex legal battle in the U.S. stemming from Venezuela's expropriations and debt defaults. A U.S. federal court officer, Robert Pincus, is overseeing an auction of shares in Citgo's parent company, PDV Holding, to satisfy up to $21.3 billion in claims. These claims have resulted from international arbitration awards and issues surrounding foreign sovereign immunity, making the case particularly complex.The auction process, ongoing since 2017, has faced multiple delays due to the complexity of the bids and the unprecedented legal context. The latest extension request, the third this year, would push the deadline to September 16 for Pincus to recommend a winning bid. The leading bidders are CVR Energy, supported by investor Carl Icahn, and an investment group led by Gold Reserve, a mining company. Following the recommendation, there will be a 21-day period for objections before a final sales hearing on November 7.US court officer requests new extension to select winner of Citgo auction | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send me a text messageFinding Margaret Fuller is a fictionalized account of 19th-century feminist Margaret Fuller's life, including her influential relationships, work in women's rights, and role as the first female foreign correspondent for the New York Tribune. Despite being a mentor to significant figures like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Louisa May Alcott, Fuller remains an unsung heroine. Alison shares the process of discovering and writing about Fuller, and they discuss her profound impact on modern society despite her tragic early death. 

Last week, we learned a bit about the the Seneca Falls Convention and began reading through the declaration of sentiments written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, looking for that “about equality” vibe feminists keep telling us we should be getting from their work. So far, it's been a puerile, whiny, vitriolic mockery of the Declaration of Independence. We've trudged through similarly toxic writing by feminists and been told it's not representative of their movement, but if the manifesto of the suffragettes isn't representative, what is? Tonight, we'll continue our examination. We hope we'll find some True Feminism™ in this document, but we're not holding our breath.

In this era of scientific breakthroughs, particularly with the emergence of artificial intelligence, one would reasonably expect parallel gains in women's rights and other human rights. However, as I turn to YouTube each day and tune into the news, I'm greeted by the spectacle of a MAGA clown of a former president, grumbling and blustering during breaks in his criminal trial. Amidst his rants, I can't help but notice how the rhetoric of his supporters often undermines the progress of women's rights, casting shadows of regression over what should be an era of advancement. Amidst these complexities, there arises a pressing question: Will technology rise to the occasion and protect women's rights, or will it succumb to the encroachment of MAGA-influenced policies? With the rise of digital platforms and data analytics, there is a growing concern that technology companies could play a role in monitoring and policing women's reproductive choices. Algorithms and data-driven systems could potentially be used to track individuals' online activities, flagging those seeking information or support related to abortion services. This raises significant ethical and privacy concerns, as it could infringe upon women's autonomy and privacy rights. In this article, I delve into the reasons why technological innovation has not necessarily advanced women's rights, by drawing comparisons between MAGA World policies in the United States and traditional practices in some Muslim communities. Through this personal analysis, I aim to uncover how distinctly different cultural and political landscapes shape the discourse on gender equality. This exploration not only highlights the stark contrasts but also the surprising parallels that explain the persistent challenges and slow progress in the realm of women's rights. Historical Context The women's rights movement in the United States has a rich history that dates back to the 19th century, marked by pivotal moments such as the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 and the enactment of the 19th Amendment in the 1920s, which secured women the right to vote. Over the decades, the movement has broadened its scope to include issues like reproductive rights, equal pay, and gender equality across various domains of life. Similarly, in Muslim-majority countries, the quest for women's rights has also seen considerable progress, deeply influenced by both Islamic teachings and local cultural traditions. Efforts in these regions have primarily focused on enhancing legal rights, educational opportunities, and political participation for women, often within the larger fabric of social and political reform. The approach to women's rights within the Republican Party in the United States has seen significant evolution. Early figures in the party, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were instrumental in the women's suffrage movement. However, the party's stance on women's rights has shifted over time, reflecting changes in political ideologies and social movements. In traditional Muslim societies, the evolution of women's rights reflects a dynamic balance between Islamic principles and cultural practices. While some Muslim-majority countries have achieved notable advances in areas like education and employment for women, challenges persist, particularly in legal rights and achieving full gender equality. These developments underscore the complex and evolving nature of women's rights, influenced by a confluence of historical, cultural, and political factors. MAGA Impact: Women's Rights Revisited Under the banner of the Trump lead MAGA movement, the former US Republican Party has outlined a series of policies and positions impacting women's rights. These policies span a range of issues including abortion, healthcare, employment, and education, often underpinned by a strong emphasis on traditional family values and individual freedoms. In healthcare, MAGAs have pushed for measures that restrict access to abortion...

In 1848, about 300 activists met in Seneca Falls, New York, for the first convention in the United States devoted to women's rights. They discussed Elizabeth Cady Stanton's proposed Declaration of Sentiments, which mirrored the language of the Declaration of Independence. Center for Civic Education

New York Times Bestselling author Allison Pataki joins me on the show today to talk about her latest release, Finding Margaret Fuller. We discussed Margaret's place in history, the many famous transcendentalist writers she was connected to, and her influence on the U.S. feminist movement. We also talked about Allison's research process, including her visit to Concord and Walden Pond and how real historical figures morph into a characters in her novels. Here's a description of the novel: Massachusetts, 1836. Young, brazen, beautiful, and unapologetically brilliant, Margaret Fuller accepts an invitation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, the celebrated “Sage of Concord,” to meet his coterie of enlightened friends shaping a nation in the throes of its own self-discovery. By the end of her stay, she will become “the radiant genius and fiery heart” of the Transcendentalists, a role model to young Louisa May Alcott, an inspiration to Nathaniel Hawthorne's character of Hester Prynne and the scandalous Scarlet Letter, a friend to Henry David Thoreau as he ventures into the woods of Walden Pond . . . and a muse to Emerson himself. But Margaret craves more than poetry and interpersonal drama, and she finds her restless soul in need of new challenges and adventure. And so she charts a singular course against a backdrop of dizzying historical drama: From Boston, where she hosts a women-only literary salon for students like Elizabeth Cady Stanton; to the editorial meetings of The Dial magazine, where she hones her pen as its co-founder; to Harvard's library, where she is the first woman to study within its walls; to the gritty New York streets where she spars with Edgar Allan Poe and reports on the writings of Frederick Douglass. Margaret defies conventions time and again as an activist for women and an advocate for humanity, earning admirers and scathing critics alike. When the legendary Horace Greeley offers an assignment in Europe, Margaret again makes history as the first female foreign news correspondent, mingling with luminaries like Frederic Chopin, Walt Whitman, George Sand, and more. But it is in Rome where she finds a world of passion, romance, and revolution, taking a Roman count as a lover—and sparking an international scandal. Evolving yet again into the roles of mother and countess, Margaret enters a new fight for Italy's unification. With a star-studded cast and epic sweep of historical events, this is a story of an inspiring trailblazer, a woman who loved big and lived even bigger—a fierce adventurer who transcended the rigid roles ascribed to women, and changed history for millions, all on her own terms. Purchase Finding Margaret Fuller on Amazon (affiliate). Check out Allison's website, and follow her on Facebook, and Instagram. Ways you can help the show: Join the Historical Fiction: Unpacked Podcast Group on Facebook! Be sure to visit my Instagram, Facebook, and website. Subscribe to my mailing list here. Follow the show on Instagram! Purchase Alison's historical novel, One Traveler (affiliate). Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. If you click an affiliate link and make a purchase, you help support my work without paying any more for the product. Thank you for your support!

Discover the indelible mark Harriet Tubman left on history as we honor her and the countless women who've paved the way to freedom and equality. This episode is a tribute to the fearlessness and fortitude of those who've battled for justice, with a special focus on Tubman's journey from slavery to becoming an icon of the abolitionist and suffragist movements. By walking side by side with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and in the company of other trailblazers like Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, and Rosa Parks, Tubman's story is a testament to the power of unwavering dedication in the face of adversity. Join us in a celebration of Women's History Month, as we draw parallels between past and present struggles and share how Tubman's legacy still inspires change and action today.Feel the weight of history and the strength of conviction in our meditative chapter designed to connect us with the legacy of Harriet Tubman and her enduring influence on the fight for justice. Engage in a visceral meditation that guides us down the harrowing paths forged by Tubman and her contemporaries, and reflect on how we can embody their spirit in our current battle for a more equitable society. This episode invites contemplation and motivates action, urging us to express gratitude for our historical heroines and to consider the role we all play in continuing their work. Let the courage of these extraordinary women resonate within you and inspire your own contributions to the ongoing narrative of women's rights.Support the showhttps://chat.openai.com/g/g-8E47AuJfB-life-points-assistanthttps://FaceBook.com/Lifepointswithronda1https://youtube.com/@lifepointswithronda2968https://TikTok.com/@lifepointswithrondahttps://Instagram.com/@lifepointswithrondahttps://Patreon.com/@lifepointswithrondahttps://Lifepointswithronda.com

EPISODE 105 | Capitol Assets: Weird DC (Travelogue 4) Guest: Fayge Horesh, co-creator, writer and host of the D Listers of History podcast, and licensed tour guide Washington D.C. is an interesting place and, like many cities, has some oddities. We take a look at some of the things around town that might not be obvious at first glance, like (not-so secret) tunnels, ghost cats, strange clocks, hollow domes, street plans, statues, snipers, protected trees, food trucks and more. Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee. #ConspiracyClearinghouse #sharingiscaring #donations #support #buymeacoffee You can also SUBSCRIBE to this podcast. Review us here or on IMDb! SECTIONS 03:42 - Making the past accessible, Daniel of Beccles, Father Divine, traces of history, Deep Throat in Rosslyn 06:35 - Pierre L'Enfant's plans, Masonic symbols, quadrants, a hidden pentagram, Benjamin Banneker's thighs, DC once had canals (gross ones) 14:03 - Street plan as weather control machine yet the weather is terrible, underground tunnels (one open to the public), the Ghost Cat, no sitting on the floor, the Capitol Dome is hollow 21:37 - The Women's Portrait Monument, so many statues 23:43 - Snipers and other security, food truck a-go-go 28:33 - The NIST Newton Apple Tree in International Park, don't linger in front of the former Iran Embassy, clocks and time in Friendship Heights, conspiracy theories are distractions, Chinatown has very few Chinese people 36:55 - Explore your city and embrace the weirdness Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info D Listers of History podcast 'Merican Monuments (Travelogue 2) episode The world of Daniel of Beccles D Listers episode Book of the Civilized Man by Daniel of Beccles article A Brief History of Pierre L'Enfant and Washington, D.C. in Smithsonian Grand Avenues: The Story of Pierre Charles L'Enfant on the Virginia Museum of History & Culture Benjamin Banneker: The Black Tobacco Farmer Who the Presidents Couldn't Ignore on the White House Historical Association Capitol Building Tunnel System What lies beneath DC? Many more tunnels than you might think! The D.C. Underground Atlas Demon Cat: the tale of a wanderlust feline ghost Make America Ghostly Again: The Demon Cat of Washington D.C.  Does The Demon Cat Still Haunt Washington's Capitol Hill? Bells, Buzzers, Clicks and Clocks Congressional Clocks Have a Secret Code on Atlas Obscura Capitol Illumination Inside the Capitol Dome Hidden Congress: An Alternative Tour of the U.S. Capitol Apotheosis of Washington Leaders in Equality: The Portrait Monument Portrait Monument to Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony The Suffragist Statue Trapped in a Broom Closet for 75 Years How Security Measures In Washington, D.C., Have Changed Since 9/11  12 Best Washington DC Food Trucks on Female Foodie Find food trucks in DC on Roaming Hunger What happened to D.C.'s food trucks? The answer says much about the ‘new normal.' NIST Newton Apple Tree Where To Find The Most Unusual Trees In D.C. After the arena came, the Asian population of Washington's Chinatown shrank 269 Cool, Hidden, and Unusual Things to Do in Washington, D.C. Follow us on social: Facebook Twitter Other Podcasts by Derek DeWitt DIGITAL SIGNAGE DONE RIGHT - Winner of a 2022 Gold Quill Award, 2022 Gold MarCom Award, 2021 AVA Digital Award Gold, 2021 Silver Davey Award, 2020 Communicator Award of Excellence, and on numerous top 10 podcast lists.  PRAGUE TIMES - A city is more than just a location - it's a kaleidoscope of history, places, people and trends. This podcast looks at Prague, in the center of Europe, from a number of perspectives, including what it is now, what is has been and where it's going. It's Prague THEN, Prague NOW, Prague LATER

Welcome back to another thought-provoking episode of 8 At The Table! In this installment, join hosts Erin The Renegade, Rico Hundo, Amanda, and special guest Smooth from the Cook' N Up Podcast as they delve deep into the contentious topic of "Who Started The Gender War?" Smooth sets the stage by sharing insights from his podcast, discussing gatekeepers and cooking chef-stay meals before diving into the heart of the matter. The panel engages in a lively conversation about the historical context surrounding gender dynamics, drawing parallels to significant moments such as the enactment of the New York State Married Women's Property Bill in 1848. Did you know that as a result of concerted efforts, married women gained the right to own property, keep their own wages, and even secure custody of their children? The impact of trailblazers like Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who championed more liberal divorce laws in New York, cannot be understated. Throughout the episode, the cast explores various facets of gender equality, from the challenges of single motherhood versus single fatherhood to broader societal implications. Join us as we navigate through history, reflecting on past struggles and contemplating the path forward.

Welcome back to another thought-provoking episode of 8 At The Table! In this installment, join hosts Erin The Renegade, Rico Hundo, Amanda, and special guest Smooth from the Cook' N Up Podcast as they delve deep into the contentious topic of "Who Started The Gender War?" Smooth sets the stage by sharing insights from his podcast, discussing gatekeepers and cooking chef-stay meals before diving into the heart of the matter. The panel engages in a lively conversation about the historical context surrounding gender dynamics, drawing parallels to significant moments such as the enactment of the New York State Married Women's Property Bill in 1848. Did you know that as a result of concerted efforts, married women gained the right to own property, keep their own wages, and even secure custody of their children? The impact of trailblazers like Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who championed more liberal divorce laws in New York, cannot be understated. Throughout the episode, the cast explores various facets of gender equality, from the challenges of single motherhood versus single fatherhood to broader societal implications. Join us as we navigate through history, reflecting on past struggles and contemplating the path forward.

Margaret Sanger. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Gloria Steinem. Feminism, represented by women such as these, has held a lot of influence in our world - but it is, in reality, a cancer that undermines God's plan for women. In this sermon, Pastor Jesse unpacks Col. 3-18, walking us through Paul's instructions for wives to submit to their husbands. You'll see how submission is not demeaning or an excuse for male chauvinism, but is instead a Christian way of life for every believer. And you'll discover how submission is, ultimately, a beautiful picture of the Gospel.

Margaret Sanger. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Gloria Steinem. Feminism, represented by women such as these, has held a lot of influence in our world - but it is, in reality, a cancer that undermines God's plan for women. In this sermon, Pastor Jesse unpacks Col. 3:18, walking us through Paul's instructions for wives to submit to their husbands. You'll see how submission is not demeaning or an excuse for male chauvinism, but is instead a Christian way of life for every believer. And you'll discover how submission is, ultimately, a beautiful picture of the Gospel.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1027, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Finish The Terrible Rhyme 1: "Diplomacy in action", which really does sound great / Is on the website of the cabinet department that we call.... State. 2: Killing a dragon named python at Delphi, is that too much to swallow? / It wasn't odd for this Greek god, the one known as.... Apollo. 3: To gather, rouse or summon / You better believe it, buster / It's this word that will be heard / This is the word you'll.... muster. 4: "Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel" was not writ just to shame us / It is, however, right here now, from the Bible's book of.... Amos. 5: "The best is the enemy of the good"--no dolt, there / It must be the enlightened author, Monsieur.... Voltaire. Round 2. Category: Detroit: News Clues 1: (I'm Kimberly Gill.) Detroit was often the last stop before freedom on this network, and the Second Baptist Church, still a vibrant house of worship, was an important station. the Underground Railroad. 2: (I'm Rhonda Walker.) Speaking in Tiger Stadium in 1990, four months after his release from prison, this man quoted Marvin Gaye, "Brother, brother, there's far too many of you dying". Nelson Mandela. 3: (I'm Devin Scillian.) On October 3, 1997, the International Hockey League's Detroit Vipers welcomed a new teammate playing in his sixth decade; this 69-year-old ex-Red Wing, Alex Trebek's hero, took a 46-second shift in his very last pro game. Gordie Howe. 4: (I'm Evrod Cassimy.) After GM's president told Detroit car executives, "We must outbuild Hitler", Ford's Willow Run plant churned out the B-24 Liberator, a 4-engine this type of warplane at an unbelievable rate of one per hour. a bomber. 5: (I'm Kimberly Gill.) December 10, 2014 was a bright day in a long saga as Detroit officially exited the largest municipal one of these in the history of the United States, and emergency manager Kevyn Orr's resignation took effect. a bankruptcy. Round 3. Category: You Can'T 1: ...buy more of the golden Kellogg's cereal named for this "Star Wars" droid; it was discontinued years ago. C-3PO. 2: ...move this kind of big rock if it's on public property in the Colorado city of the same name; the municipal code says no. a boulder. 3: ...change gears in a manual transmission auto without first disengaging and then re-engaging this. the clutch. 4: ...go boating in Owens Lake near the California-Nevada border; it dried up in the 1920s after its water was sent to this city. Los Angeles. 5: ...visit Swaziland any more; in 2018 it changed its name to this. Eswatini. Round 4. Category: Friend Like Me 1: Mary Lincoln said her "best living friend" was her dressmaker Lizzie Keckley, who'd bought her own way out of this. slavery. 2: This physicist wrote a foreword to the bio of his German pal Emanuel Lasker, world chess champ from 1896 to 1921. Einstein. 3: Marilyn Monroe adored this jazz great and helped her get a booking at a Hollywood hot spot. Ella Fitzgerald. 4: George Vancouver named the highest point in Washington state for his friend Pete, this British admiral. (Peter) Rainier. 5: Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote a celebratory poem for the 80th birthday of this "life-long friend" and fellow crusader. Susan B. Anthony. Round 5. Category: Flag 'Em Down 1: The Alamo is located in this city and is depicted on its flag. San Antonio. 2: This descriptive nickname of the U.S. flag was coined by Francis Scott Key. the Star-Spangled Banner. 3: The

Today's episode features: Activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton Sponsored by ⁠⁠⁠2 Complicated 4 History⁠⁠⁠ Produced by ⁠Primary Source Media⁠

On this day in legal history, November 6, 1917, New York state adopted a state constitutional amendment granting the vote to women. On November 6, 1917, a pivotal moment in legal history unfolded as the state of New York adopted Amendment 1, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, which granted women equal voting rights. This landmark decision was the culmination of nearly seven decades of tireless advocacy since the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848​. The suffrage movement in New York was spearheaded by notable figures such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth, among others, who were instrumental in pushing for this change.The approval of women's suffrage in New York was significant not only for the state but also for the national movement, setting a precedent three years prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which would grant women the right to vote across the United States​. The efforts of suffragists like Alice Paul, who demonstrated and were arrested for protesting outside the White House, were crucial in influencing President Wilson to support what would eventually become the 19th Amendment​.This adoption represented a significant leap forward for women's rights and was a testament to the dedicated activism of the suffrage movement. New York's decision to enfranchise women was a critical step towards the broader national recognition of women's suffrage, reinforcing the state's role as a leader in the fight for gender equality.Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, a venerable New York law firm with a storied 150-year history, has commenced layoffs of 140 employees as it initiates its dissolution. Founded in 1876, Stroock became a legal institution, renowned for its work in corporate and financial law, with offices across the United States. Despite its longevity and the respect garnered in legal circles, reflected in its attorneys' recognition in industry publications, the firm faced an insurmountable crisis leading to a mass exodus of partners to Hogan Lovells and an eventual vote by the remaining partners to dissolve the firm in late October 2023​. The firm's closure marks the end of an era for a law firm that once played a pivotal role in New York's legal landscape, having advised multinational corporations and cultivated long-standing relationships with Wall Street's financial companies since its early days​.Stroock to Lay Off 140 Employees in New York as Firm CollapsesPrivate equity firms are seeking legal advice regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) new policy on M&A disclosures, which offers a safe harbor for self-reporting misconduct. This new initiative provides a clearer path for buyers to avoid prosecution and is causing a stir among companies that are habitual acquirers. The policy resonates due to clearer self-reporting timelines and is under scrutiny for potentially increasing M&A activity, which some criticize for fostering market concentration. The DOJ now gives companies six months post-acquisition to self-report for declinations and a year to rectify misconduct. This has prompted companies to be more diligent in due diligence, with law firms coordinating corporate and white-collar expertise to advise on identifying potential offenses during this process. While some lawyers don't see this as a significant change, it does offer more concrete guidance for in-house compliance and could encourage more rigorous post-acquisition reviews. However, the complexity of deciding to self-disclose remains, with reputational and investigative costs being significant considerations.Private Equity Seeks Legal Guidance on New M&A Disclosure PolicyThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The appeal comes after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional, influenced by the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which dictates that gun laws must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. While gun rights advocates back the challenge, the Biden administration, some prosecutors, and former state chief justices argue for the law's necessity in protecting domestic violence victims. The case has crossed typical partisan lines, with some conservative figures supporting the law and public defenders, typically liberal, challenging it on grounds of over-criminalization and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court's decision will address the balance between gun rights and public safety in cases of domestic violence.Guns rights and domestic violence protections collide at US Supreme Court | ReutersElon Musk's restructuring of Twitter, now referred to as 'X', has significantly impacted disinformation research. Over 100 studies were canceled or altered due to limited access to Twitter's data, affecting researchers' ability to analyze misinformation spread during critical events. A previously free data tool used by researchers was discontinued in a cost-cutting move, with paid tiers now too expensive for most academics. This has led to concerns about the ability to conduct research ahead of major elections. Musk's legal action against the Center for Countering Digital Hate has also instilled fear of legal repercussions among researchers, further stifling independent scrutiny of the platform's handling of disinformation. This comes amid investigations by the EU into Twitter's compliance with new internet laws, which demand access to data for researchers under certain conditions.Elon Musk's X restructuring curtails disinformation research, spurs legal fears | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Amendments Beyond the Bill of Rights. 1. The Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, is a pivotal component of the post-Civil War amendments. It prohibits the denial of voting rights based on an individual's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Significance: The Fifteenth Amendment sought to enfranchise African American men who had been denied the right to vote in many parts of the United States due to racial discrimination and the legacy of slavery. It was a significant step toward achieving civil rights and political participation. Example: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, draws its authority from the Fifteenth Amendment. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices like literacy tests and poll taxes. 2. The Nineteenth Amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote. It marked a substantial expansion of suffrage and women's rights. Significance: The Nineteenth Amendment recognized the importance of gender equality in a democracy and extended the right to vote to over half of the U.S. population, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy. Example: The women's suffrage movement, characterized by activists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, played a significant role in advocating for the Nineteenth Amendment. 3. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It was a response to concerns about young people being drafted into the military to fight in the Vietnam War while not having the right to vote. Significance: This amendment recognized that individuals aged 18 to 20 who could be drafted into the military should also have the right to vote. It underscored the importance of equal representation and participation in the democratic process. Example: In the case of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Congress's authority to lower the voting age, setting an important precedent. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions. The interpretation of constitutional provisions is a dynamic process that shapes how the Constitution is applied to contemporary issues. The Supreme Court plays a central role in this process by rendering decisions that clarify the meaning of the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases have significantly influenced the interpretation of the Constitution. Here are a few examples: Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws or actions of the government unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This case declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine. Roe v. Wade (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This case held that political spending by corporations is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Precedent in Shaping Constitutional Law. The doctrine of precedent, often referred to as "stare decisis," plays a critical role in shaping constitutional law. It means that courts should follow previous decisions, particularly those made by higher courts, when deciding similar cases. Significance: Precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system. When a case is decided based on precedent, it helps maintain the rule of law and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. Example: The principle of "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), setting a new precedent that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts I'm so delighted to present you with an interview I did with Professor Nancy Pearcey, an author whose books have significantly helped me understand and live out my faith better. Today we're talking about masculinity. Have you noticed the critical and uncharitable tone in our culture towards men? Although our society celebrates women and girls who excel at sports, education, and business, men and boys often receive nothing but criticism, even outright hostility. Some even say masculine men are the cause of all the problems with the world. Listen in as I ask Pearcey about her recent book and how Christians should approach the whole issue of masculinity both biblically and historically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOmzSm2_4RI Here are my 8 myths about masculinity that Pearcey responded to in this episode: Bible-believing Christians are slightly more likely to divorce than non-Christians or liberal Christians. Bible-believing Christian men are more likely to be harsh and abusive to their wives and children The Bible's endorsement of male patriarchy causes toxic masculine behaviors. Women initiated the suffragette movement in America because they wanted to be treated as individuals of equal value. Our time is the first when women in America have publicly accused men of toxic behavior. Men have traditionally worked outside of the home and have been the breadwinners. Traditionally women focused on keeping the home and raising the children rather than contributing economically. Blocking or limiting men's testosterone will solve the problems our society has with badly behaved men. Professor Nancy Pearcey is the author of The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes,as well as Love Thy Body,The Soul of Science, Saving Leonardo, Finding Truth, and Total Truth. She is professor and scholar in residence at Houston Christian University. She's been quoted in The New Yorker and Newsweek, highlighted as one of the five top women apologists by Christianity Today, and hailed in The Economist as "America's preeminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual." —— Links —— Get The Toxic War on Masculinity here More about Pearcey at NancyPearcey.com Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Transcript —— This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode. Sean Finnegan: Hey there I'm Sean Finnegan, and you are listening to Restitutio podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity put out today. I'm so delighted to present you with an interview I did with Professor Nancy Pearcy, an author whose books have significantly helped me understand and live out my faith better. Today. We're talking about masculinity. Have you ever noticed the critical and uncharitable tone in our culture towards men? Although our society celebrates? Women and girls who excel at sports, education and business men and boys often receive nothing but criticism, even outright hostility. Some even say masculine men are the cause. Of all the. Problems with the world listen in as I ask Piercy about her recent book and how Christians should approach the whole issue of masculinity, both biblically and historically. Here now is episode 515, The Toxic War on masculinity. With Professor Nancy Pearcy. Today on the show, I'm joined by Professor Nancy Pearcy. She's the author of the Toxic War on masculinity, how Christianity reconciles the sexes, as well as love thy body, the soul of science, saving Leonardo, finding truth and total truth, publish some other books and articles that I I don't have listed here, but she's a professor and scholar. And residence at Houston Christian University. She's been quoted in The New Yorker and Newsweek highlighted as. One of the five. Top women apologists by Christianity Today and hailed in the Economist as America's preeminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual. Well, Nancy Piercy, welcome to Restitutio. Nancy Pearcey:Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Sean Finnegan:So I first came. Across your work, when a friend of. Mine told me. He loved told Truth. So much that he read that book every year that intrigued me, I got to read it myself. Was really interested in the. Whole world view. Approach and but it was really the the love thy body book that hooked me. I really enjoyed this one. I think it was 2018. Such an interesting book, it hooked me and so now this new book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, has outdone them all, in my opinion. This is such a fascinating read. I've learned so much about the history of masculinity in America, which I was not expecting. I just thought it was just another culture war book, which I'm happy to read anyhow. But this was really a lot deeper and I found it very challenging, especially the last. The last whole section. You you really challenged husbands in a healthy way. I felt challenged and I've tried to make some changes in my my marriage with my wife and get get a little more involved and so forth. But so I just want to say thanks for courageously stepping out on the limb here and writing this book. Nancy Pearcey:Well, thank you and I didn't realize when I started that it was going to take courage to tell you the truth, but it has in fact been the most controversial book that I've ever written. I really thought love thy body would be more controversial because it deals with issues like abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, which is really exploding today. But in fact. This one caused more controversy, at least in Christian Circle. Here's an example. When I was writing the manuscript, I taught several classes on it. I LED several leading groups. I like to get lots of feedback, rub off all the rough edges, and when they would tell their family and friends about it. So people who weren't actually seeing the book just hearing about it initially, their first question was always. Whose side is she on with that tone? Whose side is she? On and by. The way the second question was always and why is a woman writing a book on masculinity any. Sean Finnegan:Right. Nancy Pearcey:So this is what I was up against all through the writing process. I rewrote that first chapter multiple times because I had to sort of overcome that suspicion that almost hostility that people have when they just, they're just triggered by the word masculinity. So and and even after the book came out. I. Don't know if you followed. Twitter it all but the day after the book came out, it was jumped on by a Christian egalitarians. Who accused me of giving ammunition their word to complementarians, even though I don't even address that in the book. I even explain why I don't you, you know, because the social scientist said it doesn't seem to make much difference. So I'm giving you data from the social scientist and then once that calmed down, I started getting. Not nearly as not nearly as vicious, but some counter attacks from conservatives as well. So all I had to say it has something to make everyone angry, I guess. Sean Finnegan:Yes, yes and. And and everyone should read it and. See see what it says because it is. It's accessible, but it's also very evidence based and I really appreciated that. Nancy Pearcey:Yeah, yeah, it's the. Most fact based book I've written, so it starts with evidence from sociology and what Christian men are actually like. What are they like? Get rid of the, you know, the accusations back and forth. What are they actually like? Let's look at the social science data where they went out and actually surveyed. Tentacles and then as you mentioned a minute ago, there's a lot of history there too because I wanted. To show where the secular definition of masculinity comes from. As you know, since you've read my books, I'm an apologist at heart. So my goal really is to answer the charges from the secular world. It's secular world that says, you know. Masculinity is toxic, and if you want to counter any social trend, you need to ask where did it come from? How did it develop? And so that's really my goal, is to get to the bottom of the secular. Charges understand where they're coming from and how we can respond to them more effectively. Sean Finnegan:I appreciate that your book is not just masculinity. According to Nancy Pearcy. And what you crazy guys should change or something like that, you know, it's it's very much historical. It's broad in its approach and it is very research based, and it seemed like you were very circumspect not to inject. Your own opinion? Don't think I encountered your own opinion very much. It was just like this is what these people did. This is what this this movement contributed and so forth. Very objective, if I can put it that way. So you'll be commended on that. Your book confronts a number of lies and half truths and false stereotypes floating around in the culture today. So I thought we could get your response to a number of incorrect statements I've concocted. And so these are sentences that on their surface appear obviously true, but when examined closely, turn out to be false. So I've written 10. I don't know how many we can get to in this conversation, but what do you think you Are you ready to debunk some false myths? Nancy Pearcey:Yes, I loved reading your list, so I'd love to get started on your list of false accusations that we often hear, especially against Christian men. Sean Finnegan:Alright, so #1. Bible believing Christians are slightly more likely to divorce than non Christians or liberal Christians. Nancy Pearcey:Yeah. So talking about Twitter feed, I've gotten that several times in recent days, and it's also something that we hear in the church, right. In fact, that's probably the first pushback I get is that don't Christians divorced at the same rate of the rest of the culture or even? And higher. And so the sociologists were looking at accusations like that. And So what they did is they did the studies, they did the studies. And here's what they found. They made a careful distinction between evangelical men who are actually committed to their faith, who are who attend church regularly versus nominal Christian men. And that distinction made all the difference, because committed Christian men actually test out the best of all groups in America in. Other words, they. Test test out as the most loving husbands and fathers their wives test out the highest in terms of saying they feel. Happy with their husband's expressions of love and affection, evangelical fathers spend the most time with their children 3.5 more hours per week than secular men, both in shared activities like sports or church youth group, and in discipline, like setting limits on screen time or enforcing bedtime. Evangelical couples actually divorce at a lower rate than any other major group in society, 35% lower than secular men, and they have the lowest rates of domestic violence. Of any group. In America, so this was a real shocker because we've all heard the charges that you just met. That believing in any form of male headship in the home turns evangelical men into overbearing, tyrannical, coercive patriarchs tyrannical. Did I say, tyrannical, trying to get all those? Words in there? Yeah. I mean, there's there's no. Sean Finnegan:Question that, as a pastor who regularly preaches, I'm the lead pastor here at a. Church in New York, Upstate New York, and this stat has it says torment to me. You know, this idea that the Bible doesn't work if you apply the Bible to your marriage, you divorce more, something that really has not fit for me. But I I'm the sort of person that wants to accept. Facts as they are and see if we can do better. And so reading that early on in your book that actually, no, the Bible is not hurting marriages is is helping men to be well not just men men and women to stay together more frequently. That was just like mind blowing it was just like this is. This is a breath of fresh air and I think it's a great. Place to start because you are. Wading into treacherous waters where there are All kinds of. Sharks and piranha and electric eels out to get you. So I think to start somewhere complementary is good because that does make sense to me that like guys that and women that are regularly attending church services. As as a a measurement of how serious they are about their faith that it that it would have an impact. So I I appreciate that on my next statement. You already just kind of dipped your toes into it, but I I wonder if you could elaborate it. It is #2 is Bible believing Christian men are more likely to be harsh and abusive to their wives and children. Nancy Pearcey:Let's go back to that distinction. When I said Church going committed Christian men test out at the top. And by the way, I'm glad you mentioned that we don't hear this very often. I had to go digging in the academic literature to find this, and this is really the final reason. You know, the final trigger that made me decide to write this book as I was, I was overwhelmed. I was. And you know it's it's so counter to the media narratives. And I said we need. To get this. Out there, this is not just a religious figure, you know, giving a pep talk. This is evidence based findings from the social sciences. But the reason that we have the wrong impression is that the social scientists went back and made that crucial distinction. Of nominal Christians, right? These are men who, on a survey like that, might check the Baptist box, for example, but who rarely, if ever, attend church. It's no more of a family background, coastal background. These are cultural. And they test out shockingly different. They test out with all the toxic stereotypes. They'll rise, report the lowest level of happiness with their husband's treatment of them. They spend the least amount of time with their children. They have the highest rate of divorce, higher than secular men, 20%. Higher than secular men and they have the highest rate of domestic abuse and violence, higher than secular men. And so what's happened is most studies have just looked at evangelicals, you know, as an overarching category. So they're picking up men who are better than secular men and men who are worse than secular men. And that's why the numbers get skewed. It does suggest a different way, maybe that churches can deal with this issue. On the one hand, I think they should be more positive and supportive. Of men who are doing a good job, one of my graduate students is the leader of a women's ministry in a large Baptist Church here in Houston. And she said on on Mother's Day, we hand out flowers and tell the women they're wonderful. On Father's Day, we scold the men and tell. Them to do better. And so I was very careful not to have a scolding tone in this book because I think we should get this positive information out there. Ohh, and here's another example. So in my class at Houston Christian University, when I told them I was writing a book on masculinity, one of the male students shot back what masculinity? It's been beaten. All of us. So in Christian circles, men are also feeling beaten down and demoralized. You know, they're picking up the message. You know that that, that masculinity is toxic and we need to come to. That in the church it does suggest too, that we need to do something about these nominal men if they're sort of hanging around the fringes of the Christian world and claiming an identity. As evangelicals, how do we reach out to them? They are using the language of headship and submission, but they're not giving the biblical meaning to those terms. Instead, they're imputing me importing, meaning infusing meaning from the secular script for masculinity. And so how do we disciple these men? You know, insofar as we have access to them because they're hanging around? You know, the edges of the Christian world? How can the church have a better ministry to disciple these men? Sean Finnegan:That's that's really an excellent question to address because it's these guys on the fringe, as you point out that. The old fashioned word for it are hypocrites. You know, there are people that are going to talk the talk but not walk the walk and they're giving the rest of us a bad name. And yet as a pastor, I can tell you that we are hopeful that by having them come whenever it is, they happen to come, that something will sink in and. That they will have a true. Heart change, you know. So I I think. It's a hard thing to figure out. We can't just cast everyone out of the church who's not living up to the standard of Christianity. Some churches have tried that, but it, you know, it, it ends up with this very judgmental, you know, holier than thou kind of environment. So. It you're right, it is. It is a really thorny problem. Problem but it is important to address for. Sure. Well, let's. Let's move on to number. Three. So the Bible is endorsement of male patriarchy, we're told causes toxic masculine behaviors. What do you think? Nancy Pearcey:Yes, that that's one of the reasons that I relied so heavily on the social science data. What was happening was, of course, evangelical men were being held up. Exhibit A of toxic masculinity. It was very easy to find examples with a quick Google search, but I will give you just one example. So this was the co-founder of the Church 2 Movement, which came after the Me Too movement and she said the theology of male headship feeds the rape culture. That we see permeating American Christianity Today. So what happened was the social scientists, psychologists, sociologists were reading these accusations and saying, oh, where's your evidence? You know you're making these charges, but where's your data? Yeah. And that's what really sent them back to the data to do the studies in my book, I cite some dozen studies or so. I was just looking at what the social scientists were actually finding. Like, some people have said, well, wait a minute. Who cares what the social scientists found? I want to know what the spokesman say. What did the theologians say? What does this Danvers statement say? For example, which is on complementarianism egalitarianism, and so on, and and frankly, that's not what I was concerned about. I don't want to hear what the spokesman. I wanted to answer the secular charge, which is, if you believe in this theology, it will turn you into an overbearing, tyrannical, coercive Patriarch. And my question was, does it does it? Let's look at what it does do, in fact, in terms of these surveys of evangelical couples. And so I have two chapters on this. And I was to tell you the truth. I was again. I was blown away by the the. Surveys the surveys where they went to Christian couples and said, do you believe in male headship and not all? But the majority of the evangelicals would say yes and then they would say what do you think it means? How do you live it out? I was blown away. The loving, respectful, mutual understanding that they had of headship. They would not usually define it in terms of, you know, the final authority or the tiebreaker or the bread. Dinner, the most frequent definition, was spiritual leader, spiritual leader, and then they'd be asked, what does that mean? And of course, they would start with the practical things, get your family to church, get your kids to youth group, have family devotions and family prayer. But it also most of them would talk about the intangibles as well, right? That you're responsible for your children's spiritual growth. You're responsible for your wives, spiritual health and the most frequent verse they quoted was Ephesians 5. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. That might not sound significant to you, but when I had chapters later on abuse in Christian homes, I literally ran into people who said they never heard that verse, one woman who said I had to go look it up in the Bible. I didn't believe it was there. I had never heard a sermon on Ephesians 5, the part of it. That is addressed to husbands, and there was another example where there's a pastor who works with abusive men in court ordered counseling. Most abusive men are not in counseling unless it's court ordered, but this is a Christian pastor and he was working with a man who was abusive and and his wife had actually fled the home to escape from his physical abuse. And he kept quoting the first part of Effusions 5. She's supposed to submit to me. This is wrong. She can't leave. The home and he. And so the pastor said, well, what about this other part of it? She didn't. And he said the man was shocked. Kid never heard the part of Ephesians 5 that was addressed to husbands. And so that's why it's so significant that the committed Christian men and couples. That was what they quoted all the time. Ephesians 5. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. And so I went to the actual studies. The surveys done of Christian couples to see. How do you live it out? What do you? Think it means. That's what I report in. The book. Sean Finnegan:Yeah, a lot of your book gets into the history of masculinity in America. And I thought that was really eye opening because as somebody who started a lot with early church history, Old Testament history, New Testament history, Second Temple Judaism. I could tell you all about. The Roman Empire, you. Know there's this, like memes going around. How? Often, do you think about? The Roman Empire too much, that's. That's my answer but. American history. I'm not so strong and much less with respect to gender. I really found this, this research you did fascinate. Thing. And so my next myth is about the suffragette movement. And it goes like this. Number four women initiated the suffragette movement in America because they wanted to be treated as individuals of equal value. It sounds just like obviously true, right. But is it? Nancy Pearcey:No, it's not true. First of all, women didn't initiate it. A small group of women did the early feminist. But even they acknowledge that most women were against it at the time. I had so many readers. You remember, I said I had readers on my manuscript. I had so many readers who were skeptical of that that I went out and find the quotes. Some people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other early feminists saying the main opposition to the vote. For women, it's other women. So I got the quotes from people saying that why would they opposed to it? Because they did not want to be treated as individuals. It was just the opposite. Is the framework to understand it. The vote was not described in that day as men's vote versus women's vote. It was framed as household vote versus individual vote, and most women wanted the household vote. And why did they want that? Because it put responsibility on men to take into account the. Interest of the entire household. And even broader, I'll try to be short, but even broader. It was a shift in political philosophy. Early America was governed by political philosophy that saw so institutions like the family as an organic unit. Not just a collection of individuals who happen to be there, but there's an organic unit connecting them all to one another and therefore there was a common good. In other words, I look out for what's good for me. You look out for what's good for you, but who looks out for the common good of the marriage, of the family, of the Church, of the school and so on. That's what authority was for. Authority was a person who was not supposed to look out for his own interest. The favorite word of the time at the time was he should be disinterested by which they meant he doesn't pursue his own interest. He's the one who's responsible for the common good of the whole. America, after roughly after the revolution began to shift from that political philosophy to a political philosophy called social contract theory, which does see societies and social institutions as collections of autonomous individuals who've just come together out of a common interest. Well, in that case there is no common good. And so men were no longer held responsible for the common good. And so many women at the time realized this is actually letting men off. The hook. It's giving them a pass on moral responsibility. You know, they're no longer held responsible for the common good of the entire house. And so that's how the debate was framed. Many women that at the time said we want our men to two cents, that they are responsible for their wife and children, and back then the household was was larger, right? So it included extended family and servants and and so on. The man was in charge of the small. Commonwealth. So anyway, it was women who opposed the vote largely, and it was because they saw it as a way that men were going. To be held to a reduced standard that we were lowering the standard on male responsibility. Now I would say that eventually most women came around to it. It took. About a. Century. Eventually, women came out to around to supporting it. But why? Early feminists framed it in terms of autonomy and individual rights that did not speak to most women. Women came around to supporting it when the temperance movement. Began to say this can be a way that we can hold men in check because men are drinking. They're coming home drunk and beating their wives and children and women have little recourse when that happens. And so the head of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, her name is Francis Willard. Historian says she was the most influential. Women of the entire 19. And she began to see the vote as a way to give women power in the temperance movement against drunken, abusive husbands. And so she renamed. It she called it the ballot for home protection. No. If it was about home protection, women were for it, so that that, that shift is why women came around to endorsing it. But again, not for the reasons we think autonomy and individual rights. But ohh, this is a way to give us some leverage against some of the common male voices of drunkenness. And abuse. Sean Finnegan:This home protection at every turn seems like there's so much more to the story than you know on the surface you think? Ohh well. Women were hopelessly oppressed and you know until they got the right to vote, they couldn't do anything about it. You know, that's kind of like the typical way of saying it, but it's so much more complicated and new, nuanced. Just Dance between men and women in American history is incredible. To see it going back and forth throughout your book. So what about the statement our time today, the 21st century is the first when women in America have publicly accused men of toxic behavior. You think? Nancy Pearcey:Well, I just gave you a good example. Where the temperance movement certainly popularized a lot of public rhetoric that was very critical of men, here's the the bigger picture on that, too. So America was becoming more secular. And as that happened, they were governing their behavior less by a biblical ethic, naturally. And how did that happen? Well, the material conditions that gave rise to secularism. This before the Industrial Revolution, men worked alongside their wives and children all day on the family farm, family industry, the family business, and so the cultural expectation on men focused a lot more on their caretaking role and their like. I said a minute ago. Their responsibility for the common good of the whole. Even a secular historian says the masculine virtue was defined as duty to God and man. I I love these surprising facts that come out of history. A surprising fact is that most literature on child rearing was addressed to fathers. If you go to a bookstore today, they're mostly dressed to mothers, but back then they were dressed to fathers. Fathers were considered the primary parent, and so men were given. A lot more responsibility for the. Sean Finnegan:Right. Nancy Pearcey:The Industrial Revolution takes work out of the home and of course, men had to follow their work out of home, into factories and offices for the first time. They were not working with family members who the people they loved and had a moral bond with. They were working as individuals and competition with other men, and that's when you see the literature start to change. People began to protest that men were becoming individualistic, self interested, egocentric, make it at all cost, greedy and acquisitive to use the language of the day. And that they were making their career, their idol, as they were losing their biblical loyalty, they were making their career, their idol, actually using language from the day they complained that men were starting to make an idol out of financial success the first time that we see negative language applied to the male character. Was in the 19th century after the Industrial Revolution and the secularization was was happening at the same time, in a sense, with the Industrial Revolution, a large public sphere developed. You know, society kind of split into private and public people began to ohh public. What do I mean by that? Factories, businesses, financial institutions, universities. Of course the state. And people began to argue that these large public institutions should be operated by scientific principles by which they meant value free. In other words, don't bring your private values into the public realm, which is what we hear today. And since it was men who were getting that secular education and working in that secular field, they were becoming more secular in their outlook before women did. And so naturally, are we surprised that the 19th century saw a huge increase in what our kind of traditional male vices like drinking and gambling and fighting and crime and prostitution? And that's why there was, in response to that, a huge flowering of reform movements. The reform movements are where you see the negative language really develops as they begin to attack men. For all of these vices, I'll give you a quote. So one of my favorite historians puts it this. All of these reform movements were implicit condemnations of males. There was little doubt as to the sex of the Tavern keeper, the slave master, the drunkard, and the seducer. So the language of the 19th century was almost as hostile as anything that we hear today. From radical feminists. Sean Finnegan:It's interesting, you know, if there's smoke, there's usually fire, right? So and you, you do get into that a little bit at the end of the book, some of the misbehavior of men is driving the the modern complaints about toxic masculinity. I think a lot. Pundits advocates today for men are not really delving into the misbehavior of men in our own time. But I think getting this historical perspective can really help us to see, OK, well, what did you want the. Women to do. You want them to just get beaten and treated like punching bags in the home. Of course they they rose up and they advocated and there was rhetoric and. You know, women are powerful, just like men are powerful. Women are powerful, so it makes sense that that would happen. You talk so much and and and this. This is probably the biggest thing that blew my mind in the a lot of the historical work you did, you talked so much about the industrial revolution and you've already touched on it here, but this this next myth really ties into that. Number six men have traditionally worked outside of the home and have been the breadwinners. I think so many of Us are under that impression, especially as conservatives as Christians, Bible believing man, we're like ohh yeah, it's my job to, to, to work outside the home and be the breadwinner. And if I just do that, then I'm satisfied what God requires of me. Nancy Pearcey:The the fact that the literature on parenting was addressed to fathers speaks to the fact that fathers were in the home. See what happened is with the family industry, the family business, the the home was the economic center of society. They didn't have this distinction. A father could be working at home. And raising his kids, you know, and so could a mother, by the way, a lot of manufacturer with household manufacturer think of Proverbs 31, right? The the woman who's running several businesses. She wasn't going to an office to do that. She was working out of her home. And that was the case. That was case right up until the industrial revolution. Both men and women. Could be, could be involved in economically productive work while raising their kids and and in fact, historians say that fathers were just as involved with their children as mothers were. So that kind of blows your mind too. Wait, just as involved as as. Because we're, I mean, just it's just hard for us to use our historical imagination, you know, to think what that was like. So what we have to remember is prior to the industrial revolution, we're talking about all of human history. We're talking about millennia. So it's only very recently in human history, namely the 19th century, that fathers began to work out of the home. And by the way, another thing that I this helps explain is why our fathers ridiculed and mocked so much in the media today. That was another one. That I thought. Well, you know, we all know this is true. Homer Simpson, you know, from advertisements to animations and to movies. Fathers A you know the doofus dad, the the bumbling idiot, my, my, my own son loved the Bernstein bears. So you know the dad was always the bumbling idiot. Anyway, where did that come from? Well, when fathers were taken out of the home at the Industrial Revolution, they did lose touch with their children compared to when they worked side by side. All day they didn't know their children as well. They didn't know what was happening, their family dynamics and already in the 19th century, you see people say, you know, fathers are becoming kind of irrelevant, you know, to the family and even incompetent. You know, the idea that he's incompetent if he doesn't know what's going on in his family, he. Doesn't know the solutions. You know, he doesn't know how to how to solve the family problems, so he's considered incompetent and you see it in the literature of the day. So again, the deep roots to this. And of course, it does also suggest. What the solution is the solution is can we reconnect fathers to their children even after the industrial age? Are there ways to tweak the workplace? I have a whole chapter on that and and the pandemic had a very small silver lining in that a lot of fathers discovered they do like being at home more. One study found that 65% of fathers don't want to go back to the office full time. You know they prefer some kind of hybrids setup and and this one's not in the book because it just came out recently. But the New York Times had an article and the title was something like during the pandemic. Many fathers got closer to their children and they don't want to lose that. So I think that's encouraging that when fathers had a chance to be close to their kids, a lot of them said this is great. Look what I've been missing out on. I mean, I think Christians should really think creatively about ways to flex the workplace. I've had interviews with a lot of fathers who said I'm willing to pay the daddy penalty. You. Know they know they. May not move. Forward quite as quickly in their career if they take more time off to have time with their kids. But most of them said it was well worth paying the daddy penalty. Sean Finnegan:Yeah. I mean at the end. Of the day, let's say you choose to work. You know an extra 10 to 20 hours a week so that you're always the one who gets in the report or finishes the project. And you, you. Find some upward mobility and you know. You what do you? Do you just move your house to a different neighborhood? You move to a different neighborhood by a fancy your house. Now you've got, you know, some more. Expensive cars. Maybe you have a more expensive boat. Maybe you're going to a farther away place for vacation, but like. It's not. It's not worth the sacrifice to not know your children and to not be able to have a healthy marriage that lasts. You know, we tell women. Oh, well, don't. Sacrifice your family for the sake of your career. Because we see so much pressure to do that now. In whatever wave of the feminist movement we're in right now, and so much celebration for women in the workplace, any kind of achievement celebrated and yet the same is true for men. You know, don't sacrifice your family for your career because at the end of the day, you're going to be sitting on your. You got with people you don't even know, people that don't even care about, you know, like, even if you did succeed to that, to that degree. So let's switch sides. We were just talking about how the men are the breadwinner is a new term that was unused before the industrial revolution. Just a totally foreign idea. But what about on the women's side? Traditionally, women focused on keeping the home and raising the children rather than contributing economically, right? Nancy Pearcey:They didn't have to make that decision. There wasn't an either or choice until the Industrial Revolution took work out of the. Home. Remember, it took women's work out of the home too, not just men's work. So women back then, a lot of household manufacturer was presided over by women. So you Can you imagine when you had to cook everything. From scratch, turn your butter, bake your bread, and even grind your flour. And when you had to make all your clothing from scratch, you had to card the wool or the cotton, and you had to weave it. You had to design it and. Cut it out, I. Mean canning and preserving food, making buttons, making candles women's work was extremely rich and and varied. You know, women had a lot of different skills, they had to master. So in many ways, that was more intellectually challenging too. And so it was a true loss, a genuine loss when all of that was taken out of the home. You know, life got easier. On the other hand, it got a lot more boring. You know, when all that's left now is early child care and cleaning. I mean, you know, that's why you have advertisements that glorify, you know, getting your sink cleaner. So I think that that's an important thing to recognize because it it was one of the causes of the feminist movement. Like many secular movements, it identified a true problem. It just gave the wrong. Solution and most people don't want women to follow men out of the home if it means leaving kids in substitute care. They really want parents raising their own. Kids, what women are doing today, though in my studies, I found that the vast majority of women who are home with their kids are doing some kind of home based business or home. Nice work, because it's almost impossible in our economy not to have two incomes. But women want to be home, and so they white collar work is the easiest. Of course, in a knowledge economy. So there's all kinds of IT professionals and writers and editors and marketers. And I I list several of them in the book Blue Collar and pink color, where it can be done from home to some extent as well. I I give the story of when I went to. I have my. Their style and the the woman had a beauty chair in a basement, one chair. And so while she's working with her customer or her client, she's got a glass door that looks out onto the backyard in a fence fenced in backyard. So she's kind of we're keeping an eye on. Her kids. And blue collar workers, this is some of the. Pushback I get is what you know. What about men? Isn't this kind of an elitist thing that, you know, men? Can come home well. Aspects of almost every job can be done at home. A friend of ours owns a car repair shop. For the most part, he's not going to bring his cars home, although sometimes he does work on friends cars. That is in his driveway. But he can bring his bookkeeping home right. He can bring his bookkeeping home. And in the evening, he's sitting there working while his kids are sitting beside him at the kitchen table and doing their homework. He's talking to them. He's answering their questions. And so there's aspects of almost every job that can be done at home while your children are young. I'm not saying it's the ideal for everybody at every stage of life. I'm just worried about the kids while your children are young. That that's what I recommend. People trying to find at least some aspect that could be done from home, you know, at least part time. Sean Finnegan:You know, it certainly is the case that with the the way our economy is and inflation and everything else that. Being a single income household is closed to most people, even if you would. Want to be a. Stay at home. Mom, you have to make some serious sacrifice. This is a lot depends on what's available too, whether or not you can. You can do that and where you live and and so. Forth, but let's talk. About solutions my myth #8 here blocking or limiting men's testosterone will solve the problems of our society with badly behaved men. Nancy Pearcey:We have to start with how to God create men. And by the way, this is one of the questions I always got and therefore I had to put it at the front of the book. People would say, well, what do you think are the differences between men and women then? Well, let's start with basic biology. Men are larger, faster, stronger, 75%, greater upper body muscle mass, 90% greater upper body strength. Ohh, and I just read this one the other day. It was something like 300%. It was very high, 300% more punch force. Any woman who's been abused knows that and because of testosterone, men do tend to be more aggressive. And more risk taking and I think we have to start with just saying, well, this is all God made men and therefore it is intrinsically good. This is before the fall. These are the traits that God created men with. And I have to tell you, one of the things I found most encouraging is I have a couple of studies of men around the world. And they find that. Men do know that these unique masculine strengths are not giving them just to get whatever they want right to dominate others, but are giving them to provide and protect. I'll give you one of them. The this was a study done by an anthropologist. It was the first ever cross cultural study done on concepts of masculinity and what he found out is. Of course, there's differences between cultures. But what they? All share is what this anthropologist called the three P's. It is expected that the good man will provide, protect and procreate, meaning become a father, right, have a family. Build into the next generation, be future oriented and this was all across the world. These were not countries with the Western or Christian background and I thought it was really amazing to see that this just seems to be an inherent innate knowledge that men have universally. I would say they're made in God's image. And therefore they inherently know that their unique masculine strengths were not given them to just get whatever they want, but to provide, protect and build into the future the next generation. This gives us a better approach when we're dealing with men as we can, we can try to tap into that innate inherent knowledge, men. Don't respond well to being called toxic. Nobody would. But what we can do is to tap into their inherent and acknowledge of what it does mean to be a good man. What it does mean to use their unique strengths and abilities for good. And that way we support masculinity as God created it. Including the testosterone, we can then be. Obviously, and my book is full of criticism of the secular definition of masculinity, you have no problem with being a, you know, good critical thinker in analyzing secular thought. But we should start with really supporting, affirming and respecting men for the way God created them. Sean Finnegan:Yeah, that's so helpful. Because I think so many of us are feeling beaten down. I've got four sons. My oldest is 17, and you know, just seeing how Society is telling them over and over be more feminine? Change yourself, and of course you know who celebrated guys who dress like women. Those are those are like the most popular kids in the school. Now it's it's everything is kind of flipped on the the trans, LGBT and Q and so forth in the in the. Last few years. And you know the message they're receiving is you. Know if you. Could just be more like Sally then you know you'd be really great. We want to avoid toxic masculinity, but we don't want to avoid masculinity. There's a difference there. Nancy Pearcey:Yeah. Yeah. Let me give you another study again. I love these studies done by non Christians. But this was the study again. I put this at the front of the book. As well because answering remember I said, people said who? People would say, whose side is she on? Well, you don't have to take a side because there are different scripts for masculinity. And this study brought it out very well. This is done by a sociologist and again it's global. So this is. Around the world is universal. He gets invited to speak around the world, so he came up with this clever experiment where he asked young men two questions. The first question was what does it mean to be a good man? If you're at a funeral and in the eulogy, somebody says he was a good man, what does? Young men all around the world had no trouble answering that they would immediately say things like honor, duty, integrity, sacrifice do the right thing, look out for the little guy, be a provider, and be a productive. Be responsible and the sociologist would say, would you like that? And they say, I don't know, it's. Just in the. Air we breathe. If they were in a western country. They would often say it's part of our judeo-christian heritage. And then he would follow up with the second question. And he'd say, well, what does it mean if? I say to you, man up be a real. And the young man would say ohh no, that's completely different. That means be tough. Be strong, never show weakness, win at all costs. Suck it up. Play through pain, be competitive, get rich, *** ****. I'm using their language. And so the sociologist concludes that there is an inherent universal knowledge of what it means to be the good man. You know another way we could talk about this from a Christian perspective is general revelation, right? General Revelation is what we know. On the basis of creation, apart from Scripture, there are truths that we can know through general revelation. It's also Romans too, right? Everyone has a conscience. What these non Christians anthropologists are finding is that it is a universal awareness that men aspire to be the good man, but they are also feeling this. Cultural pressure to be the quote UN quote real man. And as you saw, those were somewhat more toxic traits. Especially if they are disconnected, decoupled from a moral vision, they can slide into the Andrew Tate phenomenon that we see today, where masculinity is, you know, fast money, fast cars, fast women, it can slide into that. I mean, that is apparently for many young men today that's becoming the real man I just got. A e-mail from a former graduate student of mine who's teaching now at the high school level, and she said all my boys, all my male students, are fans of Andrew Tate. They're even using both of his in the yearbook. And then she said I'm teaching at a classical Christian School. So even a Christian young men are looking to places like Andrew Tate, who are exemplifying a very secular view of masculinity. I'm finding out not everyone knows this, but you know he does. Run. He's made a lot of his money by running an only fans company. Sean Finnegan:Yeah. Andrew Tate is is a pretty complicated fella and he's, I, I have hopes that he will reform his ways, seen glimmers of hope there that, you know, he can embrace more the PPP that you mentioned before than the FFF fast cars fast. Come in and fast success, but instead protect, provide and. What was the? Third one. Procreate. Yeah. Within marriage, I would say. But yeah, there's no question about it. Tate has struck a nerve, and he's preaching a gospel of masculine excellence and. At the same time, there's a lot of that real man script mixed in with his message and really what we need is insight from the designer of masculinity himself, you know, and and we could find that in Scripture and we could find that. Also in our own souls, you know. Seeing these different. Sides of us, you know the the image of God, the imago day stamped upon us, but then also our fallenness, so really really deep points and I encourage you listeners that if you're curious about this at all, check out this book. Get yourself a copy the toxic War against masculinity. Well, this has been a great conversation. How can people find out more about? Hey, Nancy. Nancy Pearcey:Yes, I'm glad you asked because my publisher graciously just designed a new website for me, so it's nancypearcy.com, and Piercy is P/E, ARCEY, nancypearcy.com. And so you can come over there. You can browse my other books you've mentioned a few of them already today. You can browse them and find out what he. Was talking about. And you can also leave the message. I don't have time to answer them all, but I do read them all. So come on by nancypiercy.com. Come on by and say hello. Sean Finnegan:Very good. Well, thanks so much for joining me on Restitutio today. Nancy Pearcey:Thanks for having me. Sean Finnegan:Well, that brings this interview to a close. What did you think? Come on over to restitutio.org and find Episode 515 the Toxic War on masculinity and leave your feedback there and I can't stress to you enough how important. This book is. Whether you're a man or a woman, but especially I talked to the the men out there. I really found this book incredibly informative and very challenging. The whole last section, which I didn't really get into. She goes into issues within Christian marriage on how to handle yourself as a man, as a husband, and the whole thorny topic of domestic abuse and how to handle that. As a church leader and some really important thoughts there that we didn't get into in the interview, so take a look at that. For the record, I'm not receiving any. Compensation for promoting this book, I really just believe in it, and I think Piercy is really good. So take a look at that. Well, that's going to be it for today. If you'd like to leave us a rating or review on Apple Podcast or Spotify, we certainly appreciate that. If you'd like to support. Studio you can find us.online@restitutio.org select the word restitution with no n.org and thanks to all who are supporting us, we'll catch you next week and remember, the truth has nothing to fear.

Catholic critics of feminism often start with the assumption that the "first wave" of feminism, led by 19th-century figures such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was basically a good thing and compatible with Catholic teachings; only later in the 1960s and 70s, according to this narrative, was the movement "hijacked" by "radical feminists". The only problem is that when one actually looks closely at feminism in its early form, whether that of Stanton and Anthony or even earlier with Mary Wollstonecraft, one finds obvious continuities with so-called "radical feminism". On the level of ideas, we find Enlightenment individualism, rationalism, and egalitarianism attacking as oppressive the natural institutions of marriage and family and the divinely ordained hierarchies of the Church. On the personal level, feminism was from the beginning the brainchild of traumatized, miserable women who had deeply dysfunctional relationships with the men in their lives - their ideas eagerly championed by men like Percy Shelley, who "liberated" women in order to exploit them. Carrie Gress returns to the show to discuss her book The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us, which tells the stories of feminist pioneers from Wollstonecraft, Stanton, and Shelley to Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Links Carrie Gress, The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us https://www.regnery.com/9781684514182/the-end-of-woman/ Dawn Eden, “Eve of Deconstruction: Feminism and John Paul II” https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/eden/03324.html DONATE to make this show possible! http://catholicculture.org/donate/audio Go to Catholic Culture's website for tons of written content, including news, articles, liturgical year info, and a vast library of documents: https://www.catholicculture.org

Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://genucel.com/Klavan Feminists have demolished the patriarchy but are more miserable than ever! How could a world full of weakened men lead to such sorrow and emptiness when women are more free than ever? Dr. Carrie Gress and Drew review the history and feminist ideologies that led us here. #Feminism #Patriarchy #CarrieGress

Join host Elliott Hulse as he engages in a riveting conversation with Carrie Gress, the author of "The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us."Carrie unveils the captivating history of feminism, tracing its roots back to unexpected origins – occultism and even Satanism. Through a deep exploration of the movement's evolution, she reveals that early feminists, driven by genuine intentions, sought to empower women by making them more like men.The discussion uncovers the influence of occult figures like Percy Shelley and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, shedding light on their role in shaping feminist ideology. From its noble beginnings to its transformation and societal impact, this podcast episode provides an eye-opening perspective on the complex journey of feminism.

On this day in legal history, on August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified by the states – beginning in earnest the path to women's suffrage. The fight for women's suffrage in the United States began after the war for independence, where most states denied women the right to vote. Throughout the 19th century, leaders like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony worked tirelessly for women's voting rights, organizing protests, marches, and lobbying efforts. In 1878, a women's suffrage amendment was introduced, but it was rejected by the Senate in 1887. However, many western states began to grant women full or partial voting rights, such as Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho. Following World War I, the suffrage movement gained momentum, and President Wilson began to support it in 1918. Despite initial failures to pass the amendment, Wilson called a special session of Congress, and the woman's suffrage amendment was approved by Congress on June 4, 1919. Several states quickly ratified the amendment, but ratification faced opposition in states like Alabama and Georgia. The fate of the 19th Amendment rested with Tennessee, where supporters and opponents lobbied fiercely. After a dramatic series of events, including legislators fleeing to prevent a vote, the Tennessee House of Representatives voted in favor of ratification. On August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, which paved the way for American women the right to vote, a monumental step in the long and ongoing journey towards gender equality in the United States.The 19th Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, is often celebrated as a milestone in women's voting rights in the U.S. It was designated in 1976 as Women's Equality Day and its centennial in 2020 was marked with various commemorations. However, this view overlooks the reality that the amendment did not grant the vote to all women, only stating that voting rights could not be denied on account of sex. After its ratification, states could still employ voter suppression tactics like poll taxes, effectively keeping many Black, Latina, Indigenous, and Asian American women from voting. These suppression tools largely benefited white women, reflecting the interests of white suffragists who were willing to sacrifice the rights of others to gain support for the amendment. Despite this limited initial progress, activism for women's voting rights continued, leading to major victories like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and, one hopes, more major victories in the name of equality in the years to come. In sum, we should celebrate the ratification of the 19th Amendment, while still recognizing it was not a panacea to inequity but rather a step, and the struggle for true equality in voting rights persists to this day.19th Amendment anniversary: The amendment's passage didn't give women the right to vote - VoxBloomberg Law has a report detailing the effect of the impending student loan cliff.The impending end of pandemic-era student debt forgiveness programs has increased pressure on employers to aid workers with upcoming payments, reducing the attractiveness of a 401(k) loan matching program set to begin next year under the SECURE 2.0 Act. This new provision would have allowed employers to match student loan repayments like retirement plan deferrals, aiming to boost employee 401(k)s. However, immediate payment demands are driving employers to look for more direct financial help. With nearly 46 million borrowers facing interest accruals in September and regular bills in October, more than half of workers aged 25-40 are seeking student loan support at work. Despite the SECURE 2.0's intention, confusion remains among employers, leading some to seek alternatives like financial wellness programs and coaching services. Only about 8% of employers offer direct repayment assistance, although this number has doubled since 2020 under a CARES Act provision that allows tax-free company contributions to loans. This provision is emerging as more attractive to some companies than SECURE 2.0. Many misunderstandings about the SECURE 2.0 provision have left employers uncertain, and the IRS has yet to issue clear guidance. The focus on immediate student loan payoffs or coaching has become a method for talent recruitment and retention, reflecting a shift in priorities from retirement savings to current financial burdens.401(k) Law's Appeal Fades as Workers Face Student Debt DeadlinesAMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. is facing a challenge to its court-approved stock conversion plan from a preferred shareholder, Michael Simons, who claims the deal undervalues investors like him. The plan, approved by Delaware's Court of Chancery, would convert AMC's preferred stock (APEs) to common shares, including extra shares for individual investors. Thousands of investors opposed the deal, fearing their shares would be diluted. Simons is now asking the court to declare the deal invalid, alleging that it violates the rights of APE holders by not adjusting for any dilution. The lawsuit argues that AMC should distribute the same amount of new stock to APE holders as to common shareholders to avoid diluting ownership interests. The approved settlement came after a contentious legal battle, with many retail investors urging the court to block the plan, claiming that AMC owed them more for saving the company from bankruptcy during the meme stock rally. The dispute started when a pension fund sued AMC, claiming it was sidelining small investors. Despite revisions to include extra shares, many individual investors continued to oppose the plan. Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn approved the settlement, highlighting that additional shares would offset the dilutive effects, but it's unclear when the conversion will occur. Separately, AMC has sued its insurers for refusing to fund the settlement, and another common stockholder is seeking a court order for the company to hold its first annual meeting and board election in over a year.AMC Investor Challenges Court-Approved APE Stock Conversion PlanAttorney John Eastman, indicted in Georgia in connection to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, is awaiting a ruling on his request to postpone his California disciplinary trial while his criminal case progresses. State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland is considering Eastman's request for a stay or abatement of proceedings pending the resolution of his federal criminal investigation and trial. The disciplinary trial is scheduled to resume on August 22, and the defense is seeking a stay until Eastman is "out of harm's way" concerning the Georgia indictment. Roland stated she would rule shortly on the request and is considering a partial stay, but not a total abatement of the action. Bar prosecutors have opposed the postponement request, labeling it an "opportunistic attempt to delay." Eastman's attorney, Randall A. Miller, argued the situation is now more severe, as it affects not just Eastman's license to practice law but his freedom. Eastman, along with former President Donald Trump and 17 others, was indicted on August 14 on charges including racketeering in Georgia. Eastman was previously charged by the California State Bar with 11 ethical and statutory obligations related to efforts to undermine the 2020 election results. He is contending that he can assert the Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent testifying, though Judge Roland said this cannot be done as a blanket claim. The trial has also been complicated by out-of-state witnesses refusing to testify for Eastman, fearing reprisals. Roland has asked the bar to reschedule witnesses for August 22.Eastman Disciplinary Trial After Georgia Indictment in LimboA Republican U.S. lawmaker, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, is heading a congressional probe into Hunter Biden's business dealings and has asked the National Archives for unredacted emails and documents from 2015 and 2016 between President Joe Biden and his son. These years correspond to when Joe Biden was vice president and his son was on the board of the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. House Republicans are considering a possible impeachment inquiry against President Biden, partly based on allegations of financial misconduct involving the president, his son, and other family members. The White House has strongly denied these allegations, and no evidence of financial misconduct by the president has been produced. U.S. special counsel David Weiss, who is investigating Hunter Biden, said that a trial might be possible on charges of tax evasion and a gun charge after a judge refused a plea deal. This situation could lead to a criminal trial for Hunter Biden while his father seeks reelection. A former business associate of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, has testified that although the younger Biden gave the impression of leverage because of his father, he was not aware of any wrongdoing by the elder Biden. Comer has alleged that the evidence reveals "access was wide open" for influence peddling in the Biden family, and he has called on the National Archives to provide the unredacted records to further the investigation. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty in July to charges of failing to pay taxes on more than $1.5 million in income, and he faces a separate charge related to unlawfully owning a firearm while using illegal drugs.US House Republicans seek Joe Biden's emails from National Archives | ReutersThe California attorney general's office is investigating whether Kroger's $24.6 billion plan to acquire rival Albertsons would result in more "pharmacy deserts" in poorer urban and rural areas, according to sources familiar with the review. Pharmacy deserts refer to neighborhoods where access to a pharmacy requires walking or taking a bus more than a half mile, or in driving areas, being more than a mile from a pharmacy. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has expressed deep concern over the proposed merger, which would create a grocery chain with nearly 5,000 stores. The Federal Trade Commission is leading a federal probe into the matter, speaking with experts in food deserts, farming, and smaller grocery chains. The deal's impact on low-income individuals and access to pharmacy services, including vaccinations, has been a particular focus. Despite the companies' pledge to close no stores, some fear that less profitable stores may be closed, restricting access to pharmacies. A Kroger spokesperson stated that the company is working with antitrust enforcers to ensure stores remain open and viable, including those with pharmacies.California probes 'pharmacy deserts' in Kroger's Albertsons deal-sources | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After being forgotten for nearly 130 years, the “Mother of Suffrage in Missouri” and her husband are finally taking their rightful place in history. St. Louisans Virginia and Francis Minor forever changed the direction of women's rights by taking the issue to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875, a feat never eclipsed even by their better-known peers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yet despite a myriad of accomplishments and gaining notoriety in their own time, the Minors' names have largely faded from memory. In 1867, Virginia founded the nation's first organization solely dedicated to women's suffrage—two years before Anthony formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA). Virginia and Francis were also the brains behind the groundbreaking idea that women were given the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, a philosophy the NWSA adopted for nearly a decade. And their story doesn't end there. After the court case, Francis went on to become a prolific writer on women's rights and one of the first and strongest male allies of the suffrage movement. Virginia instigated tax revolts across the country and campaigned side-by-side with Anthony for women's rights in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. America's Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (Two Dot Books, 2023) is the first biography of these suffrage celebrities who were unique for their time in being jointly dedicated to the cause of female enfranchisement. This book follows their lives from slave-holding Virginians through their highly-lauded civilian work during the Civil War, and into the height of the early suffrage movement to show how two ordinary people of like mind, dedicated to a cause, can change the course of history. Jane Scimeca is Professor of History at Brookdale Community College. @JaneScimeca1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

After being forgotten for nearly 130 years, the “Mother of Suffrage in Missouri” and her husband are finally taking their rightful place in history. St. Louisans Virginia and Francis Minor forever changed the direction of women's rights by taking the issue to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875, a feat never eclipsed even by their better-known peers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yet despite a myriad of accomplishments and gaining notoriety in their own time, the Minors' names have largely faded from memory. In 1867, Virginia founded the nation's first organization solely dedicated to women's suffrage—two years before Anthony formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA). Virginia and Francis were also the brains behind the groundbreaking idea that women were given the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, a philosophy the NWSA adopted for nearly a decade. And their story doesn't end there. After the court case, Francis went on to become a prolific writer on women's rights and one of the first and strongest male allies of the suffrage movement. Virginia instigated tax revolts across the country and campaigned side-by-side with Anthony for women's rights in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. America's Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (Two Dot Books, 2023) is the first biography of these suffrage celebrities who were unique for their time in being jointly dedicated to the cause of female enfranchisement. This book follows their lives from slave-holding Virginians through their highly-lauded civilian work during the Civil War, and into the height of the early suffrage movement to show how two ordinary people of like mind, dedicated to a cause, can change the course of history. Jane Scimeca is Professor of History at Brookdale Community College. @JaneScimeca1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

After being forgotten for nearly 130 years, the “Mother of Suffrage in Missouri” and her husband are finally taking their rightful place in history. St. Louisans Virginia and Francis Minor forever changed the direction of women's rights by taking the issue to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875, a feat never eclipsed even by their better-known peers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yet despite a myriad of accomplishments and gaining notoriety in their own time, the Minors' names have largely faded from memory. In 1867, Virginia founded the nation's first organization solely dedicated to women's suffrage—two years before Anthony formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA). Virginia and Francis were also the brains behind the groundbreaking idea that women were given the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, a philosophy the NWSA adopted for nearly a decade. And their story doesn't end there. After the court case, Francis went on to become a prolific writer on women's rights and one of the first and strongest male allies of the suffrage movement. Virginia instigated tax revolts across the country and campaigned side-by-side with Anthony for women's rights in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. America's Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (Two Dot Books, 2023) is the first biography of these suffrage celebrities who were unique for their time in being jointly dedicated to the cause of female enfranchisement. This book follows their lives from slave-holding Virginians through their highly-lauded civilian work during the Civil War, and into the height of the early suffrage movement to show how two ordinary people of like mind, dedicated to a cause, can change the course of history. Jane Scimeca is Professor of History at Brookdale Community College. @JaneScimeca1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

After being forgotten for nearly 130 years, the “Mother of Suffrage in Missouri” and her husband are finally taking their rightful place in history. St. Louisans Virginia and Francis Minor forever changed the direction of women's rights by taking the issue to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875, a feat never eclipsed even by their better-known peers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yet despite a myriad of accomplishments and gaining notoriety in their own time, the Minors' names have largely faded from memory. In 1867, Virginia founded the nation's first organization solely dedicated to women's suffrage—two years before Anthony formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA). Virginia and Francis were also the brains behind the groundbreaking idea that women were given the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, a philosophy the NWSA adopted for nearly a decade. And their story doesn't end there. After the court case, Francis went on to become a prolific writer on women's rights and one of the first and strongest male allies of the suffrage movement. Virginia instigated tax revolts across the country and campaigned side-by-side with Anthony for women's rights in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. America's Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (Two Dot Books, 2023) is the first biography of these suffrage celebrities who were unique for their time in being jointly dedicated to the cause of female enfranchisement. This book follows their lives from slave-holding Virginians through their highly-lauded civilian work during the Civil War, and into the height of the early suffrage movement to show how two ordinary people of like mind, dedicated to a cause, can change the course of history. Jane Scimeca is Professor of History at Brookdale Community College. @JaneScimeca1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

After being forgotten for nearly 130 years, the “Mother of Suffrage in Missouri” and her husband are finally taking their rightful place in history. St. Louisans Virginia and Francis Minor forever changed the direction of women's rights by taking the issue to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875, a feat never eclipsed even by their better-known peers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yet despite a myriad of accomplishments and gaining notoriety in their own time, the Minors' names have largely faded from memory. In 1867, Virginia founded the nation's first organization solely dedicated to women's suffrage—two years before Anthony formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA). Virginia and Francis were also the brains behind the groundbreaking idea that women were given the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, a philosophy the NWSA adopted for nearly a decade. And their story doesn't end there. After the court case, Francis went on to become a prolific writer on women's rights and one of the first and strongest male allies of the suffrage movement. Virginia instigated tax revolts across the country and campaigned side-by-side with Anthony for women's rights in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. America's Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (Two Dot Books, 2023) is the first biography of these suffrage celebrities who were unique for their time in being jointly dedicated to the cause of female enfranchisement. This book follows their lives from slave-holding Virginians through their highly-lauded civilian work during the Civil War, and into the height of the early suffrage movement to show how two ordinary people of like mind, dedicated to a cause, can change the course of history. Jane Scimeca is Professor of History at Brookdale Community College. @JaneScimeca1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Last days of the summer giving campaign! $1000 to go! Would you sow towards the ministry of Morning Prayer? Celebrating the lives of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriett Ross Tubman in the Church Calendar. July 20, 2023. Praying today for Mary in Michigan. This week we are following the Daily Office lectionary with an episode Monday through Friday. Our general order and lectionary comes from the Book of Common Prayer Daily Office. We'll sing “Seek Ye First” by Karen Lafferty with a new bridge I added and include a prayer of confession. We'll read Psalm 146 followed by the Gloria Patri. Our Gospel reading is Luke 11:5-10 . We'll say the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Collect of the Day. We'll then have a time of prompted prayer. If you have a prayer request please submit it here. Sign up here for the email list. Photo: Tree Swallow by Nicholas Stroh. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriett Ross Tubman - O God, whose Spirit guides us into all truth and makes us free: Strengthen and sustain us as you did your servants Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner, and Harriet. Give us vision and courage to stand against oppression and injustice and all that works against the glorious liberty to which you call all your children; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Last days of the summer giving campaign! $1000 to go! Would you sow towards the ministry of Morning Prayer? Celebrating the lives of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriett Ross Tubman in the Church Calendar. July 20, 2023. Praying today for Mary in Michigan. This week we are following the Daily Office lectionary with an episode Monday through Friday. Our general order and lectionary comes from the Book of Common Prayer Daily Office. We'll sing “Seek Ye First” by Karen Lafferty with a new bridge I added and include a prayer of confession. We'll read Psalm 146 followed by the Gloria Patri. Our Gospel reading is Luke 11:5-10 . We'll say the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Collect of the Day. We'll then have a time of prompted prayer. If you have a prayer request please submit it here. Sign up here for the email list. Photo: Tree Swallow by Nicholas Stroh. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriett Ross Tubman - O God, whose Spirit guides us into all truth and makes us free: Strengthen and sustain us as you did your servants Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner, and Harriet. Give us vision and courage to stand against oppression and injustice and all that works against the glorious liberty to which you call all your children; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/prayerandworship/message

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck is out of the studio but Sam is joined by friend of the show, former Arizona State Legislator Michelle Ugenti-Rita. Sam and Michelle speak to Ann Atkinson who organized a Health, Wealth, and Happiness program at Arizona State University which featured prominent conservative speakers and was met with intense opposition from the left. Later in the show, Christina Eichelkraut returns to offer a unique perspective on the impact of artificial intelligence. -Ann Atkinson is the former Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at Barrett, the Honors College. Ann is a Barrett alumna, entrepreneur, former public company executive, frequent public speaker, healthcare real estate expert, wife, mother, and triathlete. She has regularly volunteered for the Lewis Center, which has helped fulfill her passion to better prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of life.  Ann earned a Bachelor of Science in Finance from ASU, where she graduated from Barrett, the Honors College and with honors from the W.P. Carey School of Business.  She was introduced to commercial real estate through her Barrett honors internship, which led to a distinguished 17-year career in healthcare real estate. She most recently founded and led a privately-held national healthcare real estate investment firm. Previously, she was an executive officer for a healthcare real estate investment trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange, where she led acquisitions and dispositions on behalf of the company. Formerly, she worked for Jerry Colangelo, David Eaton, and Mel Shultz of JDM Partners, specializing in commercial real estate investments. Ann started her career with a national commercial real estate brokerage firm, specializing in office and medical office investment sales. -Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsTranscription: Sam Stone: [00:00:10] Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. First up today, we're very excited to have returning guests, Martin Di Caro. Martin is a broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host of The History As It Happens podcast, which I know Chuck is a huge fan of. I've tuned into a number of times, highly recommend that folks and Chuck take it away.Chuck Warren: [00:00:32] So folks, we'll post this on our social media. Martin had a great episode this past Thursday called Our Radical Declaration, talking about the Declaration of Independence since July 4th is here coming up. And Martin, thanks for visiting us today.Martin Di Caro: [00:00:49] Chuck and Sam, I'm delighted to be here. Happy Independence Day in advance.Chuck Warren: [00:00:54] Thank you very much. Are you as well? So the podcast is history as it happens. And Martin, I want to I want to start off with this question. So we all have origin stories. We were talking before the show, Apple, they did a garage. I mean, it seems like all tech companies start in a garage for some reason, but nonetheless, it's a garage, right? But these origin stories define who we are. Right? And I was thinking the other day on a flight where I hit four cities in five days and the Delta flight attendant came up and hand me a thank you letter for flying three. 3 million miles, Right. Like, I don't know what they expect me to do with the letter, but nonetheless, it was nice of her. And and I thought about all the times I have taken red eyes home to go see kids games, be there for events. And I asked my kids, what do they remember? And they said, I just remember you sacrifice for the family. So that's an origin story for our family, right? What is the origin story for our country, specifically July 4th? And does that origin story still stand?Martin Di Caro: [00:01:55] I would say yes. We're still living in the political world of the founders. Lots of changes. Of course, lots of stuff has happened, had a civil war and what is often called our second founding with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. And of course, World War Two made the United States a global power right. Uncontested global power in the Cold War victory in late 1980s. But to get back to your question, yes, our origins are still very important. They're still contested. But, you know, we're a nation built upon ideas, and ideas are never static. They're dynamic. And, you know, what does it mean to be an American? That question was trenchant in the late 18th century, and we're still contesting it today. And that's kind of the nature of democracy, right? It's permanent origin. It's permanent argument. Just look at the Supreme Court decisions that have come down the past week. Right. They deal with fundamental rights, sometimes competing rights. You know, as David M Kennedy, a great historian has said, who gets a seat at the table of the great American barbecue. So our origins, you know, in retrospect, were rather puny when you think about what the revolutionaries accomplished, right? But that egalitarian rhetoric, those egalitarian ideals are still very much with us. We're still contesting them. Our history is a history of political conflict.Sam Stone: [00:03:20] Martin I actually don't like the idea of a second founding as much as realistically after the Civil War was the I don't want to say culmination because we've seen with these Supreme Court cases even this week the continuation. But that was really the first major step in fulfilling all the promises that the founders laid out. And part of the genius to me of of both the declaration and the Constitution is that they understood that they were imperfect and that they would not achieve right away all the ideals they laid down on paper, but they left a path for us to do it.Martin Di Caro: [00:03:56] Absolutely. And I like how you linked both the Declaration and the Constitution together. Obviously, the Constitution created our government or our second government because the Articles of Confederation didn't work out. But that was very Lincolnian of you. I mean, he saw both of them as being connected. Yeah, I mean the revolution. And I'm going to I'm going to cite Gordon Wood's work here, by the way, in my first podcast of this three part series I'm doing, my guests were Sean Wilentz and Jim Oakes. They are fantastic. I hope everyone takes a listen to that. But I'll cite Gordon Wood here. He says the revolution did more than legally create the United States. It transformed our society. The changes were radical and they were extensive, he says. You know, instead of focusing on what the revolution did not accomplish, to your point about it being incomplete, we should focus instead on why these ideas were so powerful and continue to animate our politics to this day. Our revolution eliminated monarchy. It created a large republic. It reconstituted again, citing Gordon Wood. What Americans meant by public or state power brought an entirely new kind of politics and a new kind of democratic. Office holder onto the world stage. And I do think the revolutionaries of the late 18th century knew that they were you know, I don't want to say that they knew they would be talking for the ages, you know, for all time. But they got the sense that they were on history's stage as well. I mean, it was a revolution. It did reorder society.Chuck Warren: [00:05:26] Wherewith Martin Di Caro. He is a broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host a great podcast history As it happens. If you want to be smart, listen to that podcast. Let me ask you this question. I think there's one thing people don't understand about the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence, and hopefully you can talk a little bit about it. A third of the country supported it. A third probably was ambivalent. And the other third was, you know, the British fanboys. Right. I mean, is that fair to say?Martin Di Caro: [00:05:53] Yeah, that's what John Adams said. You know, it's hard to say exactly what public opinion was at any given time. You know, there was no polling. Of course, even polls today aren't altogether accurate. But yeah, that's roughly how how historians see it. You know, you had that middle ground of people who were indifferent. I mean, revolutions and wars are scary things. And we know that ordinary people get swept up in are damaged by, you know, the the vicissitudes of war. How do you like that word? Love it more so than you know, others. So, yeah, you did have people who were ardent revolutionaries who wanted to break with Great Britain. He had other revolutionaries who were more moderate, looking to reconcile even well into 1776. And then, of course, you did have loyalists, but, you know, loyalist the number of loyalists and their strength was always overestimated by I mean, that was one of the problems of the way parliament and the king handled all this. They thought that Loyalism was was stronger than it actually, it was. It was actually. And as the war goes on, it becomes weaker and weaker.Sam Stone: [00:06:56] Well, and when you talk about that ambivalence, one of the things if I if you go back and think about it was a historical in many ways, but the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson one of the one of the depictions that I did like in that was that they showed the war happening in people's front yards. Right. Which was the truth, right? I mean, this was not being fought in some remote battlefield that nobody had any connection to. This was this was a civil war, a revolution fought in people's backyards and people's front yards. And so you can understand the ambivalence of a lot of folks who didn't want to see that for any number of reasons, merely the protection of their family.Martin Di Caro: [00:07:36] Yeah, Revolutionary War was in many ways a civil war. Loyalists had their lost their property. They were outcasts from society for a while after the war ended. And we can celebrate the revolution because it turned out the way, you know, we think it should have turned out. But at the time, of course, there was no unity about any of this. Right? Right. We tend to look back at the revolution as a source of, well, something that all of us can celebrate. But don't use the word unity. As I mentioned at the top of the show, we're still contesting its meaning. We're still arguing over the meaning of freedom and civil liberties and rights. I mean, that's something that comes up in this series. I'm doing Jack Rakove, another great historian, will be my guest in part two of this series. He talks about, you know, the revolutionaries who were gathered at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They were not concerned with, you know, what we now consider to be statements of individual equality. You know, their purpose and this makes sense, of course, was, you know, in the in the maelstrom of a war, to declare that the colonists as a people had the same rights to self-government as other nations. But, of course, they use universal language. I mean, Jefferson wrote it a certain way for certain reasons, and that language became aspirational for anybody. I mean, even during the war enslaved black people, they start to cite the Declaration of Independence. These ideas about egalitarianism are percolating at a level audible to normal people, and they're citing the declaration to sue for freedom. And they're collaborating with whites to end slavery in the northern colonies than the northern states, which as we know does happen mostly in a gradual sense. But there was an anti-slavery aspect to the revolution.Chuck Warren: [00:09:22] Well, didn't Martin Luther King call the Declaration of Independence a promissory note? He did at.Martin Di Caro: [00:09:27] The March on Washington. 60th anniversary of that is coming up this year. Elizabeth Cady Stanton at Seneca Falls in 1858. She cites the the Declaration of Independence in her Declaration of Sentiments. And that, of course, is part of political struggle. It takes another 70 years for women to get the right to vote in the federal constitution and amendment, of course, even. Ho Chi Minh, a communist. He cited the Declaration of Independence verbatim in 1945 when he tried to announce Vietnamese independence after World War Two.Sam Stone: [00:10:00] You know what I always found interesting about the founding and the writing of the declaration, the Constitution, This was not the first time that any of. These ideas had been put on paper, but it was the first time they were brought together as the foundation of a new government. In other words, these ideas had been percolating.Chuck Warren: [00:10:16] It wasn't a talk, the talk. It was a walk. The walk.Sam Stone: [00:10:18] Right? Yeah. Which made it very different.Martin Di Caro: [00:10:22] And they had no way of knowing it would even succeed. I mean, as a matter of fact, the Revolutionary War did not go well, right? For a lot of reasons. I mean, they barely could keep an army in the field. I mean, this frustrated George Washington to no end. The state governments didn't want to pay, you know, their fair share to keep an army supplied. And it was very difficult to raise taxes at all under the Articles of Confederation to pay for things. Inflation was rampant. As I mentioned, war is miserable. And there was also a smallpox outbreak. Yeah.Chuck Warren: [00:10:55] So. Martin, that is a great point here. I think people seem to forget that America has always been somewhat messy because we're allowed to speak our mind, right? And and with a minute 30 here for our next segment, what have you, as you've studied and interviewed all these great historians, what do you view as the top three or 2 or 3 qualities that American president has to have unite people to for a common good, A common cause?Martin Di Caro: [00:11:21] You said an American president? Yeah. Oh, I think vision is important. I think it's important to invoke our origins to. But not an idealized kind of silly or patriotic way. But, you know, I think also for any president, right. Any politician to understand the importance of politics, I think a lot of people today kind of throw their hands up in the air. Yes. And I noticed this a lot on the especially among younger people on the left. Politics is slow and ineffective. And, you know, our all that egalitarian rhetoric was a lie when they said it back in the 18th century. I do not agree with that position. So, you know, you get this pessimistic, despondent type of attitude when, you know, our history is a history of political conflict. It's about, you know, stating a vision. I think any successful politician can state a vision, but also be good at the politics.Sam Stone: [00:12:14] Fantastic. Martin We're going to be coming back, folks, with more in just a moment from Martin DeCaro of The Washington Times and host of History As It Happens podcast. Be sure you're tuning in and downloading. Go to breaking battlegrounds vote. You can get the links to all of our Substack, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, all the good stuff there. Make sure you're signing up to get our latest episodes right in your email box. We really appreciate it. And hang on because we have more with Martin Di Caro coming right up.Sam Stone: [00:00:05] Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. On the line with us is Martin Di Caro, broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host of History As It Happens podcast. But folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility? If you're not, you should be. Market's been going up and down like a rocket. Any returns you're getting out there, it's very hard to count on them. That's why we at Breaking Battlegrounds have endorsed investing with Y Refy. If you invest with Y Refy, you can earn up to a 10.25% rate of return. That's a fixed rate of return at 10.25%. It's the best deal out there right now. Log on to invest Y Refy.com that's invest the letter y, then Refy.com or call them at 888. Y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. You won't regret it. Chuck We're continuing on right now with Martin Di Caro. Fantastic conversation so far as we're heading into the July 4th super long weekend. This time.Chuck Warren: [00:01:05] Martin Talk to our audience a little bit, expand further on our last question about how political conflict works in America. And it's sometimes it's just a messy pot of stew. Yeah.Marti Di Caro: [00:01:16] Yeah. No one's going to hire me to be a political consultant, by the way. But I mean, being good at politics is hard. I mean, there's not just one actor either. So you have a, you know, a brilliant political manipulator like Lyndon Johnson. But, you know, he wasn't the only actor in all of that as well. He needed help from other people. But I guess my point is, you know, I'm more interested in I've been doing these shows now about the American Revolution and just trying to understand why things happen the way they did, rather than saying, Oh, I wish this had happened sooner than it actually did. You know, why did it take 20 years to finally get rid of the slave trade through federal legislation in 1807 1808, following the compromise that was made at the Constitutional Convention? Why did it take Abraham Lincoln all of 18 months? As if 18 months is a really long amount of time to do a full emancipation proclamation out of after the start of the Civil War. You know, why did it take 70 years after Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the Seneca Falls meetings in 1858? 70 years to finally get, you know, women's suffrage? Well, instead of saying, you know, complaining that things didn't happen on the schedule, we think it should have, we need to think more historically and really understand why things happen the way they did. How is an American Revolution even possible to begin with? Why were people ready to hear those egalitarian words and act on them when they did? I think we get a better understanding of our origins when we do that.Sam Stone: [00:02:41] Because in many ways, Martin, a lot of those ideas were not to the benefit of the the most powerful people who had guided our society and every other society prior to the implementation of these ideals, right? I mean, they they benefited from the system that was previously in place.Marti Di Caro: [00:02:59] Absolutely. I mean, you can make the point about Thomas Jefferson himself, right? He penned the document with some help from Adams and Franklin and others. He was a lifelong slaveholder and he certainly did not want to see slavery. Well, you know, Jefferson's views on slavery do change over time. Early in his career, he took some aggressive moves to try to end slavery. But later on, he didn't, partly because it was an unpopular thing to do in Virginia, which was a very large, you know, slave holding colony, then slaveholding state. But certainly, yeah, you know, this is a very corrosive idea, egalitarianism. It challenges the status quo. Other people are free to interpret those words any way they want in a democratic society and say, you know what, I want a seat at the table as well. So, yeah, you're right.Chuck Warren: [00:03:48] Of the 56 delegates at the Second Continental Congress, we call them our founding fathers, who was one besides the obvious? Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, who's who's somebody that stands out that people don't pay enough attention to.Marti Di Caro: [00:04:00] I think somebody like John Dickinson, who was a patriot and a revolutionary, but he was rather moderate. I think it's interesting to look at the way and I can recommend a book about this. Please do. Please do. Yeah. Well, and I think this book is still in print. I was able to find a copy of it. Wouldn't that be great if I recommend a book that no one can actually find?Chuck Warren: [00:04:18] Yeah. Yeah.Marti Di Caro: [00:04:19] The Beginnings of National Politics by Jack Rakove. I use this book to frame our conversation in part two of my series. Dickinson was very, very interesting as to why he was trying to still reconcile with the Crown. You know, people like James Otis, George Mason, they articulated many of these ideas and ideals, but we don't often think of them. They don't come to mind right away. We rather think of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, George Washington.Chuck Warren: [00:04:47] Will Gallup this week released a poll and the headline Extreme Pride Americans remains Near Record Low, which was funny about it, is 67% of Americans are extremely or very proud of the United States. That's a pretty high number. Right. And then which.Sam Stone: [00:05:03] Throws a lot of the modern.Chuck Warren: [00:05:04] Narrative. Yeah. Yeah. It did. Another 22% of us adults are moderately proud. I mean, so basically you're over you're close mid 80s on this. Right. But why do you think to our audience, why do you think we should be proud to be Americans?Marti Di Caro: [00:05:18] Well, you know, I'm also not happy with a lot of things these days. And, you know, I guess depending on your politics, maybe the Supreme Court has you pulling your hair out. Maybe you think, hey, this is how our founders intended it to be. Right? Right. You know, your question again, why, why or why should people be proud of their country? I think because, you know, we have a premise for a politics, a progressive politics, if you want to use that word, to make positive change. Now, maybe some people aren't happy with that use of my choice of words there. So guess what? I guess what I'm trying.Sam Stone: [00:05:52] I'm all for stealing progressive back.Marti Di Caro: [00:05:55] You know, if people are going to sneer at our country, right. And our founding and these ideals and the egalitarian, egalitarian rhetoric and say, well, it was a lie then and we've never been able to fulfill it as if anyone actually argues it was a reflection of reality in the late 18th century. Right. Well, if they're going to sneer at that, as James Oakes said on my show, then what's their premise for change? What are you going to base your politics on? Right. I think I like our system, right. I like the idea of fundamental human equality as the guiding principle for our nation.Sam Stone: [00:06:30] I think that's a great point, because with all the tear the system down rhetoric you hear today in the news and on social media, the one thing that's missing is what? What follows? What are what are you trying to replace these current systems with other than some vague notion of.Chuck Warren: [00:06:49] Yo have a my way or the highway mentality is what you.Marti Di Caro: [00:06:51] Have. That's people who give up on politics. Then, you know, abolish the Senate, abolish the Supreme Court. I mean, that's not serious stuff.Chuck Warren: [00:06:58] But, you know, but in fairness to you, you're also a patient man. I mean, for example, you're a Jets fan, right? So this is taught you this is taught you amazing patience over the years, right?Marti Di Caro: [00:07:08] Yes. And I will never give up on them because I know the moment I finally, you know, throw in the towel, they'll win.Chuck Warren: [00:07:14] I remember I remember for the Giants became this this great power years when I grew up in the Northern California, the old next door neighbor who loved the giants said, look, I've just learned to say there's always next year, you know? And I think that's for the Jets fans, too. You know?Sam Stone: [00:07:28] You know what? You know what I want for the Jets season? I want a great like six games from Aaron Rodgers, who goes down with a tragic injury. And we see we see we see Zach Wilson come back with the all time great comeback. Yeah, great comeback. Rebirth of his career.Marti Di Caro: [00:07:45] Well, you know, everyone needs a soap opera. Some people watch real soap operas. I watch the Jets.Sam Stone: [00:07:51] Well, I get I get The New York Post in my news every morning, and they're panic over. That would be.Chuck Warren: [00:07:56] Fantastic. It'd be amazing.Marti Di Caro: [00:07:58] Great sports section in that paper.Chuck Warren: [00:08:01] Martin. Martin, what else with our limited time here, what else do you think people should pay more attention to regarding the July 4th? We have one minute.Marti Di Caro: [00:08:10] You know what? Go and read the Declaration of Independence. Everyone can cite those, you know, 55 most famous words. Read the grievances, especially the final grievance. You know, we didn't get to this, but that's okay. This whole idea of a slavery revolution, that's a nonsensical idea that's been put out there by the 1619 project. Yeah. Read those grievances and then go and understand, you know, what was the purpose behind them? Why was Jefferson and his compatriots, why did they, you know, go after King George the third the way they did after, you know, going after parliament through most of.Sam Stone: [00:08:42] The the antidote to ahistorical nonsense is actual history. Thank you so much, Martin De Caro, broadcast journalist for Washington Times and History as It Happens podcast. We love having you on the program and look forward to having you again, folks. Breaking battlegrounds. Back with more in just a moment.Chuck Warren: [00:00:09] Welcome to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren, with my co-host, Sam Stone. Today, we are lucky to have with us on these two segments, Congressman Blake Moore. Congressman Moore represents Utah's first Congressional District. He is also the first ever Republican from Utah who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which discusses issues we talk about all the time. Sam, health care, Social Security work and welfare subcommittees.Sam Stone: [00:00:32] Pretty much all the most important stuff in the country goes through ways and means.Chuck Warren: [00:00:35] Exactly. He is married to Jane Boyer, who the former Jane Boyer. And she is a very candid wife. And so we want to know how she's candid with you, Blake. And he's also the father of four active boys and he's also a little league coach. How are you as a Little League coach, Congressman?Congressman Moore: [00:00:54] You know, I've had a ref pull me aside the other day. He said, wait, you're the congressman, aren't you? And I go, Oh, boy. And he said, he goes, You were on our case today, but I like it. I'd vote for you because you're fiery. I like that you got passion. So I figured it could very well work in the opposite for me as well, too. So I do have to be careful.Chuck Warren: [00:01:18] So what are the what are the age range for your boys?Congressman Moore: [00:01:21] Ten, seven, seven and about 18 months.Chuck Warren: [00:01:24] So which one do you coach, the ten year old or seven year old?Congressman Moore: [00:01:26] Mostly to this point. The ten year old. The seven year old started playing a lot of sports kind of right when I was first running for office. And that was that was tough. So I did a lot with the seven year old. And now I'm picking it back up now that I'm, you know, in my second term, a little bit of a groove scheduling wise that I can, you know, try to try to get engaged a little bit more. So mostly. Mostly, yes. Football, basketball and baseball. You get me outside those three sports, I don't know what I'm doing.Chuck Warren: [00:01:53] Or does your wife feel outnumbered in the house or everybody knows who's really in charge there?Congressman Moore: [00:01:58] They know who's in charge. But she. I actually wanted the girl more. Uh, ironically enough, I think if we were to have had a girl, it would have been she. She would have definitely said that was the best thing. But I still am the one that wants the daughter wants the wedding one day to give away the all that stuff. A little bit of a traditionalist there. So I do feel like we never got that girl, but we definitely don't need five boys. So the risk of going for any more is going to be way, way out.Chuck Warren: [00:02:30] You're not you're not taking that to Vegas. Um, so how do you handle the travel with four young boys and take it? Your family lives in the district in Utah. How do you handle your travel back and forth?Congressman Moore: [00:02:40] Fortunately, I'm about 15 minutes from the airport, and we have direct flights from Salt Lake. So that is a uniquely special thing we can have direct to DC. So that cuts down. I have colleagues from North Dakota, Iowa, some places in Texas, they're an hour, hour and a half away from an airport. Then they're taking a layover. It can always be worse for you. And so my mindset is, one, it could always be worse. I have it pretty, pretty good. Um, think of what some of our military folks go through and the time they spend away from their family and, and, you know, the duty and honor that they do in their life and their service is more honorable, I think, than than what we do in Congress. But it is a fight in Congress. And and it is it is a sacred position. So, um, other folks have always sacrificed more. I think that's how I look at it. My wife deals with it. She she said to me when I first ran, Now listen, if you win, which I don't think you will, you when you win, you can't give me a hard time or make any of those snide comments you do. When we budget together, you can't be passive aggressive about babysitting costs. You just have to you just have to take it and you have to deal with it and not give me a hard time. And you let me own that.Sam Stone: [00:03:53] And Congressman, we could feel bad for you. But we've had the member from Guam on this show and there's nobody who's got a travel schedule as rough as that Poor guy.Congressman Moore: [00:04:02] Exactly.Chuck Warren: [00:04:03] Um, quickly here, tell us a little bit about your work with small business. Is there any bills you're sponsoring on it?Congressman Moore: [00:04:09] So in 2017, Republicans, you know, went at it alone. They used the budget reconciliation process, which allows you to pass a bill without, you know, by bypassing the filibuster when you have the White House, House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats both do this often. Sometimes that leads to big legislation that you wouldn't otherwise do or be able to do given the filibuster. But, um. They they they did the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. And in that tax cut, Jobs Act was a lot of things. And it is our job now and we're in a different political environment. So we're not going to be able to do that same thing over again and re-up everything that's in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act because it's not a political reality. Right. The things that expired, the Democrats aren't going to go on board with. But there are issues. There are there are provisions inside that bill that we have to be able to look back and say, what has worked, what has driven growth, and the Small Business Growth Act that we put together that was passed out of the committee just a few weeks ago, something we're really excited about. And basically it doubles your ability to take itemized deductions on capital improvements, farm equipment, office equipment and just things that you're investing in your own business. A major piece of manufacturing. If you can write all.Chuck Warren: [00:05:25] These all these things, that creates productivity and jobs, correct? Exactly. We're going to take a quick break here with Congressman Blake Moore. Utah's first Congressional District. He sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds. Vote. We'll be right back.Sam Stone: [00:00:11] Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Continuing on the line with us, Congressman Blake Moore from Utah's first Congressional District here in just a moment. But folks, are you struggling with stock market volatility right now, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market? A portfolio where you know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises, you can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle. If you need your money back at any time, your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly. There are no fees. And this is a secure collateralized portfolio that delivers a fixed rate of return up to 10.25%, up to 10.25%. It's the best deal out there in investing right now. Check out our friends at Invest Y Refy.com That's invest the letter Y. The letter Y, then Refy.com or give them a call at 888 Y Refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Okay, Chuck Continuing on with Congressman Moore. Congressman, are you familiar with the proposal that I believe it's Congressman Schweikert here from Arizona has put up to increase the minimum before businesses have to file a 1099 for contract employees and the like from I believe it's currently $600 or 800 up to 5000. Talking to a lot of small business owners, that's the kind of simple thing that would make their lives massively easier. Is that something that that you're looking to support and that others should be talking about more? Because I heard a little about it and then it seems to have disappeared.Congressman Moore: [00:01:47] It's absolutely yeah, I know about it. We passed it in the the economic package a few weeks ago. This is the this is an opportunity to that the chairman, Chairman Smith wanted us to go out into, you know, regular America, not just inside the Beltway and do some and do some public hearings. And this is one of the things that rang true and kind of highlighted to us. Well, we need to really be focused on this. This is like listening to, you know, everyday Americans running their businesses. This is what we learn from them. And we're like this. This was set years and years ago. And if you would have just adjust for inflation, it would go up. That's how you get with the regulatory body. It becomes archaic and you don't create opportunities to be dynamic within the system. So it's a no brainer in my opinion. It's an overly burdensome. And I think the best example is the Chairman Smith, who still runs a small family farm. If someone comes and bails hay for him, like every like high school senior that comes and bails hay for, you know, ten bucks an hour, they end up having to do a full 1099. That is not the intent. So up the threshold, still holding people accountable. This isn't where the all the tax evaders are doing a bunch of high school seniors. This is not where it is. And babysitters like.Sam Stone: [00:02:58] No smarter.Congressman Moore: [00:02:59] Than our economy.Sam Stone: [00:03:00] The tax evaders tend to be in much higher tax brackets than people who are filing a few thousand dollars in a 1099. Exactly right. One of the things that I think has been a good focus within this Congress and this touches on it, but is and it seems like we could at least find some more room with Democrats to agree on. This is going through some of these archaic rules and saying, hey, does this really still work or does it need to be adjusted or does it need to be replaced or gotten rid of it? Deregulating in a way that doesn't reduce oversight is very possible, isn't it?Congressman Moore: [00:03:35] Yeah, it's very possible. And we need to be adults back in Washington and find those simplistic things we can address on in the Ways and Means Committee. Right now, trade is largely bipartisan and we actually have really good collaborative work together. We do on that. Taxation has become so toxic that I feel that I fear people aren't looking at the big picture. And and if you take an individual piece, I think you got a lot of agreement, but it's how you move it forward. And that's the thing I don't think Americans necessarily understand well enough is, yeah, we agree on a lot of things, but then how you move the package forward, do you tie it to something else that's less popular and try to get more support? That's where we've got to get to more single issue voting that would make everything run more smoothly back there.Chuck Warren: [00:04:24] Well, that's absolutely right. We've often wondered and we talked to various members and they all say, yes, you're correct, Why don't you push more single issue? So, for example, here's one we had a former attorney here who worked on the border and she suggesting, for example, an immigration bill that says unless you come through a port of entry and there's about 327 of them, some of them in the United States, unless you come through a port of entry, you're immediately denied asylum. You need to come through the front door. Right? Right. There needs to be a process that seems like a pretty easy bill. If somebody just submitted that issue alone, one pager, it gets through.Sam Stone: [00:04:57] From an Arizona perspective. It separates the wolves from the sheep. Right. Because the wolves will keep going through.Chuck Warren: [00:05:02] So why don't so so, Congressman, more why don't they do that more?Congressman Moore: [00:05:08] I, i, i. It would make so many things better in our legislative experience. Um. I. Immigration particularly has become a wedge issue. I don't know how else to put it. For 40 years, we've had people that want to to build the right type of policy. You either have to do one of two things on immigration and I'll be brief. You either have to do what we're talking about, make it very simplistic, and tie it together or make it more comprehensive. And and I think people want to get like halfway comprehensive, like I'm supportive of of truly looking at DACA and a visa system that makes sense and is streamlined and gets more workers here. I want more workers here. My district desperately needs more good workforce here, and that can come from a more streamlined immigration. But if we do all if we do that before we tighten up the border process, then the cartels will just be the cartels will be empowered. So you have to build a more comprehensive approach. I do like what Maria Salazar is doing in that comprehensive piece. I just don't think we're we're not ready for it right now because as Republicans, we want to make sure that you see the first part done, and that is the good policy remain in Mexico policy and tighten up the border security. And then we'll get plenty of people on board for for for streamlining it. But it's it's a conundrum and it's a wedge issue. And that's that's and we're not living up to what the Americans need. Every single person back in Washington isn't isn't living up to what they need.Chuck Warren: [00:06:37] So, Congressman Moore, let's talk about a simpler issue. And I say that sarcastically. You're on the House Ways and Means Committee. What do we do about Social Security? I mean, it's a ticking time bomb. People are not being honest about the reform. I have not heard any Republican to say, yeah, we're going to cut benefits now. We've made promise to some people currently retired and those close to retirement that need to be upheld. But what do we need to do for a workforce in their 20s and 30s who are going to have 80 plus year, you know, longevity? What do we do?Congressman Moore: [00:07:06] We took the best first step, last, last session of Congress. The 117th passed the secure 2.0 bill. Secure 2.0 will allow for younger workers to have an extra five or so years saving for retirement. If you are paying down your student loan, say you've graduated from grad school, you're 25 years old and you start paying down your student loan, you you oftentimes have to choose between paying down your student loan or contributing to your 401. K. Your company can. Now, if you are if you're paying your student loan down and a big, big win in Scotus today about the student loan repayment, we can get into that but the company can now contribute on your behalf even if you're not putting in your own match. So we're going to start having people save for retirement much earlier. Um, and that that will.Sam Stone: [00:07:53] That's a great step, Congressman. And thank you. I mean, it's the.Congressman Moore: [00:07:57] Right it's the right step. It had over 400 votes in Congress in the House to pass. Very bipartisan. It's productive. We we have to create other incentives that you do probably have to means test Social Security going forward. We got people getting it that really have that don't really they don't really need it. And they could actually probably delay if they were to be willing to take it in case they lived longer just to offset that risk. So there's all sorts of productive ways we can be doing this without just saying we need to tax more because we have a worker to retirement work ratio issue and we've known it's been coming. I will say this retroactively, if we would have done what President Bush had tried to push, tried to do, we would have been putting money instead of just into a, you know, a government low yield bond like the trust fund. We would have been putting money into mutual funds. And and Dems Democrats will always say, oh, you're privatizing it. You just want to help your Wall Street buddies. That's fundamentally false. And they know it and it's dishonest. If we would have done that, we would have been able to grow the amount of money that we have to contribute to that. Over the last 20 years, would anybody not choose to put money into an S&P 520 years ago? Absolutely not. It was closing at 900 and today it's closing at 4000. Stock markets go up into the right generally over time. They always have. If we don't if we're not willing to trust that, then we're not going to be able to to to to do that. So there's all sorts of things out there that could be doing and we're stuck in stagnation. And if we don't do something in the next ten years to truly address this issue, then, you know, we are we are literally dooming people to having far fewer, you know, 75% of the benefit automatically kicks in. So we're doing them regardless.Sam Stone: [00:09:41] It's a it's a really dishonest talking point, Chuck, to say that the market is somehow robbing people because over any 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 year period, the market may go up or down. But over any ten year period in US history, over 20 years, 50 years, it always goes up. Well, it's even more.Congressman Moore: [00:09:58] Look at all these Ivy League schools with their endowments, right? They're out there. They're out there engaging in growth opportunities, in market opportunities. And and I don't hear any Democrats complaining about all these Ivy leagues that are that are, you know, using their endowments to to cover their expenses. And they're doing a they're doing a fabulous job. And they're also very profitable. And we could be doing that more with with the government. I think Senator Cassidy, I believe, has got some really good proposals that that way it's tougher now because we just don't the trust fund is in such a dire it's in a more dire situation than it was back in the early 2000 when when President George W Bush wanted to push this more. It's just disingenuous.Sam Stone: [00:10:39] And I'm really glad, Congressman, that you brought up means testing, because I've heard too many politicians be afraid of that. But I've never talked to anyone who was rich who cared. No, you know, I mean, honestly, if you're rich, the amount you're going to get from Social Security is so minimal that it takes an actual Scrooge to care about whether they're going to get that money at that point, that that's just the way it is.Congressman Moore: [00:11:02] And what wealthy people want to see is good money going after good. If they're good, money is going after complete government waste. And right now we have just too much government spending and people are like, well, geez, I would love to be contributing to paying down our debt. If I knew that it was going to actually make a difference. But if it's not making a difference, then they shouldn't. So so I kind of see it both ways. But you're right, you've been saying and I think you can offset the risk by saying, I don't need to engage in this for, you know, if I live past I'm 80 or, you know, at 78, I will defer that to that point. There's no real serious conversations going on. It's more so just a little bit of of the latter. And, you know, Republicans had a chance to do it in 2017 and they they deferred and they President Trump wanted to wait till he was in his second term. And it's so ironic right now. I'm a guy that can call it both ways to see President Trump criticize House Republicans, trying to say we're out there trying to get rid of Social Security. That is also disingenuous and it's all political and it's just kind of lobbying for older people's votes. And that's that's not what that's not being an adult back there as not good.Sam Stone: [00:12:08] Governance, that's.Chuck Warren: [00:12:09] For sure. Governance at all. We have two minutes left here. So we're coming up on the July 4th weekend. Tell our audience what this holiday means to you. And specifically, what is your hope and vision for America ten, 20 years down the road?Congressman Moore: [00:12:24] Oh, thank you. I love that question. I really appreciate you focusing on that. You know, it's not just a talking point or a feel good statement, but but God, country and family, they really do mean a lot. And they should be. What everybody what we root ourselves in for this holiday is is family. For me, I've always been able to find time to boat, to golf, to to to something outdoors. We're not great campers. We got young kids still. But like in Utah, like this holiday matters. And there's always time to to find opportunities to to be with family. And I love it. And Utah is a unique place because you have the 4th of July and then you have the 24th of July. And that's our sort of a holiday when the Pioneers came into to Utah. So we call it Pioneer Day. And so there's a lot of fireworks, a lot of God country and family in this place. And my my honest vision for America is to recognize that we have some we have policy differences. Um, but if we let those policy differences divide us continually and if we if that moves into constant personality and division, then China wins, Russia wins, our adversaries win. And we don't have the strength that we have and what we've led the world on over the over the last century. And my vision is to to be firm on where I'm at policy, defend it, try to persuade, and then look for opportunities to to unite our nation more so than than I feel like we are right now.Chuck Warren: [00:14:04] Congressman, we have 15 seconds with you. Where can people follow you on social media?Congressman Moore: [00:14:09] Electmoore.com Is my website or just go to rep Blakemore There's uh, I can't remember. So there's campaign and there's but rep Blakemore on all my socials. Uh, and we would love, would love to follow.Chuck Warren: [00:14:24] Congressman Moore, Utah's first Congressional District. Thanks for joining us. Have a great 4th of July. This is breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back after this break. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Lucy Stone is sometimes written about as the person who should be mentioned alongside Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony. She lived an incredibly unique life for a woman of her time and station.   Research: Michals, Debra “Lucy Stone.” National Women's History Museum. 2017. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/lucy-stone Million, Joelle. “Woman's Voice, Woman's Place: Lucy Stone and the Birth of the Woman's Rights Movement.” Praeger. 2003. Kerr, Andrea Moore. “Lucy Stone: Speaking Out for Equality.” Rutgers University Press. 1992. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780813518602/page/n323/mode/2up Blackwell, Henry B. “What the South can do. How the Southern states can make themselves masters of the situation. To the legislatures of the Southern states.” New York. Robert J. Johnston, printer. January 15, 1867. Library of Congress: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe12/rbpe127/12701100/12701100.pdf Tucker, Neely. “Stone/Blackwell Marriage: To Love And Honor, But Not ‘Obey.'” Library of Congress Blog. May 5, 2020. https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2020/05/stone-blackwell-marriage-to-love-and-honor-but-not-obey/ com Editors. “Lucy Stone.” Biography. Com. Nov. 23, 2021. https://www.biography.com/activists/lucy-stone Smith, Bonnie Hurd. “Lucy Stone.” Boston Women's Heritage Trail. https://bwht.org/lucy-stone/ “Lucy Stone.” National Women's Hall of Fame. https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/lucy-stone/ “Garrisonians.” Vermont Christian Messenger. Jan. 30, 1850. https://www.newspapers.com/image/490750662/?terms=%22Lucy%20Stone%22&match=1 Hays, Elinor. “Morning Star.” New York. Harcourt, Brace & World. 1961. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/morningstar00hays/page/n7/mode/2up Lang, Allison. “The 14th and 15th Amendments.” National Women's History Museum. Fall 2015. https://www.crusadeforthevote.org/14-15-amendments/ Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Lucy Stone". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 Oct. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucy-Stone Wheeler, Marjoeiw Spruill. “New Women of the New South: The Leaders of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the Southern States.” Oxford University Press. 1993. McMillen, Sally Gregory. “Lucy Stone: An Unapologetic Life.” Oxford University Press. 2015. “Love and Protest in a Marriage.” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/women-fight-for-the-vote/about-this-exhibition/seneca-falls-and-building-a-movement-1776-1890/family-friends-and-the-personal-side-of-the-movement/love-and-protest-in-a-suffrage-marriage/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Chris is talking about the history of the Women's Suffrage Movement in the USA. Starting in the mid 1800s, America is growing but the Declaration of Independence still holds true to "All Men are created equal". Women came together for the first time in New York to discuss their rights and that was remembered as the Seneca Falls Convention. Enter the Women's Suffrage movement. Women's suffrage is the right of women to vote in elections. We have women like, Susan B Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Carrie Chapman Catt fighting for women's rights. SHOUT OUT National Woman Suffrage Association! They came together to fight for the 19th Amendment and thanks to the industrial revolution, prohibition and many protests, they got the right to vote in 1920! Listen and share your favorite part of today's Christories!!!  #ChrisDistefano #Podcast #Comedy UNCUT WILD CONTENT GO HERE

The Woman's Bible

For Women's History Month, Devin and Lauren tell the story of Dr. Mary Walker: physician, heroine of the Civil War, and the only woman in history ever to be awarded the Medal of Honor. Born to progressive parents in western New York, Walker would defy the odds to become a surgeon, spy for the Union Army during the Civil War, and go toe-to-toe with prominent suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Walker is buried in the Oswego Rural Cemetery. Marker of Focus: Rural Cemetery, Oswego, Oswego County Guests: Dr. Theresa Kaminski, author of Dr. Mary Walker's Civil War; and George DeMass, Oswego Town Historian A New York Minute In History is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio, the New York State Museum, and Archivist Media, with support from the William G. Pomeroy Foundation. This episode was produced by Jesse King, with help from intern Elizabeth Urbanczyk. Our theme is “Begrudge” by Darby. Further Reading: Theresa Kaminski, Dr. Mary Walker's Civil War: One Woman's Journey to the Medal of Honor and the Fight for Women's Rights Sara Latta, I Could Not Do Otherwise: The Remarkable Life of Dr. Mary Edwards Walker Thavolia Glymph, The Women's Fight: The Civil War's Battles for Home, Freedom, and Nation Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, The Book of Gutsy Women Teaching Resources: Association of the U.S. Army, Medal of Honor Mary Walker Junior Scholastic, Mary Walker's War Keith Negley, Mary Wears What She Wants Follow Along Devin: Welcome to A New York Minute in History. I'm Devin Lander, the New York state historian. Lauren: And I'm Lauren Roberts, the historian for Saratoga County. On today's episode, we're exploring the backstory of a marker located in the town of Oswego in western New York, on the shores of Lake Ontario, which is adjacent to the City of Oswego. The marker is located in the Oswego Town Rural Cemetery on Cemetery Road, and the text reads: “Rural Cemetery. Begun circa 1820. Medal of Honor recipients, Dr. Mary Walker, fi

As the suffrage movement played out on the national stage with women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul leading the charge, Oklahomans were also working to see the 19th Amendment passed and ratified. In this episode, Trait Thompson and Dr. Bob Blackburn discuss the political landscape in Oklahoma and Indian Territories that initially rejected suffrage after 1890 along with their guest, Dr. Sunu Kodumthara from Southwestern Oklahoma State University. The trio expounds upon the contributions of Oklahoma suffragists such as Aloysius Larch-Miller, Narcissa Owen, and Kate Stafford that ultimately led to adoption of a state constitutional amendment in 1918 and the federal amendment in 1920. They also delve into the antisuffrage work of Alice Robertson, and Kate Barnard's decision to forgo suffrage work in lieu of her other causes

“President Wilson, how long must we wait for liberty?” This is the story of women's suffrage.  According to the legal doctrine of coverture, a married woman is “covered” by her husband. Legally, economically, politically—she largely ceases to exist. Yet, does widowed colonial Lydia Taft get to vote? And why does Revolutionary New Jersey buck the system, specifically writing a voting law that describes voters as “he or she,” then later disenfranchise women? Decades pass, but the idea of women's suffrage is resurrected. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, Alice Stone, and staunch male supporters, like Henry Blackwell and Frederick Douglass, fight for it. But relationships fray as other women, anti-suffragists, fight against women's suffrage.  Entering the twenty-first-century women picket, march, face forced feedings, and endure abuse; in one case, a beloved suffragist dies. But their sacrifices won't be in vain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices