Are We Really Sisters and Brothers In Christ?

In a supposedly Christian nation, America, does it matter how we treat each other? The current atmosphere is filled with division of every level, man against woman, brown against white, left against right, etc. But is this the way it is supposed to be for CHRISTIANS?

Ask people the question, "What is most important to you?" and one of the answers you will definitely get is the answer: FAMILY. Family is a source of unconditional love, safety, and security. Friends come and go but family is forever. Because the family unit is so important, The Christian Bible uses it to help the Christian understand how they are to treat and interact with others. The Bible uses the relationship of SISTER and BROTHER in particular to instruct how Christians should treat other Christians. Take a moment and think about your relationship with your own sister or brother. How do you treat your own sibling?

The Bible includes several verses about being brothers and sisters in Christ, including John 13:34-35, Matthew 12:48-50, and Hebrews 10:19. These verses describe how Christians should love one another and work together for the common good. Hebrews 10:19 "And now we are brothers and sisters in God's family because of the blood of Jesus. 1 John 4:21 "The one who loves God must also love his brother and sister, in both word and deed." Being a brother or sister in Christ means being part of God's family and sharing in Christ's love.

"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50). God calls us to be brothers and sisters in Christ, by loving each other as we love ourselves and working together to do good works unto the community around us and to work together to make disciples for Him. Right now, Republicans are only loving Republicans (Democrats only Democrats), each ethnic group their own selves, Christians only Christians. You get the picture, and it is an unbiblical picture.

American history includes Christian history. A history many desire not to be taught in schools and universities. From the start, Christians sought to convert everyone they came into contact with to Christianity. In early American history this included the Native American and the Black slaves. Christian Europeans saw converting native peoples as essential to "saving" them. A running theme in the conversion of slaves also. In Pennsylvania, many religious groups - particularly Protestant denominations imported from England, Scotland, and Germany - sought to Christianize natives.

In the early American Christian's zeal to spread the gospel and win souls to Christ, a PROBLEM arose. If the Native American or slave became a CHRISTIAN, then they were biblically SISTERS and BROTHERS in Christ and afforded a CERTAIN kind of LOVE and TREATMENT! This was a problem on so many levels for the early American Christian. What ever would they do?

Interactions between enslaved people and Christian missionaries (and other evangelists) led to the spread of Christianity among Black Americans. Many slaveowners initially resisted these evangelistic efforts partially out of concern that if enslaved people became Christians, they would see themselves as their owners’ equals. By 1706, this fear by slaveowners had spurred legislation in at least six colonies declaring that an enslaved person’s baptism did not entail their freedom. Yep! A LAW was made AGAINST the Christian Bible.

YES! Early American Christians IGNORED the Bible's admonition to treat their FELLOW Christian as a sister or brother. They went beyond just ignoring the mandate to treat their fellow Christian with unconditional love and were downright EVIL to them. Are Christians ignoring the same Bible mandate now in how they treat illegal aliens, the poor, or people of different cultural backgrounds? Christian CRUELTY is a part of Christian History.

From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its Indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492. https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states. 

Early colonists saw the spread of disease, such as smallpox brought to the new land by the settlers, among Native Americans as God’s plan for them to settle the area or as God’s wrath for the sinful life of Native Americans. Native Americans’ susceptibility to disease was also used against them. The Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations were known as America’s Five Civilized Tribes because of their quick and skillful adaptation to the “white man’s ways.” The U.S. government felt threatened by these tribes and saw them as a barrier to expansion. The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830. But the Act was far from humane and merciful. Thousands of Native Americans would perish on the journey west, known as the Trail of Tears. The Choctaw was the first nation expelled from their land in 1831. They made the journey on foot, some bound in chains, without food, supplies, or the help promised by the government. Thousands perished along the way.

Slaves in the United States were often subjected to sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments like whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or more members, usually never to see or hear of each other again. Slaves were often branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason and would face no punishment.

The Bible and Christianity were used by those in power or seeking power to do harm to others, keep them in their place, or to make them a lesser person. When needed, certain parts of the Bible were just ignored. 

According to the 2023 PRRI Census of American Religion, about two-thirds of Americans (66%) identify as Christian. This includes 41% who identify as white Christians and 25% who identify as Christians of color. This should be a country overflowing with Sisterly and brotherly LOVE. But it isn't.

American and Religious History has shown us how we are willing to treat each other. While proclaiming Christ we are not living Christlike, as a family that loves one another as we love ourselves. Being a Christian is more than voting for a particular candidate, party, or biblical cause, it's about how we treat each other. To my knowledge the Golden Rule is still in effect for ALL Christians, "Treat others the way you want to be treated," which includes fellow and non-fellow Christians.

So, I end with the question I first posed, "Are we really sisters and brothers in Christ?"

Sacrifice of Motherhood

Ask a woman who has been pregnant and givien birth to describe the experience and you will receive varying accounts. Some women enjoy and have the 'glow' of pregnacy while others find it a time filled with nausea and physical discomfort. A 2015 study by Polish researchers found mothers carrying sons had higher disgust sensitivity compared to mothers carrying daughters in the first trimester. While girl-moms’ queasiness decreased during the second trimester, boy-moms actually experienced elevated stomach-turning reactions.

Deliveries can be quick or drawn out with intense pain. There are those who want to be present and experience every nuance of giving birth, while others pray to be knocked out and awakened once the baby is delivered. Joanna was forced to remain in the tilted position 24 hours a day for two and a half months. After 75 days – and what is believed to be the longest labour ever recorded – Joanna gave birth to a healthy girl, Iga, and boy, Ignacy. The two babies were delivered by caesarean at a neo-natal clinic in Wroclaw, Poland.

Even with medical books available to walk a woman through pregnancy and delivery, there is always something the literature is unable to convey and could only be learned through the experience of BEING pregnant and GIVING birth. 

It surprises me how many people view being pregnant and giving birth as no more extrodinary or involved as going to the grocery store for food. They say it has been done for years, so there must not be that much to it. Many of the adverse effects of pragnancy women faced were turned into just old wive's tales. The old wives were on to something when they warned “gain a child and lose a tooth.” Women who have had three children forfeit four chompers more than those who have had two kids or fewer. Women whose first two children are the same sex, and who then go on to have a third child, are particularly at risk. Problems with gum disease and calcium absorption in pregnancy may leave moms vulnerable 

Carrying a child and giving birth, whether vaginally or by cesarean section, can stress muscles, ligaments, and nerves responsible for sexual function and bladder and bowel control. The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among developed countries, according to data from the Orginisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. There were 20 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in 2019, more than double the rate just two decades ago.

More than half of the women, 52%, died after delivery. The total numbers are likely higher thab reported, as deaths from suicide and drug overdoses among people who recently gave birth may not be listed as postpartum deaths. Black women are more than twice as likely to die as a result of chilkdbirth than White women, underscoring racial and ethnic diparities.

The most common complications women report after giving birth include pain after sex, incontinence, pain at the incision site following a cesarean section, and postpartum depression, Gunter said. Once the baby is born, a woman’s blood pressure may spike dangerously. She may hemorrhage or develop egg-sized blood clots. Her emotions may plummet or soar amid rapidly fluctuating hormones. Crippling lower back pain may sear on one side of the body, while on the other, the abdominal muscles separate after months of straining to contain a growing human. These changes happen while her newborn baby needs to eat once every two to three hours, if not more frequently.

In a first-of-its-kind, ground-breaking analysis of pre- and post-pregnancy brain scans published in 2016, researchers found mothers lose gray matter during pregnancy—and these losses endure for at least two years. 

Even with all we know about pregnany and childbirth, there are surprises. Because being pregnant and delivering a baby is much more demanding on the body, serious thought should be given whether to bnecome a mother or not and the choice should be made by the person affected the most - the potencial mother. Motherhood is a sacrificial act filled with mystery and can even be seen in the animal kingdom. Moms do and give in ways not even noticed by themselves.

One similarities moms have with an animal is how they carry their newborn. Regardless of whether they are left- or right-handed, human moms tend to cradle their babies on the left side of their bodies, especially in the early months. Observed off the coast of a Russian island, walrus moms tend to keep their babies on the left while bobbing along the waves, and their calves swam over to their mother’s left side before diving to suckle. 

We all know mother protect their children fiercely The widespread phenomenon of maternal aggression may involve oxytocin, a neurochemical also related to birth and lactation. In a 2017 lab experiment, rat moms stopped attacking a threat once oxytocin signaling in part of their brains was blocked. Some studies have found that oxytocin levels in moms increase at the onset of labor and during labor compared to 1 or 2 weeks before labor, reaching a peak just when the head of the baby is delivered. In another study, levels of oxytocin were found to increase slowly until delivery and then decrease up to 8 weeks postpartum. One group reported higher levels of oxytocin at 36 weeks of pregnancy than 1 day after delivery or later.

Mothers are willing to go to the death for their children. Here are some animals who go above and beyond for their offsprings. I ask you to picture a 'human' mom and the sacrifice she makes with her decision to become a mom. Motherhood (pregnancy and delivery included) is not for the faint of heart.

Ever the overachiever, the female octopus can lay up to hundreds of thousands of eggs in one go. Over the eggs’ development period — anywhere from 40 days to 53 months in the case of one record-breaking species, Graneledone boreopacifica, these maternal cephalopods gently blow water currents over the eggs to provide them with oxygen and keep them clean. Unwilling to leave her brood to hunt for food, the mother octopus often resorts to eating one or two of her own tentacles for sustenance while waiting for them to hatch.

Chicken moms take their duties very seriously. Creating an endless amount of calcium carbonate for eggshells is a difficult task, so if chickens don't get enough calcium in their diets, they'll actually dissolve their own bones to make baby-housing shells. 

Like bears, the mother Pacific gray whales go hungry for months while still needing to produce high-calorie milk for their babies. During this time they may lose as much as 8 tons of weight.

For many females spiders, they attach their egg cocoons to their webs and watch over them until the babies hatch. Once her children have hatched, the mother continues to eat, but regurgitates most of her meals as a nutrient soup for her offspring while the spiderlings stay in their mother's web. When the babies are around a month old, the mother spider rollover on her back allowing the spiderlings to clamber over her, kill her by injecting their venom and digestive enzymes into her body, and eat her. When the babies are around a month old, the mother spider rolls over on her back allowing the spiderlings to clamber over her, kill her by injecting their venom and digestive enzymes into her body, and eat her. 

In earwig nation, the idea of unconditional maternal love isn't a given. When earwig mothers have a clutch of babies (or nymphs), the mothers will sniff out a chemical signal from the healthier ones and proceed to provide more abundant care and feeding to those babies. The babies that are identified as hungrier and less robust will be given less attentive parenting and feeding. 

Mama Panda is a coldhearted, favorite-choosing shrew of a parent. Or a little less dramatically: Mama Panda will often give birth to two babies but almost always only raises one.  Panda moms have to expend an enormous amount of energy to even digest their own food, and providing milk or resources for little ones is extremely difficult. By concentrating their energy on one of the babies, the chance of having one healthy offspring seems better than having two weak progeny.

We have no shortage of stories about infanticide in nature. Most of us who have been in a fourth-grade classroom know that hamsters are one of the most well-known creatures to devour their young, along with mice and other rodents. But long-tailed skinks that inhabit the island of Lanyu (just off the coast of Taiwan) If they feel they're threatened by predators, the skinks immediately gobble up their own eggs.

Birth Control means Controlling Births

Whenever people talk about pregnancy it is always in a warm, loving, gushy, feelings kind of way. The thought of a new bundle of joy arriving soon delights those in proximity to the expectant mother. Everyone loves a baby. Or do they?

In early history of the family, children were not always viewed as a godsend. Oh, they were needed and necessary for various reasons, but there was not the joy and delight experienced by modern expecting parents. Male children were extremely important. They would inherit the families wealth and carry on the family name. Boy babies were desperately wanted. And if a woman failed to deliver the 'man' child, there could be consequences. 

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring. The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive. Pregnancy has always mattered to men. Pregnancy for women, or the inability of, could be a time of anxiety and fear.

In modern society, it is almost tabboo to say you don't want to have any children. People can not fathom why someone would prefer to be childless. Some research found a negative relation between these variables: parenthood was associated with decreased marriage quality, increased marital conflict, more severe symptoms of depression, and decreased marital satisfaction–especially when pregnancy was unplanned. Having children is not all fun and games. 

Children are hard on a marriage. Not only is raising children time-consuming and tiring, it is also related to a frequent exposure to stressors. With each added child there is added stress taking time and attentian away from the married couple as they manage the stressors of child rearing. The stressors may outweigh the resources the couple has at some point. Even if partners are fulfilled as parents, their relational wellbeing may be threatened due to parental distress. 

So, throughout history, ways to decrease the number of children conceived has been practiced. People knew the number of children they had affected the entire family in varous ways. How many children were people having in the days when they were not successfully able to control births?

Who gave birth to the most children in history? Between 1725-1765, Valentina Vassilyev was apparently rather busy. According to a local monestary's records, the prolific Russian mother popped out 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets, and 4 sets of quadruplets, ove 27 separate lobours. The grand total: 69 children. There are many skeptics regarding this record. But, if controlling births is not practiced, there is a probability of having a large number of children. Sixty-nine children may seem like far too many. For some, 3, are far too many. It all depends on the ability of the parents to be able to care for the children. Finances are important, but emotional and mental stability to raise a large number of children is a must.

The verified record holder for most births is a Ugandan mother named Miriam Nabatanzi, who has a rare genetic condition called hyperovulation, and gave birth to 44 children across 15 births from 1993 to 2016. She is a single mother to her 38 surviving kids.

For men, and the number of children they conceive are off the charts. While records are difficult to confirm, it probably is true that Genghis Khan has fathered the most children in history, as estimates range between 1,000 and 3,000 direct offspring from his enormous harem. A 2003 study estimated that 16 million men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan. Similar studies have shown a Y-chromosome lineage linked to at least ten other extraordinarily prolific dads, including the Qing Dynasty ruler Giocangga. Why haven't science come up with an oral or injectable contraceptive for men?

More recently, a court case in the Netherlands exposed an alarming fact. A Dutch musician in his early 40’s named Jonathan Jacob Meijer, had fathered between 550 and 600 children through sperm donation. Meijer is a bit of a Dutch lion, with “a mane of curly blonde hair.” In online ads promoting his suitability as a sperm donor, Meijer has described himself as a “musical Viking donor.”

When we think about whether or not to have children, we believe it should be the sole decision of the future parents. But, that was not always the case.

In Ancient Rome the law provides too much freedom to householders whether to admit a newborn child or not. In order to make a decision, all family members including relatives and neighbors give their opinions. Because during that time unwanted and disabled children could be left to die on the streets. Law gives the father, who has whole authority on the family, the right to choose the life of his child. The accepted child would be welcomed by a ceremony in the family. There are several symbolic scenes such as the oldest man in the family putting the child to the ground and hanging a flashy crown outside of the house door to welcome a child. During the first 3-4 days, they hang a chain of amulet to the girl’s neck and bulla to the boy’s neck. Girls and boys get their names after 8 and 9 days of their birth respectively which is a day after die lustrous, a time period when it is no longer feared the infant would die. 

As we continue to travel through time, children are still not viewed as a gift. The medieval society was primarily an agrarian one (community whose economy is based on producing and maintaining crops and farmland). And the family unit made the agrarian economy work. From an economic standpoint, nothing was more valuable to a peasant family than sons to help with the plowing and daughters to help with the household. To have children was, essentially, one of the primary reason to marry. Children were valued for the labor and production they could add to a poor family. Poor people had many children and did not practice controlling births.

Among the nobility, children would perpetuate the family name and increase the family's holdings through advancement in service to their liege lords and through advantageous marriages. Some of these unions were planned while the bride and groom-to-be were still in the cradle. Children were still used to increase wealth and status of a family. They were born with a job to help their family.

In 1325 and the outbreak of the first plague epidemic (bubonic), testators (a person who has made a will or given a legacy) had on average 2.8 live children. Between 1350 and 1375, the average dropped to 1.9 and continued to decrease, reaching a low of 1.4 children per testator between 1400 and 1424. To acheive this low number of children within a marriage, before the invention of reliable birth control, there must have been abstinance. Currently, there is a turning tide against the use of contraceptives, IVF, and abortions. The 1300's proved conception can be controlled without medical intervention. You just may not like how it is accomplished though.

During the 1300's when births were more than likely controlled through abtinance, life was not easy. Life was harsh with a limited diet and little comfort. Women were subordinate to men, in both the peasant and noble classes, and were expected to ensure the smooth running of the household. Children had a 50% survival rate beyond age one, and began to contribute to family life around age twelve. In 1300-1400, the life expectancy was 45.4 years of age.

Until about a century ago, many spouses died by their mid-forties, and many babies were born out of wedlock. Many children became orphans or were abandoned due to an inability to care for them. In medieval Europe, for example, people died early from disease, malnutrition, and other problems. One consequence of early mortality was that many young children could expect to outlive at least one of their parents and thus essentially were raised in one-parent families or in stepfamilies.

During the American colonial period, different family types abounded, and the nuclear family was by no means the only type. Children in colonial families were numerous and averaged between seven to ten in each household. The number of children at home varied, however, for a variety of reasons. The most common of these being (sadly) early death of children. Roughly half of the off-spring would not reach maturity. Nomadic Native American groups had relatively small nuclear families, while nonnomadic groups had larger extended families. Because nuclear families among African Americans slaves were difficult to achieve, slaves adapted by developing extended families, adopting orphans, and taking in other people not related by blood or marriage. Many European parents of colonial children died because average life expectancy was only 45 years. The one-third to one-half of children who outlived at least one of their parents lived in stepfamilies or with just their surviving parent. Mothers were so busy working the land and doing other tasks that they devoted relatively little time to child care, which instead was entrusted to older children or servants.

In 1800, most women in the U.S. had 7 children but that number has steadily decreased over the years, with the exception of the Baby Boom (when the U.S. fertility rate jumped to 3.62). In 2018, U.S. woman had 1.7 children on average.

By the 1900s, parents began to treat children more like little people and dressed them like kids, not mini adults. It was the custom to pose in front of a photographer's backdrop for family photos. Since there were no color photographs, artists sometimes painted over the black-and-white photos. This must have been the start of the wam fuzzy feelings towards having children. They were no longer viewed as bargaining chips for lucrative marriages, or free labor. Children were just children. Now a precious gift. So no need for trying to control births. Bring on the babies!

Moving much forward in US history, an important change in American families occurred during the 1940s after World War II ended. As men came home after serving in the military in Europe and Japan, books, magazines, and newspapers exhorted women to have babies, and babies they did have. People got married at younger ages and the birth rate soared, resulting in the now famous baby boom generation. Many families during the 1950s did indeed fit the Leave It to Beaver model of the breadwinner-homemaker suburban nuclear family. Following the Depression of the 1930s and the war of the 1940s, the 1950s seemed an almost idyllic decade. Life was easy and good. Why would anyone want to control births?

The pill was first prescribed exclusively for mestrual regulation, and only to married women. The emergence of the women's rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s was significantly related to the availability of the pill and the control over fertility it enabled. This capability allowed women to make choices about other life arenas, especially work. It reduced the risk of unintended pregnancy in the context of the sexual revolution of the '60s and established family planning as the cultural norm for the U.S. and in many other countries of the world. The first pill was effective and simple to use. The theory was that the risk of pregnancy and the stigma that went along with it prevented single women from having sex and married women from having affairs. Since women on the Pill could control their fertility, single and married women could have sex anytime, anyplace, and with anyone without the risk of pregnancy.

This sounds absolutely retched doesn't it? Women having sex free willy-nilly and dodging the consequences of pregancy. THOSE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE, John 8:7-11. Men have always had the ability to decide when they wanted to engage in the duties of fatherhood. Notice I said men chose when to enter fatherhood and not when to become a father. There's a difference. 

Nearly half (46%) of men ages 15 to 44 with biological children report that at least one of their children was born outside of marriage, and 31% report that all of their children were born outside of marriage. There are also 2.9 million men (2.4%) who are living with an unmarried partner and have biological children with that partner. Nearly one in ten men have children with more than one person. Of the 72.2 million fathers, 5.9 million (8.2%) have never been married. Nearly half (46 percent) of fathers with multiple-partner fertility had at least one child within a marriage and one child outside a marriage.

A new Child Trends study estimates that 15 percent of men, or more than one in seven, will father children with more than one woman by the age of 40. According to the study, Men Who Father Children with More Than One Woman: A Contemporary Portrait of Multiple-Partner Fertility, five percent of men will father children with more than one woman by age 25. This increases to eight percent at age 30, to 12 percent at age 35, and to 15 percent at age 40. Moreover, these men have more children than men who have multiple children with the same woman: More than one-third of men (36 percent) who had children with multiple women had four or more children. 

These numbers could be higher, but men have the luxury of not being tied down by an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. They do not even have to acknowledge a pregnancy. The child being born may not ever have an impact on his life. 43% of U.S. children live without their father. 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. maybe this is one reason women say my body, my choice. 

I hate to say this but, women want to control their number of births, and men are not so concerned about controlling births. Sadly, women who want to be in control of births are viewed as promiscuous and careless. While throughout history, men have not been labled as permiscous and carless for having unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

By the 1900's we entered a period where children were not seen as a burden or just another mouth to feed. People welcomed a new life into their home. Sexual freedom for both men and women, led to an increase in pregnancies. To solve the problem of controlling pregnancy, it will take both the man and the woman. just as it takes two to make a child. Taking away the freedom of one, while the other has no accountability is not a balanced solution. There are so many alarming statistics about pregnancy, such as teen girls are usually impregnated by an adult male. Teen girls are unable to give consent, but the adult fathers are not prosecuted. Pregnancy is complicated in many cases.

Birth control means controlling births. It has been practiced for centuries in various ways, some in not so pretty or kind ways. The life of the child planned or unplanned, can be beautiful or the substance of what tragic movies are made of. The ability to control births aids in the health of society.

Manhood and War

There has been one distinct place where men could show they were men. A honored place where masculinity could be demonstrated to its fullest. It was a sacred place that could bestow status and admiration. Society loved this type of manly man and counted on their courageousness. The manhood of these men were never questioned. Where was this place to demonstrate manhood? The military. Who were the men countrymen looked up to? Soldiers.

For centuries men used their strong bodies and courage to protect their country. Citizens, without prompting, admired military men. Their uniforms were decorated with medals of honor for valour and proclaimed their rank amonst other men. Put a man in a uniform, and it changes him and the people who see him in the uniform.

But there was always a price to pay. War changed the soldiers and war changed societies. Men who went off to war, willing to sacrifice their life, never guessed there were many losers even if they were victorious.

World War 2 began September 1, 1939 -September 2, 1945, it was the most violent military conflict in human history. There were 38 million military and civilian deaths. The United States entered the war in 1941. The U.S lost 407, 317 men in the war. 62, 614 Navy. 21, 511 Marine. 318, 274 Army and Air Force. 1,917 Coast Gaurd.

While the men were off at war on foreign soil, women had to enter the work force to keep America functioning economically. Before World War 2, men were the breadwinner and women were wives and mothers. Of course there were women who held jobs, but that was not the status quo. Women had no other option than to work to support themselves and family during this war. The positions women held were facory workers making parts for military equipment. Drivers of trains, fire engines, and trucks moving necessary supplies in the states. Nurses and ENGINEERS. America had to function in all capacities while men were at war. During this time, women were not entering the military fighting for their country.

Society changed not due to women wanting to work. The norm was for a man to be the provider and protector of women and children. With 407,316 deaths of men, many wives were left without a returning husband. Children were left without a returning father. And the availability of men for women to marry had been limited by so many deaths of marriage aged men. After the men who survived the war returned, most women were still unable to return to their housewife role because many men returned disabled. Women had to continue to provide for themselves and their children. Young women faced not being able to find a man to marry. The nuclear family took a hit with World War 2. The landscape of who held jobs changed. 

The Vietnam War began November 1, 1955 - April 30, 1975 (a 20 year war!) The United States entered the Vietnam War March 8, 1965 (10 years). There were 58,220 male deaths. 38,179 Army, 14,836 marines, 2556 Navy, and 2,580 Airforce. The total of men America lost was significatly lower in this war than in World War 2. But, this war was tragic on a different level. 

There were 75,000 severly disabled men who returned from this war. 23,214 were 100% disabled. 5,283 lost limbs and 1,081 had multiple amputations. This war, women wanted to show their patriotism and serve their country in war. There were 8 service women who died during this war by accidents or illness but not from battle. Women served in the military as nurses, air traffic controllers, intelligence officers, communication specialists, physicians, secretaries, and clerks. Notice the skill level and trianing that women were now serving their country.

Before World War 2, women did not involve themselves in politics. That was a man's domain and they were happy to leave it as such. Women were thought of as frail, delicate, and not capable of intellect and should not vote because their minds could not handle the complexities of analytical or intellectual thought. Women did not challenge this train of thought for centuries. After competently holding positions allocated for men, they became aware of their capabilities. Of course there were women who longed for the days when she did not have to work, but there were many who enjoyed their ability to take care of themselves financially and to be able to work outside of the home.

By the time the Vietnam War occurred, women were competent in many job areas. Marriage and children were no longer the only option for women. They had learned they were able to learn and advance in society with or without a husband. They felt patriotic just like their male counterpart and entered the military in large numbers demonstrating their capabilities in the positions held in the military and at home while men were once again off fighting on foreign soil.

The Vietnam War was the first war where the soldier did not return home, if he survived, to a hero's welcome. This war had opposition from students, government officials, labor unions, church groups, middle class families, and the famous Dr. Martin Luther King who said Black people were fighting for another country's freedoms while not be able to have those same freedoms in America.

Mothers, wives, sisters, and girlfriends, no longer wanted to stand at train stations or piers dutifully waving their loved ones off to war knowing they may never return. Women began to call for "NO MORE WAR." 61% of the men who died were younger than 21. The average age of the soldier who died in this war was 23 years old. 17,539 of the men who went off to war were married. Once again, the nuclear family took a large hit and the marriage pool also declined again. If the fathers, sons, boyfriends returned, they could have returned disabled, unable to work. Soldiers also returned addicted to heoin given to get them back on the battlefield after injury or while recuperating in the hospital. 104,578 men returned with disabilities.

For the first time, soldiers returned to citizens who viewed them as murderes, war mongerers, stupid for even fighting in the war, addicts, and their muscular body once admired and revered was now disfigured and considered unsightly and weak. It was no longer a source of pride to be seen in military uniform. The uniform had become a source of ridicule, shame, and disdain. Bitterness all around filled the post Vietnam War atmosphere in America.

Once again, women filled vacant positions in the job force and sought out education and training to advance and enter job position which men normally held. Once again they proved their competence as a provider and now patriot.

The Afghanistan War began October 2001 - August 2011. The totals vary, but I decided to use the highest total of 7,078 deaths of servicemen/women. Once again this seems like a low total compared to the other wars. The advancement of technology made hand to hand combat outdated, equaling fewer deaths. But, there is always a price to pay for war.

Since the beginning of this war in 2001, over 1.9 million people deployed at various times. 1.9-3 million servicemen/women served post 9/11 in various positions in and out of country. 89% were men and 11% were women. But there were 30,177 suicides of service members and vets post 9/11 war. 40% of the soldiers who served have PTSD with Marines having the highest rate. 40% also have some form of disability. The major areas of disability are mental health issues, orthopedic injuries, heart disease, amputations, and Gulf War Syndrome (fatigue, fibromyalgia, and gastrointestinal disorders).

If history repeats itself, then the collateral affects of war are the same as with the previous wars. The nuclear family disrupted, marriage availability decline, inability of the soldier to return to work, soldier not revered any longer, and women continuing to excert their independence in the work arena. 

I served in the First Gulf War and returned to streets lined with people thanking us for our service. Also, to this day, corporations can be heard thanking their customers who served their country. Lowe's and Home Depot give militay discounts for those who served (notice they are building supply companies. Women's clothing stores do not give women vets discounts). Now it is okay if citizens praise or disdain people who serve their country. The soldier is no longer the representation of manhood. Many blame the entrance of woman into the male dominated field for emasculating the military. But war takes away men, the provider and protector of family. You can't have men dying and disabled from war without there being consequences.

From 1973-2010 the number of women in uniform went from 42,000 to 167,000. With women able to and wanting to serve their country, the military had to change. Once women entered into the public arena, they wanted the same pay a man would receive for the same work and they wanted to work knowing they would not be bullied or harrassed for working outside the home. So, Women's Rights were an outcome of war.

Feminism, for many is a dirty word. Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize the male point of view and that women are treated unjustly in these societies. It's aim is not to get rid of men or make them lesser. But with everything, there are radicals.

The 1st wave of Feminism was in 1848 when women wanted the right to vote. The 2nd wave of Feminism was 1960-1970's when women wanted equality and freedom from discrimination. The 3rd wave of Feminism was in the 1990's which many say was ushered in by Anita Hill during the televised case where she accused Judge Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. This wave of Feminism is traced to Generation Z wanting diversity and individualism. The 4th wave of Feminism began around 2010 and it centered around empowerment of the LGBTQ+ Rights. There is a questioning whether we have entered into a 5th wave of Feminism as of 2014 which is Political Activism. This wave fights against sexual abuse and misogyny which is blatantly visable on the internet. Women are using their power at the ballot box in concentrated efforts.

In th last ten years, it seems women are being blamed for the many changes American society is undergoing. I write a great deal about this topic and in my humble opinion, women are not the root cause of these changes, especially the changes men are feeling in regards to manhood. Women have entered domains once solely for men and are no longer finding marriage the only answer to their survival. Those are BIG changes. But many of the changes were WAR driven with women having very little say in the matter until they DEMANDED to have a say in the matter.

Manhood was once largely DEMONSTRATED by the soldier who bravely protected family and country until that was no longer a THING to do to show manhood. But manhood is not determined by a job position, such as soldier, anymore and hasn't been for DECADES. If all of the women left the military it would not revert back to a place and time of reverence for manhood again because people know the COST of war. If we were to go back to hand to hand combat then masculinty would reign supreme again. But no one wants the blood-bath of hand to hand combat. Americans now want avoidance of war at all costs and the DIPLOMATIC mind and INTELLECTUAL skills to accomplish it is what is now held in high regard. Providing and protecting the safety of the country is wanted BEFORE war is even on the table. Education, not physical fitness, negotiation not battles, and communication, not combat became desired. The loss and maiming of life has become too costly for citizens. 

People believe women changed the military by entering the military. Men feel as though they lost something or something was taken away from them after women were allowed to join the military. Wives, children, and single women have always lost when men went off to war. For many men who served in the military during wars, they returned feeling less of a man after having life-altering injuries.

Manhood and war no longer go hand in hand, and does anyone really want it to be what DEFINES a man?