I've been reading the books and it is interesting to see the differences. I thought that it was strange that Chummy would have said to her mum "no longer entitled" re wearing white to the wedding and indeed the book has this too. It seems out of character for someone so religious as to be called to be a missionary would a) lapse but more importantly b) point it out to her mum in a totally unrepentant manner in the late 50s. I find it very amusing but a bit incredible. It links a bit with the query about nuns - even if nursing nuns being that comfortable extolling the virtues of safe sex.
I've been reading the books and it is interesting to see the differences. I thought that it was strange that Chummy would have said to her mum "no longer entitled" re wearing white to the wedding and indeed the book has this too. It seems out of character for someone so religious as to be called to be a missionary would a) lapse but more importantly b) point it out to her mum in a totally unrepentant manner in the late 50s. I find it very amusing but a bit incredible. It links a bit with the query about nuns - even if nursing nuns being that comfortable extolling the virtues of safe sex.
I thought she did it just to show her mum that on this occasion, she Chummy was calling the shots and not her interfering mother.
Well Crane hasn't moved into Sister Evangelina's room. Was't there 4 lay midwives living there at one point in series 1? So I assume there is room for 4 of them. Evangelina will still have her own room. As for Cynthia, they'll chuck her in the "box room" or something like they did with Jenny when she got annoying.
I enjoyed the episode but found it a little preachy in terms of the women issues, last week as the same with gay issue. I don't disagree with anything they were saying but it seems a little out of step with the style of Call The Midwife. Every scene seemed to have some directly talking about how treated in the period...We have had 3 years of show these competent and together women proving their worth...its strange for them to now having to be stating how important they are. We already know that.
Also, Patsy is gay. Great but if I was the writers I'd slow down a little on her no a fan of men angle. Also, why is she laughing at Trixie's drinking? It's not as if Trixie is shown drinking alone after from the last episode.
Trixie and Tom are a terrible pairing, he wants a little woman to follow him around and Trixie is not that woman, nor should she be. Trixie is right about how she was shushed by Tom. He's not even admitting he wants to control her, he's laying it all on the church. He doesn't even see the issue at hand. I hope they don't reunite.
She's too naive but there is something so sweet, genuine and earnest about Barbara that I can't help but warm to her in a way I never did with Jenny.
I think that now the stories from the books are finished with and we have contemporary writers writing the episodes we are clearly going to have many more issues driven episodes. And we will be told how we should respond to those issues by being given examples of poorer attitudes in the past. All of the cast will prove to have enlightened, if modern, perspectives on those issues, so no need to worry! It's just normal BBC production values coming into play!
I think that now the stories from the books are finished with and we have contemporary writers writing the episodes we are clearly going to have many more issues driven episodes. And we will be told how we should respond to those issues by being given examples of poorer attitudes in the past. All of the cast will prove to have enlightened, if modern, perspectives on those issues, so no need to worry! It's just normal BBC production values coming into play!
I can't believe I got rid of my books and watched the series - as a Doc of Eng Lit - I should have known better. ( I do speak/write colloquial.)
My home deco & children leaving - hence major DIY should have told me better.
Please accept my condolences on the loss of your Mother. I lost both my Father and my MIL to this dreadful illness. It is so terrible when your Father no longer knows you and you MIL just lays there not knowing anything.
Thank you for your kind words too, sorry, I don't know how to post two quotes at once.
We were lucky because Mum largely kept her personality and still knew us until a few weeks before she died, but she lost the capacity to do anything.
Can someone answer my question please about where Chummy is? I must have missed the reason at the beginning of the series.
Amanda is presumably unavailable for filming because during the first episode of this series it was explained she would be going off to run a mother and baby home and she’s taken her young son with her as he hasn’t been healthy during the winter.
It'll be nice to have Cynthia back next week, and It'll be nice to have Chummy and Sister Evanelyne back as well. I do often think of them while watching, though I also like the new characters this series.
It seems very strange how so many of the cast this year are absent. Chummy, Cynthia, Sr Evangelina. Also Sr Julienne has only had small parts these last two weeks and popped up towards the end of the episodes.
It's as if something is going on behind the scenes.
Trixie, Patsy, Nurse Crane have been carrying this series. I realise there have been issues, with maternity leave, and Miranda's sitcom. But it's like it wasn't thought out properly at all. I see no reason for Pam Ferris to have a break.
I sort of agree about the marginalization of some of the regulars. I would agree with Nurse Crane and Patsy being standouts this series, but I think there's been way too much of Trixie (I like her much better as a supporting character), and would replace her on the MVP list with Barbara (who is now my favorite nurse), Sister Monica Joan, and both Turners (I'm so glad this series is letting Shelagh have a sense of humor again, and letting her use her nursing/midwifery skills). Otherwise, I really miss the nuns (especially Sister Julienne) and the nuns' singing that was a big part of previous series. I'm still liking this series more than series 3, although a little more participation from the longtime regular characters would be nice.
Re Emerald Fennell (Patsy), I discovered yesterday that she writes too! My youngest daughter and I went to the library to get her some more books (she has to have at least half a dozen at a time the rate she goes through them!) and on the shelf I saw a book written by Emerald Fennell. A woman of many talents.
I don't normally wade into this kind of debate, but here goes...
To say that the Bible doesn't clearly discuss homosexuality is a myth. In fact, it could hardly be more clear.
Rom. 1:24-27: “God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”
1 Tim. 1:9-11: “Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God.” (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
Jude 7: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word “sodomy,” which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
I don't expect everyone to agree with what the Bible says, but please don't pretend it doesn't say it.
Fair point - I know nothing of the Christian bible, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the Jewish bible, which is very oblique in its references to homosexuality.
Fair point - I know nothing of the Christian bible, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the Jewish bible, which is very oblique in its references to homosexuality.
The Jewish Bible says exactly the same thing, that "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman as it is an abomination and they shall both be put to death". I've got a copy in front of me now given to me many years ago by a Jewish man. It's written in Hebrew with the English translation, and was a book used by all his children when studying for their Barmitzvahs and Batmitzvahs.
The Jewish Bible says exactly the same thing, that "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman as it is an abomination and they shall both be put to death". I've got a copy in front of me now given to me many years ago by a Jewish man. It's written in Hebrew with the English translation, and was a book used by all his children when studying for their Barmitzvahs and Batmitzvahs.
It's something we have been discussing at length in our synagogue recently, as my synagogue movement has allowed the possibility of gay marriages.
The thing is, although you have an English translation, it is not necessarily exact, and the meaning may get lost. Nowhere does it explain what it means to 'lie with another man as with a woman', and the context is that there were practices (sexual and other) common in the idolatrous Canaanite society at the time, which the Israelites were to distance themselves from for reasons of religious purity - the beginning of that chapter says "You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws".
This may have included homosexuality, but the specifics aren't discussed, so it may have referred to very specific homosexual practices rather than general homosexuality, or it may be something else altogether, with the meaning having been lost over many years. The language used when discussing bestiality is much more explicit - rather than saying 'lies with' it talks of 'carnal relations', so a case can be made for the oblique 'lies with' reference meaning something else.
Whether you believe the Torah is the actual word of God, or that it is the work of men inspired by God or that it is just a fairytale written by men, you can't get away from the fact that humans had a big part in its authorship, if not of the original document then certainly the Talmud (the written form of the Oral Law, which is something like 50 times larger than the five books of Moses) and of course the Christian bible, and the mores of the times they were written are reflected in their take on the two original verses (one which bans the 'lying with' and one which tells of the punishment for transgressing).
I'm still finding myself thinking every week that Tom would be better suited with Barbara than with Trixie. They've had almost no scenes together, but Barbara was the one telling Trixie all about the ways of the church and how to talk to the Bishop. She seems much more suited to be a vicar's wife, being a vicar's daughter already. I doubt this will actually happen, but I can't help but think this. Still, regardless of whether either of them finds someone else, I do hope Trixie and Tom don't get back together. They're good characters separately, but I really don't think they work as a couple.
I hope Trixie doesn't become reliant on drink when things don't run smoothly, because she's usually such a perky and uplifting person. A downward spiral of drinking would seem sad, despite it being natural for characters to have dark moments in tv land. I like the new older nurse, she's strong, but kind. Barbara is wet, but maybe she'll have a storyline that shows a tougher less soppy side (not that being softer is bad, and maybe there needs to be a balance of character types as the other midwives seem quite strong minded and assured).
I hope we get to a point this series where Patsy comes out openly to others. The sisters around her have the ability to be open minded if they try, and the other midwives don't seem the types to turn their back on her. My housemate don't think she'll openly come out to all because the target audience for this show is housewives, mothers and older people. I did remind him however that some older people were born during the period of free love and sexual exploration, and some older people are gay themselves. As for housewives and mothers, I also pointed out that some women, whetherr mothers or houseives, might be gay too, and even if not, might not give a fig there being a gay midwife.
Isn't it true that it has never been illegal for two women to be together because Queen Victoria refused to accept that women could ever be attracted to their own gender and wouldn't sign a law making lesbianism an illegal act. There were many lesbian pubs in Victorian times I believe
I thought it was. Women in general back in the day were not taken seriously and ignored regarding most things unless suddenly deemed useful. So to not believe a woman was homosexual during that time when a woman's female sexuality, period, was fairly ignored and given little value to, makes sense. Ignore women and their worth in general and ignore their sexuality too. Women were of little status in society, usually validated a man's status and only really important for 'woman's uses' and baby making, so there was no threat from society if a woman was gay because she was low on the radar of importance anyway. A woman being gay would not spoil the balance of things as women generally (whether straight or gay) would not have been predicted to have enough power to change their life predicament anyway. Gay men different though, because the world was dominated and buillt on a male figurehead, a male ideal, and whether that male ideal was the head of a family household , head of an army or even head of a country, any type of man not matching that ideal head of something would be a possible threat to society given they were steering it. Men were far more valued in society work wise, intellect wise and so on, women not in the same way, so it's understandable why gay men would be seen as a threat to the heternormative structure of society more than women. You only feel threatened if you think something can really hurt or change your world comforts, and gay men could have a serious bearing on the way of the world, but not women. This all of course the mentality of those back then, it's thankfully much better now (with the few exceptions of those that still hold extreme views).
Lesbianism has never been illegall, however was given the same age of consent in 1995 which was 18. Hard to believe 21 years ago, it was 21 to have sex with another man. I know Lesbians suffer homophobia, but they've had it a little easier than gay men.
It's not that they have it easier, they have it different. Gay women might not get beaten up as much in physical homophobic attacks, but given that it's males (whether straight or gay) that are beaten up randomly more than women in general, it's no surpise a gay man gets beaten up more that say a gay women. It's more likely a male whatever their race or sexuality is statiscally more like to get beaten randomly than a female, so gay male beatings could be deemed a relative thing as females tend to be on the end of street violence less (whether they're gay or straight) . At Uni far more guy students were beaten up randomly than girl ones, for simple things like being drunk and therefore vunerable, so people that attack males aren't always fussy over why they do so.
As for verbal abuse, a gay women can suffer as much torment over her appearance and her mannerisms and overall identity as a gay man, and it's not just butch women that people can be confused or feel threatend by, also femminie gay women too but just that the hassle is a different type, but the amount similarly unbearable. Just like a camp effeminate gay man (either in appearance, behaviour or both) can be riducled for not 'fitting his gender' so too can a butch woman. Some people, whether male or female, just don't like a butch female (whether in appearance, behaviour or both). Even some gay women might not like another woman too butch, just as some gay men don't like other gay men to be camp or effeminate or overly expressive. There's homophobia from straights and some bis towards non straights, but also internal homophobia too from fellow gays. I have gay male friends that suffer as much internal homophobia or snobbery of identity from other gay men as they do straight people, strange but true. Femminie lesbians (in look, behaviour or both) also have issues too, they're not always belived to be gay, whereas a butch woman or gay man would instantly be taken seriously. Unfortunately for some gay girls they suffer from the actions of straight girls that lez up to titilate straight men who like double doses of candy to consume. So a gay femme girl is always presume dto be that straight-pretender. Some straight men believe only straight and bi girls are femme and pretty, and all gay women to be ugly and butch (so are incredibly derrogatory to a gay woman on that score and almost try and treat them like men and physically body bump them as if they were men). Then with femmine lesbians some guys try and hound them about why they think they're not gay and just pretending to be. I've been in public places with gay femminie girls and the amount of questioning they get about why they don't want d**k, or don't want a child or don't want to be a mother (which is only the guys ignorant presumption becasue they're gay) is endless. It's like watching a man be sexist to a straight femmine woman and the patronizing remarks from that, but doubled because it's homophobia on top. Straight girls can be just as idiotic, and their childish fear of butch girls sometimes is hard to fathom (yet ironically they might want to experiment their bi-curiosity with a femme gay girl that physically looks softer so is presumed to likewise be so).
The confusion of gay men is still bad, but gay women is equally so, but people forget that sometimes as they presume gay men have it harder. Society still doesn't understand how women can't live without men, even if they're gay. People get why gay men can do without women, but not the other way round.
The homophobia of gay men and women can sometimes be wrapped up in sexism too, so ironically even straight men and woman can suffer homophobia if they don't fit the box of what they're meant to be as straight people (as outlined in society's imagunery rules). My friend was mistaken for being gay and given grief by ignoramouses, even though he's straight. Sometimes it's not even being gay that will get you hassled, but being mistaken for being gay and not fitting that rigid image and understanding of what is gay, or even straight or even bi that is the problem. Some people just don't like things they don't understand and take their ignorance to silly or sometimes dangerous levels.
Comments
I disagree. Whilst I don't miss her as much as I did when she was last away for a while I do look forward to her return.
But Trixie has always been my favourite character
Does anyone know if/when Pam Ferris will be back?
I thought she did it just to show her mum that on this occasion, she Chummy was calling the shots and not her interfering mother.
I think that now the stories from the books are finished with and we have contemporary writers writing the episodes we are clearly going to have many more issues driven episodes. And we will be told how we should respond to those issues by being given examples of poorer attitudes in the past. All of the cast will prove to have enlightened, if modern, perspectives on those issues, so no need to worry! It's just normal BBC production values coming into play!
You are probably right!
I can't believe I got rid of my books and watched the series - as a Doc of Eng Lit - I should have known better. ( I do speak/write colloquial.)
My home deco & children leaving - hence major DIY should have told me better.
Thank you for your kind words.
Thank you for your kind words too, sorry, I don't know how to post two quotes at once.
We were lucky because Mum largely kept her personality and still knew us until a few weeks before she died, but she lost the capacity to do anything.
She's acting matron of that mother and baby home that was in the Christmas special.
Amanda is presumably unavailable for filming because during the first episode of this series it was explained she would be going off to run a mother and baby home and she’s taken her young son with her as he hasn’t been healthy during the winter.
It's as if something is going on behind the scenes.
Trixie, Patsy, Nurse Crane have been carrying this series. I realise there have been issues, with maternity leave, and Miranda's sitcom. But it's like it wasn't thought out properly at all. I see no reason for Pam Ferris to have a break.
yes, and those values are contrary to Trixie's "new woman" style, so puts her in conflict with herself.Like many women, she might be forced to choose!
Fair point - I know nothing of the Christian bible, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the Jewish bible, which is very oblique in its references to homosexuality.
The Jewish Bible says exactly the same thing, that "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman as it is an abomination and they shall both be put to death". I've got a copy in front of me now given to me many years ago by a Jewish man. It's written in Hebrew with the English translation, and was a book used by all his children when studying for their Barmitzvahs and Batmitzvahs.
Yeah, it's not like either one of them is a bad person, but that's just the reality of being a cleric's wife.
It's something we have been discussing at length in our synagogue recently, as my synagogue movement has allowed the possibility of gay marriages.
The thing is, although you have an English translation, it is not necessarily exact, and the meaning may get lost. Nowhere does it explain what it means to 'lie with another man as with a woman', and the context is that there were practices (sexual and other) common in the idolatrous Canaanite society at the time, which the Israelites were to distance themselves from for reasons of religious purity - the beginning of that chapter says "You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws".
This may have included homosexuality, but the specifics aren't discussed, so it may have referred to very specific homosexual practices rather than general homosexuality, or it may be something else altogether, with the meaning having been lost over many years. The language used when discussing bestiality is much more explicit - rather than saying 'lies with' it talks of 'carnal relations', so a case can be made for the oblique 'lies with' reference meaning something else.
Whether you believe the Torah is the actual word of God, or that it is the work of men inspired by God or that it is just a fairytale written by men, you can't get away from the fact that humans had a big part in its authorship, if not of the original document then certainly the Talmud (the written form of the Oral Law, which is something like 50 times larger than the five books of Moses) and of course the Christian bible, and the mores of the times they were written are reflected in their take on the two original verses (one which bans the 'lying with' and one which tells of the punishment for transgressing).
No
Yes
No
Yes
100%
At least she'd know all about the life of a vicar and the huge responsibilities on his wife.
I hope we get to a point this series where Patsy comes out openly to others. The sisters around her have the ability to be open minded if they try, and the other midwives don't seem the types to turn their back on her. My housemate don't think she'll openly come out to all because the target audience for this show is housewives, mothers and older people. I did remind him however that some older people were born during the period of free love and sexual exploration, and some older people are gay themselves. As for housewives and mothers, I also pointed out that some women, whetherr mothers or houseives, might be gay too, and even if not, might not give a fig there being a gay midwife.
I thought it was. Women in general back in the day were not taken seriously and ignored regarding most things unless suddenly deemed useful. So to not believe a woman was homosexual during that time when a woman's female sexuality, period, was fairly ignored and given little value to, makes sense. Ignore women and their worth in general and ignore their sexuality too. Women were of little status in society, usually validated a man's status and only really important for 'woman's uses' and baby making, so there was no threat from society if a woman was gay because she was low on the radar of importance anyway. A woman being gay would not spoil the balance of things as women generally (whether straight or gay) would not have been predicted to have enough power to change their life predicament anyway. Gay men different though, because the world was dominated and buillt on a male figurehead, a male ideal, and whether that male ideal was the head of a family household , head of an army or even head of a country, any type of man not matching that ideal head of something would be a possible threat to society given they were steering it. Men were far more valued in society work wise, intellect wise and so on, women not in the same way, so it's understandable why gay men would be seen as a threat to the heternormative structure of society more than women. You only feel threatened if you think something can really hurt or change your world comforts, and gay men could have a serious bearing on the way of the world, but not women. This all of course the mentality of those back then, it's thankfully much better now (with the few exceptions of those that still hold extreme views).
It's not that they have it easier, they have it different. Gay women might not get beaten up as much in physical homophobic attacks, but given that it's males (whether straight or gay) that are beaten up randomly more than women in general, it's no surpise a gay man gets beaten up more that say a gay women. It's more likely a male whatever their race or sexuality is statiscally more like to get beaten randomly than a female, so gay male beatings could be deemed a relative thing as females tend to be on the end of street violence less (whether they're gay or straight) . At Uni far more guy students were beaten up randomly than girl ones, for simple things like being drunk and therefore vunerable, so people that attack males aren't always fussy over why they do so.
As for verbal abuse, a gay women can suffer as much torment over her appearance and her mannerisms and overall identity as a gay man, and it's not just butch women that people can be confused or feel threatend by, also femminie gay women too but just that the hassle is a different type, but the amount similarly unbearable. Just like a camp effeminate gay man (either in appearance, behaviour or both) can be riducled for not 'fitting his gender' so too can a butch woman. Some people, whether male or female, just don't like a butch female (whether in appearance, behaviour or both). Even some gay women might not like another woman too butch, just as some gay men don't like other gay men to be camp or effeminate or overly expressive. There's homophobia from straights and some bis towards non straights, but also internal homophobia too from fellow gays. I have gay male friends that suffer as much internal homophobia or snobbery of identity from other gay men as they do straight people, strange but true. Femminie lesbians (in look, behaviour or both) also have issues too, they're not always belived to be gay, whereas a butch woman or gay man would instantly be taken seriously. Unfortunately for some gay girls they suffer from the actions of straight girls that lez up to titilate straight men who like double doses of candy to consume. So a gay femme girl is always presume dto be that straight-pretender. Some straight men believe only straight and bi girls are femme and pretty, and all gay women to be ugly and butch (so are incredibly derrogatory to a gay woman on that score and almost try and treat them like men and physically body bump them as if they were men). Then with femmine lesbians some guys try and hound them about why they think they're not gay and just pretending to be. I've been in public places with gay femminie girls and the amount of questioning they get about why they don't want d**k, or don't want a child or don't want to be a mother (which is only the guys ignorant presumption becasue they're gay) is endless. It's like watching a man be sexist to a straight femmine woman and the patronizing remarks from that, but doubled because it's homophobia on top. Straight girls can be just as idiotic, and their childish fear of butch girls sometimes is hard to fathom (yet ironically they might want to experiment their bi-curiosity with a femme gay girl that physically looks softer so is presumed to likewise be so).
The confusion of gay men is still bad, but gay women is equally so, but people forget that sometimes as they presume gay men have it harder. Society still doesn't understand how women can't live without men, even if they're gay. People get why gay men can do without women, but not the other way round.
The homophobia of gay men and women can sometimes be wrapped up in sexism too, so ironically even straight men and woman can suffer homophobia if they don't fit the box of what they're meant to be as straight people (as outlined in society's imagunery rules). My friend was mistaken for being gay and given grief by ignoramouses, even though he's straight. Sometimes it's not even being gay that will get you hassled, but being mistaken for being gay and not fitting that rigid image and understanding of what is gay, or even straight or even bi that is the problem. Some people just don't like things they don't understand and take their ignorance to silly or sometimes dangerous levels.