1) I was surprised today that I had no fewer than 4 text messages from my mom when I turned on my phone after Mass.
2) My mom was surprised today by a representative from her mortgage company trying to change the locks on her house--she made him go away for now. . .
3) I was surprised that my favorite yummy pizza buffet place has raised their prices. We used to get a lunch buffet for $4.25. Now, it's $8.00. :(
4) I was surprised today to learn that a friend of mine from high school Speech & Debate is running for Louisiana State Representative. Well okay, not too surprised. But I was surprised when he offered to help my mom find a job if he could!
5) I was surprised today when asked in the grocery store by my son's former Religious Education teacher, from whom I had taken Communion only hours earlier, if this baby was going to be my last. I think I surprised both of us when I said, "And what kind of a Catholic would I be if I said 'yes'?"
6) I was surprised to learn that Chris has given me an award! (More on that later.) I was even more surprised, given what the award was, to find out that it was given to him!!
7) I have been surprised all weekend by the number of responses on Jen's post on ambitious women and staying at home. I was surprised to find myself in agreement with the anonymous poster that caused Jen to disallow anonymous posts. I was also surprised to find myself defending stay-at-home moms from the accusation that they were trying to find company in their misery. No really, I was surprised by that! I was not too surprised to see the conversation devolve into the "you think you know what's best for everyone" type of dialogue. That kind of thing just happens too often.
8) I was surprised not to be able to think of 3 more surprising things. I really wanted to make it 10. . .
9) I wasn't really surprised when my husband went on a cleaning spree. He does that kind of thing from time to time--much more often than I do.
10) I was surprised when he hurt a muscle cleaning and said it was divine retribution because I'm not fulfilling my womanly role. You see, I've been telling him about Jen's post! ;)
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Things I've Been Thinking About. . .
If anyone can find a way to make that title grammatically correct and casual at the same time, let me know. . .
1) A while back, Jen referred me to another blog post of hers in response to a comment I made on this post. On my most recent post, I seemed once again to be asking the same questions, so I decided to write a response to Jen. It went something like this:
One of the reasons that I object to those who advise married couples to re-prioritize with God's will in mind is that it implies a serious judgment on the couple--that by pursuing careers, they are not considering their vocation as a married couple and God's will for their family the way they should be, and that the couple needs to re-prioritize with these things in mind, making sacrifices, yada yada. But I think that even if the couple was not yet consciously considering God's will, they might have been acting in accord with it simply from having been directed that way. So the acknowledgment that the family is or should be guided by God does not necessarily mean that everything that has happened up to that point was fruitless or misdirected. I know that in my life and my marriage and my family, I have certainly seen what I now take to be evidence that we were heading in the right direction. In many ways, my conversion was a culmination of where God had been leading me through motherhood, marriage (in that order) and my pursuit of higher education. There are certainly some things that I should have done differently to be more perfectly in accord with God's plan for my life--like the marriage and motherhood being somewhat out-of-order--but as I read somewhere, on "The Anchoress" blog, I believe, the Holy Spirit works with such materials as he has, and I'm not sure God could have gotten through to me in any other way. Had I not become pregnant, my husband & I would have probably lived together without being married, and may have lost each other by doing so. So if you look back on your life and feel like you can see that yes, God has been leading you into certain choices simply by making the right options available at the right time, how can you possibly interpret that as a cause to re-evaluate? I know situations are different, and something like the materialism you describe may be a cause to reevaluate priorities, but that may involve a shift in thinking and not always an entire lifestyle change.
The other problem I have is that the implications are usually the most dire for women--especially ambitious women, who must give up everything that they have pursued to the point of marriage and/or motherhood. Had I believed this when I became pregnant with my son, I either would have been pushed toward abortion, or I would have left school before reaching my B.A., which would have had serious consequences for our financial well-being as a family as well as my ability to cope with the challenges of motherhood. But again, I don't think that commitment to a marriage necessarily involves the degree of self-sacrifice that is generally attributed to it. I do believe that it involves compromise, some self-sacrifice on the part of both spouses, devotion to the marriage, the spouse, and to family, but I'm not sure that it involves an abandonment of personal and professional goals outside of the house, especially if those goals were family-friendly or were made with the possibility of a family in mind. Now, if the plans were made with an overly idealistic view of how things would work with a family, that is something different, and reevaluation would certainly be in order. But these things tend to be discussed in such abstracts and absolutes that it is difficult to find oneself in what is being proposed.
2) Harry Potter. Before my mom left, we went to see Order of the Phoenix. It was compelling--more so than the other films, I thought. And it raised enough questions that I wanted to read the book. Now, I hadn't gotten past the first chapter of Azkaban previously. There were some things that really bugged me--and some that still do. One is the matter of internal consistency. But I have revisited Azkaban. They're great when you need an escape--and I do.
3) An article mentioned, I believe, by The Curt Jester, titled "The New Victorians." I do take issue with the title, but we won't go into the Victorian thing. The idea is that there is a movement among women to embrace traditional conceptions of family and reject the trappings of the Sexual Revolution, including scanty clothing and promiscuity.
4) An article mentioned last Friday in Jen's Friday Favorites about a professional couple who decided to keep a baby at a professionally inconvenient time, rather than abort the baby to allow them to continue with their plan to investigate restrictive abortion laws in Mexico. There's a lot that's troubling here, although the overall message that life can continue with a baby is one that I'd like to see promoted more often, as I've mentioned before. I'm frankly surprised that this appeared in the New York Times. It just doesn't seem like their kind of topic.
5) The Latin Mass. Specifically, what the recent Motu Proprio issues by Pope Benedict XVI really means, apart from the hype of those who want to say that it's a step backward, that the Latin Mass is anti-semitic, and all of the other charges that have been leveled in recent weeks. My question: Does this really affect most parishes in this country? Should we really expect to see Latin Masses popping up in our local parishes? Unfortunately, the answer is likely 'no'. It is great that in parishes where a lot of crotchety Catholics have been clamoring for a long time for the Mass in Latin, the priest no longer has to rely on the permission of the bishop (who, in a perfect world, would have seen the value of permitting the Latin Mass) to serve his parishoners' liturgical needs. And similarly a good thing that those who attend schismatic masses simply because they like the Latin can be reincorporated into the Body of Christ. But in places where there's not a huge agitation, just a handful who would really like to seethe Mass done in Latin on a regular basis (weekly or at least monthly), there is little real hope that the pastors will see the need to comply. Here is one post that suggests some of the obstacles--popular opinion being one, and one that attempts to explain the implications of the Motu Proprio. I've been told by a deacon friend that, while "the motu propio has made provisions for the faithful to initiate the request and a mechanism for bypassing balky priests
and bishops," several obstacles exist, including that "most American seminaries stopped teaching Latin in the 1970s or have greatly lowered the Latin that they teach their seminarians," resulting in a loss of comfort level with the Latin among priests. There also seems to be a scarcity of the 1962 Missal. I also wonder if the sheer hassle of trying to fit another Mass--in another language--in the weekend and determining who will officiate is part of the deterrent. Any way, I feel rather let down, like the Motu Proprio--so long anticipated--has been much ado about. . . you know.
6) A half-post started a while back, in response to a comment from Melanie B on this post. She links to an article by Christopher West, of Theology of the Body fame, whose work I have never before read, but who has some interesting things to say in this brief article about Catholic moms and breastfeeding. This comment came at an interesting time for me (although I read it a few days late), as my husband and I had just been talking about something related. I was remembering having read that the Catholic Church encourages mothers to breastfeed for nutritional/nurturing purposes--though I can't remember now where I read this. A quick Google search revealed that most of the mention of breastfeeding in a Catholic context has to do with NFP and Natural Child Spacing, with occasional references to John Paul II or a rather recent book called Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood that talks about breastfeeding in the context of the "vocation as a Catholic mother." None of these are quite what I had in mind. (I hate lost references!)
An aside: In the process of searching, I found a film review by the USCCB that listed potentially objectionable elements in a particular film as "Murder (not shown), several disturbing images of a female cadaver with upper nudity, realistic fistfight with blood, a dead pet, rough and crude language and profanity, sexual language and groping, breast-feeding, discussion of abortion, discreetly depicted urination, alcohol use and domestic discord." Hmph!! As far as I'm concerned, the term "breast-feeding" (however spelled) should never be included with the rest of that sentence! It should never even be considered potentially offensive. But the anti-breastfeeding bias exists, even in contexts where it should not. Well, at least we know that this doesn't represent the Church's official position on the subject!
Christopher West's article takes as its point of departure some of the recent controversies surrounding breastfeeding, particularly images of breastfeeding in popular culture (interestingly, I almost showed a breastfeeding picture from a magazine cover alongside a book cover for a book about implants in my class for visual rhetoric and had them analyze the implications of each, but that was the last slide and we ran out of time). He discusses some cultural differences in terms of how breastfeeding is regarded, and concludes more or less that it is our skewed (sinful) way of viewing things that results in breastfeeding being seen as somehow improper, inappropriate, scandalous.
Though taken out of context, I found this quote interesting:
John Paul II observed in his theology of the body that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” Since the body reveals the person, John Paul believes that this speaks volumes, not only about feminine biology, but about the dignity and nature of woman as a person.
My initial reaction was to take exception to the first observation, that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” That is, until I remembered seeing on several documentaries about sex the same assertions made from a scientific and evolutionary rather than theological perspective. The body, from an evolutionary perspective, is designed to facilitate procreation--that is, survival of the species--beginning with sexual attraction of the mate, which, evolutionary biologists maintain, has to do with the potential mate's suitability for mating and the production of healthy offspring. Anyway, the compatibility of these notions struck me as interesting. The second part of the passage above is a little more complex. I'm not sure what is meant by "the body reveals the person." Again, it is taken out of context, but I wonder how less desirable physical characteristics would be regarded according to this sentiment, or how cultural and racial differences might enter that discussion. . .
And well, that's all for now! (Okay, it was a cheap ploy to get 6 posts in at once!)
1) A while back, Jen referred me to another blog post of hers in response to a comment I made on this post. On my most recent post, I seemed once again to be asking the same questions, so I decided to write a response to Jen. It went something like this:
One of the reasons that I object to those who advise married couples to re-prioritize with God's will in mind is that it implies a serious judgment on the couple--that by pursuing careers, they are not considering their vocation as a married couple and God's will for their family the way they should be, and that the couple needs to re-prioritize with these things in mind, making sacrifices, yada yada. But I think that even if the couple was not yet consciously considering God's will, they might have been acting in accord with it simply from having been directed that way. So the acknowledgment that the family is or should be guided by God does not necessarily mean that everything that has happened up to that point was fruitless or misdirected. I know that in my life and my marriage and my family, I have certainly seen what I now take to be evidence that we were heading in the right direction. In many ways, my conversion was a culmination of where God had been leading me through motherhood, marriage (in that order) and my pursuit of higher education. There are certainly some things that I should have done differently to be more perfectly in accord with God's plan for my life--like the marriage and motherhood being somewhat out-of-order--but as I read somewhere, on "The Anchoress" blog, I believe, the Holy Spirit works with such materials as he has, and I'm not sure God could have gotten through to me in any other way. Had I not become pregnant, my husband & I would have probably lived together without being married, and may have lost each other by doing so. So if you look back on your life and feel like you can see that yes, God has been leading you into certain choices simply by making the right options available at the right time, how can you possibly interpret that as a cause to re-evaluate? I know situations are different, and something like the materialism you describe may be a cause to reevaluate priorities, but that may involve a shift in thinking and not always an entire lifestyle change.
The other problem I have is that the implications are usually the most dire for women--especially ambitious women, who must give up everything that they have pursued to the point of marriage and/or motherhood. Had I believed this when I became pregnant with my son, I either would have been pushed toward abortion, or I would have left school before reaching my B.A., which would have had serious consequences for our financial well-being as a family as well as my ability to cope with the challenges of motherhood. But again, I don't think that commitment to a marriage necessarily involves the degree of self-sacrifice that is generally attributed to it. I do believe that it involves compromise, some self-sacrifice on the part of both spouses, devotion to the marriage, the spouse, and to family, but I'm not sure that it involves an abandonment of personal and professional goals outside of the house, especially if those goals were family-friendly or were made with the possibility of a family in mind. Now, if the plans were made with an overly idealistic view of how things would work with a family, that is something different, and reevaluation would certainly be in order. But these things tend to be discussed in such abstracts and absolutes that it is difficult to find oneself in what is being proposed.
2) Harry Potter. Before my mom left, we went to see Order of the Phoenix. It was compelling--more so than the other films, I thought. And it raised enough questions that I wanted to read the book. Now, I hadn't gotten past the first chapter of Azkaban previously. There were some things that really bugged me--and some that still do. One is the matter of internal consistency. But I have revisited Azkaban. They're great when you need an escape--and I do.
3) An article mentioned, I believe, by The Curt Jester, titled "The New Victorians." I do take issue with the title, but we won't go into the Victorian thing. The idea is that there is a movement among women to embrace traditional conceptions of family and reject the trappings of the Sexual Revolution, including scanty clothing and promiscuity.
4) An article mentioned last Friday in Jen's Friday Favorites about a professional couple who decided to keep a baby at a professionally inconvenient time, rather than abort the baby to allow them to continue with their plan to investigate restrictive abortion laws in Mexico. There's a lot that's troubling here, although the overall message that life can continue with a baby is one that I'd like to see promoted more often, as I've mentioned before. I'm frankly surprised that this appeared in the New York Times. It just doesn't seem like their kind of topic.
5) The Latin Mass. Specifically, what the recent Motu Proprio issues by Pope Benedict XVI really means, apart from the hype of those who want to say that it's a step backward, that the Latin Mass is anti-semitic, and all of the other charges that have been leveled in recent weeks. My question: Does this really affect most parishes in this country? Should we really expect to see Latin Masses popping up in our local parishes? Unfortunately, the answer is likely 'no'. It is great that in parishes where a lot of crotchety Catholics have been clamoring for a long time for the Mass in Latin, the priest no longer has to rely on the permission of the bishop (who, in a perfect world, would have seen the value of permitting the Latin Mass) to serve his parishoners' liturgical needs. And similarly a good thing that those who attend schismatic masses simply because they like the Latin can be reincorporated into the Body of Christ. But in places where there's not a huge agitation, just a handful who would really like to seethe Mass done in Latin on a regular basis (weekly or at least monthly), there is little real hope that the pastors will see the need to comply. Here is one post that suggests some of the obstacles--popular opinion being one, and one that attempts to explain the implications of the Motu Proprio. I've been told by a deacon friend that, while "the motu propio has made provisions for the faithful to initiate the request and a mechanism for bypassing balky priests
and bishops," several obstacles exist, including that "most American seminaries stopped teaching Latin in the 1970s or have greatly lowered the Latin that they teach their seminarians," resulting in a loss of comfort level with the Latin among priests. There also seems to be a scarcity of the 1962 Missal. I also wonder if the sheer hassle of trying to fit another Mass--in another language--in the weekend and determining who will officiate is part of the deterrent. Any way, I feel rather let down, like the Motu Proprio--so long anticipated--has been much ado about. . . you know.
6) A half-post started a while back, in response to a comment from Melanie B on this post. She links to an article by Christopher West, of Theology of the Body fame, whose work I have never before read, but who has some interesting things to say in this brief article about Catholic moms and breastfeeding. This comment came at an interesting time for me (although I read it a few days late), as my husband and I had just been talking about something related. I was remembering having read that the Catholic Church encourages mothers to breastfeed for nutritional/nurturing purposes--though I can't remember now where I read this. A quick Google search revealed that most of the mention of breastfeeding in a Catholic context has to do with NFP and Natural Child Spacing, with occasional references to John Paul II or a rather recent book called Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood that talks about breastfeeding in the context of the "vocation as a Catholic mother." None of these are quite what I had in mind. (I hate lost references!)
An aside: In the process of searching, I found a film review by the USCCB that listed potentially objectionable elements in a particular film as "Murder (not shown), several disturbing images of a female cadaver with upper nudity, realistic fistfight with blood, a dead pet, rough and crude language and profanity, sexual language and groping, breast-feeding, discussion of abortion, discreetly depicted urination, alcohol use and domestic discord." Hmph!! As far as I'm concerned, the term "breast-feeding" (however spelled) should never be included with the rest of that sentence! It should never even be considered potentially offensive. But the anti-breastfeeding bias exists, even in contexts where it should not. Well, at least we know that this doesn't represent the Church's official position on the subject!
Christopher West's article takes as its point of departure some of the recent controversies surrounding breastfeeding, particularly images of breastfeeding in popular culture (interestingly, I almost showed a breastfeeding picture from a magazine cover alongside a book cover for a book about implants in my class for visual rhetoric and had them analyze the implications of each, but that was the last slide and we ran out of time). He discusses some cultural differences in terms of how breastfeeding is regarded, and concludes more or less that it is our skewed (sinful) way of viewing things that results in breastfeeding being seen as somehow improper, inappropriate, scandalous.
Though taken out of context, I found this quote interesting:
John Paul II observed in his theology of the body that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” Since the body reveals the person, John Paul believes that this speaks volumes, not only about feminine biology, but about the dignity and nature of woman as a person.
My initial reaction was to take exception to the first observation, that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” That is, until I remembered seeing on several documentaries about sex the same assertions made from a scientific and evolutionary rather than theological perspective. The body, from an evolutionary perspective, is designed to facilitate procreation--that is, survival of the species--beginning with sexual attraction of the mate, which, evolutionary biologists maintain, has to do with the potential mate's suitability for mating and the production of healthy offspring. Anyway, the compatibility of these notions struck me as interesting. The second part of the passage above is a little more complex. I'm not sure what is meant by "the body reveals the person." Again, it is taken out of context, but I wonder how less desirable physical characteristics would be regarded according to this sentiment, or how cultural and racial differences might enter that discussion. . .
And well, that's all for now! (Okay, it was a cheap ploy to get 6 posts in at once!)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pregnant Grad Student Angst
I am in the process of recovering from a very stressful meeting with Dr. Adviser. I was dreading it in the first place, and so having a mini-panic-attack which for me means that I am pretty much sick to my stomach. It started out bad and got better, though I know I will be replaying various segments of the 2-part lecture: part 1-I'm disappointed in your progress; part 2-this is what happens when you get pregnant as a grad student and it's not going to get any better. Great. What I didn't need was for my dominant emotion coming out of the meeting to be "WELL, I DIDN'T EXACTLY ASK FOR THIS, DID I?" That's a really healthy attitude for someone about to enter her 7th months of pregnancy. I didn't realize that was as close to the surface as it was.
Problem #1: Well, we've already covered the "I don't really want to do this," haven't we? The thing is that when I'm doing it, it's stimulating. When I'm not doing it, I dread doing it so much that I have no motivation to push myself.
Problem #2: Teaching 15 weeks worth of material in 5 weeks, while pregnant and anemic, hence exhausted, every day for an hour and a half in the heat of summer in Texas, having to trudge to another building in the heat, and trying to find someone to watch the children while I do it since my husband was unable to do it this time and even if I liked daycare, I could not afford any of the child care programs that could accommodate the time of day when I taught.
A couple of interesting highlights from the meeting that perhaps deserve further consideration:
Well, at least you can look at it this way--when you finish, you will already have your family. You won't be looking at starting a family when you get a job--oh wait! when you get tenure, like Drs. 1, 2, and 3 who--oh by the way--are not full professors yet because that's what happens when you take time out for kids.
The system doesn't really allow for time off for pregnancy. It's just not "woman friendly."
The last time you were pregnant you were far enough ahead that you could take some time off without it hurting you, but that just can't happen this time.
So there go all of my rosy optimistic ideas. Poof!
Clearly Dr. Adviser is not familiar with Natural Family Planning and that whole "openness to life" thing! And neither is anyone else. So basically, the problem is not so much the getting pregnant in graduate school. The problem is converting to Catholicism in grad school. I guess I should have waited for tenure first.
I'm sure there's a lot more that will come back to me from this conversation. I had at least expected some constructive feedback on what I had written. I was given something to research that might prove interesting--just the seed of something, but a direction to pursue nonetheless.
I am reminded of one of my earlier angry momma posts that asked whether God liked to play tricks on unsuspecting Catholic women by letting them know somewhere along the line that they're supposed to have large families instead of those other pursuits that they had--especially before they were married or before they were Catholic. It's all very well to say "re-prioritize," but a lot depends on where the family is at the point of re-prioritizing, and most who make that observation are either 1) the men--usually husbands, frequently husbands whose wives are stay-at-home moms, or 2) women whose husbands have jobs that allow for re-prioritizing of personal and familial goals. It also implies a degree of materialism and frivolity of personal and familial goals. So how does one "re-prioritize" away the financial need for a teaching assistantship, either to take care of babies or to finish a dissertation? And how does one "re-prioritize" away the need to finish last 3 chapters of a dissertation, abandoning the Ph.D. altogether? In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I just don't see the value of abandoning everything at this point. In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I don't really want to abandon everything at this point, as my "children in academia" posts should indicate.
But I'm getting off track. That's not at all where I wanted this to go, but it's all bound together. I know what's at stake and why I need to finish (after all, he's got 3 grad students in the pipeline after me--one of whom is also pregnant!). But that doesn't make any of this any easier--emotionally, physically, or intellectually.
Problem #1: Well, we've already covered the "I don't really want to do this," haven't we? The thing is that when I'm doing it, it's stimulating. When I'm not doing it, I dread doing it so much that I have no motivation to push myself.
Problem #2: Teaching 15 weeks worth of material in 5 weeks, while pregnant and anemic, hence exhausted, every day for an hour and a half in the heat of summer in Texas, having to trudge to another building in the heat, and trying to find someone to watch the children while I do it since my husband was unable to do it this time and even if I liked daycare, I could not afford any of the child care programs that could accommodate the time of day when I taught.
A couple of interesting highlights from the meeting that perhaps deserve further consideration:
Well, at least you can look at it this way--when you finish, you will already have your family. You won't be looking at starting a family when you get a job--oh wait! when you get tenure, like Drs. 1, 2, and 3 who--oh by the way--are not full professors yet because that's what happens when you take time out for kids.
The system doesn't really allow for time off for pregnancy. It's just not "woman friendly."
The last time you were pregnant you were far enough ahead that you could take some time off without it hurting you, but that just can't happen this time.
So there go all of my rosy optimistic ideas. Poof!
Clearly Dr. Adviser is not familiar with Natural Family Planning and that whole "openness to life" thing! And neither is anyone else. So basically, the problem is not so much the getting pregnant in graduate school. The problem is converting to Catholicism in grad school. I guess I should have waited for tenure first.
I'm sure there's a lot more that will come back to me from this conversation. I had at least expected some constructive feedback on what I had written. I was given something to research that might prove interesting--just the seed of something, but a direction to pursue nonetheless.
I am reminded of one of my earlier angry momma posts that asked whether God liked to play tricks on unsuspecting Catholic women by letting them know somewhere along the line that they're supposed to have large families instead of those other pursuits that they had--especially before they were married or before they were Catholic. It's all very well to say "re-prioritize," but a lot depends on where the family is at the point of re-prioritizing, and most who make that observation are either 1) the men--usually husbands, frequently husbands whose wives are stay-at-home moms, or 2) women whose husbands have jobs that allow for re-prioritizing of personal and familial goals. It also implies a degree of materialism and frivolity of personal and familial goals. So how does one "re-prioritize" away the financial need for a teaching assistantship, either to take care of babies or to finish a dissertation? And how does one "re-prioritize" away the need to finish last 3 chapters of a dissertation, abandoning the Ph.D. altogether? In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I just don't see the value of abandoning everything at this point. In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I don't really want to abandon everything at this point, as my "children in academia" posts should indicate.
But I'm getting off track. That's not at all where I wanted this to go, but it's all bound together. I know what's at stake and why I need to finish (after all, he's got 3 grad students in the pipeline after me--one of whom is also pregnant!). But that doesn't make any of this any easier--emotionally, physically, or intellectually.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Ethics of Charity--on the receiving end
Okay, so why do I have such deep, deep, penetrating reservations about accepting help from Mormons?? Help is help, right? Could it be because the friend who is the liason with the Mormons converted in order to secure a community to insure her son's well being after she dies? And that she speaks in terms of "still being Catholic, really"? Well, no. That's not the reason. But it creeps me out to know that they are offering help. Especially since at one time the implication was that they were not particularly interested in helping those who were not interested in becoming Mormon. I wonder what the friend has been saying to the Mormon hierarchy that they are willing to help now. I've been trying to go through all the Catholic channels, but bureaucracy is bureaucracy, right? These things take time. Except for the Mormons, I guess.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Lucky 7 and Toddler Tales
I realized something interesting today. Thinking of the birthdays in my immediate family, I realized that all but one of our birth years will have 7s in them: 1971, 1977, 1997 (my son), 2005 (my daughter), 2007 (new baby!). Now, biology being what it is, I'm assuming we will have additional children without 7s in the years. Technically, it should still be possible for me to have a baby in 2017. . .
In other news, my baby girl likes foot rubs. Yup--you read that correctly. I have an overindulged toddler. A few nights ago, I noticed some peeling skin on her feet--probably from swimming. So I got out the Baby Aveeno lotion and rubbed some on her feet. When I was finished, she picked up the tube of lotion, handed it back to me, and stuck out her foot. So I did it again. Ever since that night, every time she finds the Aveeno, she brings it to someone and sticks out her foot!! :) It's very cute. Tonight my brother was visiting (the second-to-youngest, who is 19) and she offered him the Aveeno and foot! He was very amused, and obliged her. I think we've set a bad precedent!
In other news, my baby girl likes foot rubs. Yup--you read that correctly. I have an overindulged toddler. A few nights ago, I noticed some peeling skin on her feet--probably from swimming. So I got out the Baby Aveeno lotion and rubbed some on her feet. When I was finished, she picked up the tube of lotion, handed it back to me, and stuck out her foot. So I did it again. Ever since that night, every time she finds the Aveeno, she brings it to someone and sticks out her foot!! :) It's very cute. Tonight my brother was visiting (the second-to-youngest, who is 19) and she offered him the Aveeno and foot! He was very amused, and obliged her. I think we've set a bad precedent!
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Prayer Request Update
I learned a little while ago that my mom and brother have returned safely to New Orleans, but that the house is much, much worse than feared, with moldy ceilings falling down or sagging in most rooms and saturated carpets. On a suggestion that someone emailed to me (thank you for your thoughtfulness!), I have put a button on the side of the blog in case anyone would like to or be able to make a donation that I could send to her to help out. Anything would be appreciated, prayers most of all!! Thanks to those who have already offered their prayers.
Prayer Request
Please pray for my mom. She left Texas today to return to New Orleans, where she has visited only occasionally since Hurricane Katrina, more or less permanently. So far, she has no real job prospects, only a potential alteration service to the law firm where my aunt works as an account clerk, and occasionally assisting a friend of hers with wedding photography. Her house is in questionable condition, worse than immediately after the hurricane because she is unable to access the insurance money, since the checks were issued in two names and the other party refuses to sign them--even though one is for her exclusive personal property. She has only a minimal amount of child support, and is in danger of foreclosure on her house, which is all she has. The parish (or county, for those outside of LA) wants to seize the house because it has been uninhabited. Her van was reported as abandoned by a neighbor and was towed from her driveway and reduced to tinfoil, so she is depending on a car I lent her indefinitely in 2006. She has had the electricity turned on, but is without water and is disputing charges that were added after the water was disconnected--in the amount of $260. She has no refrigerator and her stove has been broken for many years. My brother, who is 13, is also with her, and needs prayers as well, since he will be very lonely, likely alone much of the time (if my mother is able to find work), as he will not be in school, having been homeschooled to this point. Please pray that she is able to find work, and that they will be able to find hope in this situation and help from friends.
You know, I think I finally understand intercessory prayers more concretely. I feel that all of you (and you know who you are) can add so much to my own requests, especially since my prayers can be rather feeble. And of course, this is magnified when the one praying is closer to God than any of us are at this point. The difference is that I feel more confident asking for your prayers--even though you are separated from me by distance and virtual space--because I know you (on some level, though it seems strange to write this!). I don't feel the kind of closeness to any particular saint(s) the way some people do. Perhaps that will be the next step! (Or perhaps I need to search for saints' personal home pages or blogs--ha ha, ha)
You know, I think I finally understand intercessory prayers more concretely. I feel that all of you (and you know who you are) can add so much to my own requests, especially since my prayers can be rather feeble. And of course, this is magnified when the one praying is closer to God than any of us are at this point. The difference is that I feel more confident asking for your prayers--even though you are separated from me by distance and virtual space--because I know you (on some level, though it seems strange to write this!). I don't feel the kind of closeness to any particular saint(s) the way some people do. Perhaps that will be the next step! (Or perhaps I need to search for saints' personal home pages or blogs--ha ha, ha)
Saturday, July 21, 2007
I'm so tired of having to explain myself
Has anybody considered that staying home with one's children is actually a luxury? I'm sure some have, and in some places it is actually a marker of status to be a stay-at-home mom. But the reason I ask this now is because while stay-at-home moms may have plenty of people to answer to--strangers, perhaps, or well-meaning family members who feel compelled to give advice about finances or the children's or mother's well-being, these people do not have any authority over them. There is no one to expect an explanation of why they have not performed up to the standards by which these things are judged. And you know what? Having to explain myself does not really lend itself to a good working attitude.
I have not possessed a good working attitude--except sporadically--for many years. I was not crazy about staying at this university for the Ph.D. because I knew that the course offerings were not what I wanted from a Ph.D. program. I stayed because I didn't get in to the other places to which I applied that time around, because it was convenient, as my husband had just entered an M.A. program, and because it was familiar. Oh yes, and because two people I respected shook my hand and said they'd like to see me stay. That's it. I was never even considered for a fellowship, as those are reserved for people who they lure here from elsewhere, since students from elsewhere are certainly better for the program than those who are already here. Speaks volumes about their opinion of their own program, no? Anyway, it has been non-stop drudgery since then because my heart has never been in it the same way it was at first, except for little moments along the way. But what does one do? Not a thing. I have applied for jobs sporadically without luck, and since my daughter was born, that doesn't even seem like much of an option because I don't want to relegate her to full-time child care, as I've mentioned before. I stick with it at this point because I have no choice, because I am our hope for any future we might conceivably have at this point that does not include this university, and because being in grad school is more convenient from a family perspective than a full-time job. End of story. Any enthusiasm you may have noted along the way is purely coincidental.
So what, you might ask, is the occasion for the rant? The return of the dissertation director from his vacation. You know, the same dissertation director who advises other grad students not to get married & become pregnant. And don't get me started on vacations. The last time I had a vacation was when I went to Disney World with my family when I was 6 years old. Otherwise, vacations are making the best of something I have to do anyway and can't really afford, like a conference or a campus visit to a university I was planning to attend when my son was 2.
So no, I have not performed as expected. I'm not a trained poodle, I'm a person who pretty much meets her own needs rather than having them provided by my trainer (furthering the poodle metaphor, here, and alluding to my need for the assistantship, not implying anything more sinister). And on top of that, I am responsible for other people. Why have I not done more? Let me count the reasons. But of course, there are countless others against whom I can be measured. They all perform as expected. Shall I enumerate the differences? You know, the not wanting or affording the child care option? Having, in fact, more children? And only one car between all of us? Health, a move, extended family, stress, burnout? Being further along in the first place and having to write the darned dissertation, which is what causes people so many problems without the extenuating circumstances? No, better not. What's the point, after all?
I have not possessed a good working attitude--except sporadically--for many years. I was not crazy about staying at this university for the Ph.D. because I knew that the course offerings were not what I wanted from a Ph.D. program. I stayed because I didn't get in to the other places to which I applied that time around, because it was convenient, as my husband had just entered an M.A. program, and because it was familiar. Oh yes, and because two people I respected shook my hand and said they'd like to see me stay. That's it. I was never even considered for a fellowship, as those are reserved for people who they lure here from elsewhere, since students from elsewhere are certainly better for the program than those who are already here. Speaks volumes about their opinion of their own program, no? Anyway, it has been non-stop drudgery since then because my heart has never been in it the same way it was at first, except for little moments along the way. But what does one do? Not a thing. I have applied for jobs sporadically without luck, and since my daughter was born, that doesn't even seem like much of an option because I don't want to relegate her to full-time child care, as I've mentioned before. I stick with it at this point because I have no choice, because I am our hope for any future we might conceivably have at this point that does not include this university, and because being in grad school is more convenient from a family perspective than a full-time job. End of story. Any enthusiasm you may have noted along the way is purely coincidental.
So what, you might ask, is the occasion for the rant? The return of the dissertation director from his vacation. You know, the same dissertation director who advises other grad students not to get married & become pregnant. And don't get me started on vacations. The last time I had a vacation was when I went to Disney World with my family when I was 6 years old. Otherwise, vacations are making the best of something I have to do anyway and can't really afford, like a conference or a campus visit to a university I was planning to attend when my son was 2.
So no, I have not performed as expected. I'm not a trained poodle, I'm a person who pretty much meets her own needs rather than having them provided by my trainer (furthering the poodle metaphor, here, and alluding to my need for the assistantship, not implying anything more sinister). And on top of that, I am responsible for other people. Why have I not done more? Let me count the reasons. But of course, there are countless others against whom I can be measured. They all perform as expected. Shall I enumerate the differences? You know, the not wanting or affording the child care option? Having, in fact, more children? And only one car between all of us? Health, a move, extended family, stress, burnout? Being further along in the first place and having to write the darned dissertation, which is what causes people so many problems without the extenuating circumstances? No, better not. What's the point, after all?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Fantasy Reading: The Fall List!
I just submitted my book order for the fall (dangerously late according to the preference of the department, but they assigned me late, too). I am really enjoying the theme of fantasy, and while I am doing many of the same works, I have varied it a bit. I have to work around the constraints of the pregnancy, too, which means I have allowed a few weeks at the end of the semester for them to present poems to the class. I will have already graded & returned explications of these poems early in the semester after we have discussed poetic techniques, so they will have an idea of whether or not their interpretations are complete before they teach "their versions" of the poems to the class. So far when I have taught the course, interpretations were not too far off, but every now & then it does get a little sticky. . . These are not to be researched papers or presentations, so I want them to really engage with the poem, meet with me (preferably, though this never happens) and then write without any so-called "expert" opinions (or web site opinions) about the poems. And using Wikipedia (with or without acknowledgment) is a fail-able offense.
I am excited about being able to do more with my fantasy class because I can really see it being a possible asset on a job search. Not that universities are dying to have someone to teach fantasy, mind you, just that it's a creative idea for a special topics or an honors course, and the way that I teach it avoids the strictly "popular" (ooooh--bad word) fantasy novels and demonstrates how fantasy operates within canonical (ooooh--another bad word) literature. Okay, so it's not really canonical, after all, does anyone really teach Rossetti's "Goblin Market" as part of the traditional canon? No, but she's Victorian, female, and Pre-Raphaelite, so she can be classified according to the standard ways of classifying literature, and yet she is a marginalized figure, more or less, having been neglected for a while in favor of the male Pre-Raphaelites (who are also neglected in favor of bigger & better Victorians, but that's rather a different subject). It is primarily a British fantasy course (I would love to edit an anthology, know any publishers?), though I include some Americans and an Italian (Calvino). I'm thinking that I could expand to include some stuff from the Middle Ages--the dream visions could arguably be the first fantasies--and even Dante, both of which would set the stage rather nicely for Christian fantasy, if such a thing were desired at the university where I eventually teach. The possibilities are endless! This is a bit out of my exact field, but it touches on the boundaries of my field. And I've done work in fantasy & science fiction before. Truly, I would have gone in this direction, had I not thought that it would mean committing academic suicide. Fantasy? Taken seriously? Only as a hobby, and then I'll probably still be thought slightly odd. And yet, in my optimistic moments, I imagine that it'll be an asset. Eh, who knows?
So here's the list of actual texts they will purchase:
Many of my short stories make reference to Peter Pan, so I have made the tough decision to replace The Tempest with Peter Pan for drama. Tough decision, but Peter Pan is pretty classic, has been extensively interpreted through film, and suggests the ways in which innocent children's fantasy can be made much, much darker without being perverted too much. I have also replaced Gilman with Morris's News from Nowhere this semester, swapping gender for socialism (she was a socialist, too). We'll see how that works. I was just finding it hard to talk about her ideas in a fair way, especially when all the students were rather vehemently denouncing her communal motherhood ideas. It's hard to point out what's good about an idea that is, at base, scary and counterintuitive. But I feel that utopia is a necessary part of "fantasy" and needs to be addressed in my course.
Tolkien, of course, defined the genre of fantasy, though it preexisted him, with Lord of the Rings and his "On Fairy Stories." I would love to teach one of the three parts of LOTR in its entirety, but I prefer Two Towers, and don't feel comfortable teaching just that one. It's incredible how many students have not read them. So I will address Tolkien's definition of allegory in the Preface, discuss the locus amoenus (a sweet place of rest, most often in Italian literature--especially Dante--and Classics, not really discussed in English lit--I also like to think of them as "sanctuaries"--think Catholic, too) in some chapters of Two Towers (likely the ones dealing with Treebeard). I would introduce The Silmarillion, but really, would that be fair? (Trying not to make the course too Tolkien-heavy. . .)
Anyway, I would feel better about this if I thought that I would really be able to focus the necessary amount of time on the class--what with being 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant. But we'll see how it goes! It always helps to teach something you like!
I am excited about being able to do more with my fantasy class because I can really see it being a possible asset on a job search. Not that universities are dying to have someone to teach fantasy, mind you, just that it's a creative idea for a special topics or an honors course, and the way that I teach it avoids the strictly "popular" (ooooh--bad word) fantasy novels and demonstrates how fantasy operates within canonical (ooooh--another bad word) literature. Okay, so it's not really canonical, after all, does anyone really teach Rossetti's "Goblin Market" as part of the traditional canon? No, but she's Victorian, female, and Pre-Raphaelite, so she can be classified according to the standard ways of classifying literature, and yet she is a marginalized figure, more or less, having been neglected for a while in favor of the male Pre-Raphaelites (who are also neglected in favor of bigger & better Victorians, but that's rather a different subject). It is primarily a British fantasy course (I would love to edit an anthology, know any publishers?), though I include some Americans and an Italian (Calvino). I'm thinking that I could expand to include some stuff from the Middle Ages--the dream visions could arguably be the first fantasies--and even Dante, both of which would set the stage rather nicely for Christian fantasy, if such a thing were desired at the university where I eventually teach. The possibilities are endless! This is a bit out of my exact field, but it touches on the boundaries of my field. And I've done work in fantasy & science fiction before. Truly, I would have gone in this direction, had I not thought that it would mean committing academic suicide. Fantasy? Taken seriously? Only as a hobby, and then I'll probably still be thought slightly odd. And yet, in my optimistic moments, I imagine that it'll be an asset. Eh, who knows?
So here's the list of actual texts they will purchase:
- Rossetti, Goblin Market and Other Poems (Dover)
- Morris, News From Nowhere (Dover)
- Paul Negri, English Victorian Poetry (Dover)
- Stanley Appelbaum, English Romantic Poetry (Dover)
- Edgar Allan Poe, The Raven and Other Favorite Poems (Dover)
- Bob Blaisdell, Irish Verse (Dover)
- J. M. Barrie, Peter Pan or the Boy Who Would Not Grow Up: A Fantasy in Five Acts (Dramatists Play Service)
- Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities (Harvest Books/Harcourt)
- Tolkien "On Fairy Stories"
- Preface to Lord of the Rings
- "Riddles in the Dark" from Tolkien's The Hobbit--the original and revised versions
- selected chapters from Tolkien's Two Towers
- Lawrence “The Rocking Horse Winner”
- Forster “The Celestial Omnibus”
- Forster “The Other Kingdom”
- Woolf “Solid Objects”
- PatrÃcio “The Fountain Man”
- Bradbury “The Veldt”
- Murphy “Peter”
- Yolen “Snow in Summer”
- Barthelme “The Glass Mountain”
- Frazier “Coyote v. Acme”
Many of my short stories make reference to Peter Pan, so I have made the tough decision to replace The Tempest with Peter Pan for drama. Tough decision, but Peter Pan is pretty classic, has been extensively interpreted through film, and suggests the ways in which innocent children's fantasy can be made much, much darker without being perverted too much. I have also replaced Gilman with Morris's News from Nowhere this semester, swapping gender for socialism (she was a socialist, too). We'll see how that works. I was just finding it hard to talk about her ideas in a fair way, especially when all the students were rather vehemently denouncing her communal motherhood ideas. It's hard to point out what's good about an idea that is, at base, scary and counterintuitive. But I feel that utopia is a necessary part of "fantasy" and needs to be addressed in my course.
Tolkien, of course, defined the genre of fantasy, though it preexisted him, with Lord of the Rings and his "On Fairy Stories." I would love to teach one of the three parts of LOTR in its entirety, but I prefer Two Towers, and don't feel comfortable teaching just that one. It's incredible how many students have not read them. So I will address Tolkien's definition of allegory in the Preface, discuss the locus amoenus (a sweet place of rest, most often in Italian literature--especially Dante--and Classics, not really discussed in English lit--I also like to think of them as "sanctuaries"--think Catholic, too) in some chapters of Two Towers (likely the ones dealing with Treebeard). I would introduce The Silmarillion, but really, would that be fair? (Trying not to make the course too Tolkien-heavy. . .)
Anyway, I would feel better about this if I thought that I would really be able to focus the necessary amount of time on the class--what with being 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant. But we'll see how it goes! It always helps to teach something you like!
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
What is it about 10-year-olds?
Perhaps the most daunting parenting challenge I am facing, will continue to face, and making me wonder how I will cope with 3 children is the behavior of my 10-year-old. I have always thought that he was pretty well-behaved. He does reasonably well in school, though not without a heavy dose of laziness, frustration, and know-it-all behavior. He is generally polite to others. He is definitely opinionated and expresses opinions loudly and obnoxiously. He certainly thinks he is an adult--or as good as. This is very troubling sometimes--and a matter of pride others, I'm ashamed to admit. But increasingly, he is very disrespectful in subtle ways. He pretends not to know what I mean when I ask him to clean up. "I want you to tidy up the nurs. . . (attempt at humor--Mary Poppins reference) . . . I mean, living room!!" "What? we don't have a nursery! Living room? We don't have a living room!' My patience sorely tested--"Are you really too stupid to know what I mean by 'living room'?" Yes, I know, likely the wrong tactic. Eventually, he pretends to catch my meaning, after I ask if he would like to clean up the living room and then proceed to his room for the rest of the day. These things are daily occurrences. Sometimes they are executed more like jokes on his part, which makes them more bearable, but no less irritating. Told to stop whatever irritating thing he is doing--some repetitive noise, like violently squeaking a toy--he continues for several more times before finally stopping, usually prompted by a glare. Or if I shoot one of those Mommy-glares "You know what you're doing is wrong" in his direction, he responds with a mock-scared, high-pitched squeal and convulsions, which I have told him repeatedly infuriate me more than whatever he was doing int he first place. However, ignoring the offending behavior does not seem to work, either. And so I have to deal with this on top of the toddler, and the pregnancy, and I can only imagine it continuing after the birth of the new baby.
And then, there is the brother-sister dynamic. Now, he clearly loves his little sister. He is clearly thankful to have her. And he has been looking forward to the new one steadily since I told him--proudly noticing when I'm getting rounder, etc. His enthusiasm has been slightly dampened by not having anyone to tell who will get excited, but only slightly dampened. (Actually, I have been very disappointed by my extended family's reaction--my aunt, whom my mother has told repeatedly that I am pregnant, will only respond with a "Yes, you told me." Hmph.) But the attitude he adopts towards the toddler is that of an overzealous prison-warden. Or he treats her like an animal or a toy, manhandling her at will in the name of "play." He will correct her under my nose as if I can't see what she's doing, or as if he is more capable. Now I do remember my mother correcting us for these same errors, I just don't remember it being so bad. I am on the verge of declaring it a hot-sauce punishable offense if the words "No" or the baby's name escape his lips with certain derogatory emphasis!!
I don't want to punish this repetitive mockery, etc., severely. It is the cumulative effect rather than the individual acts that are problematic, and yet, some days it reduces me to tears. In part because I do not want to yell, scream, punish. I do not want to feel frustrated, out of control, violent. I do not, in short, want to turn into my mother, or for my family's dynamic to be that of my family when we were growing up--you know, what I've mentioned fearing about having a big family?? I don't want to constantly be breaking up fights, stupidly dangerous play, wrestling, to deal with the baby's protests when she clearly doesn't want him to do what he's doing--some of the same things that I have to do when my son interacts with my youngest brother (but better not to go there. . .). I can't even handle two, how will I handle three? How will I handle three, especially, with patience and love? I just don't see it. Perhaps having two closer together, they will interact better with each other. I don't know.
The pressing problem right now is with the oldest, but it makes the prospect of 3 fearful. He is taking on little tiny dribbles of responsibility intermittently, but causing more problems than ever in the grand scheme of things. When the damage is done and I am distraught and on the verge of tears for no reason that he can possibly imagine (and I don't want him to feel guilty, since part of the problem is my own perceived inadequacy), he becomes quite compassionate. This, of course, doesn't really help. I've always been told how well-behaved he is, and mostly I've been inclined to agree. But lately. . . I just don't know. His harassing of the toddler, alternated with policing her, or complaining about her movements, location, sounds and smells (a dirty diaper apparently induced convulsions this afternoon, before he indicated a desire to attempt to change said diaper!), wears me thin. Is it age? A pre-preteen thing? Jealousy? Not knowing quite how to position himself between adults and a baby? When I was 10, I had 3 sisters. Very different.
I know, not my most cerebral post. And so I'm not misunderstood, I do basically think he's a very good, smart child. Just increasingly obnoxious. :( I find myself longing uncharacteristically for the start of school without believing that it will remedy the situation.
And then, there is the brother-sister dynamic. Now, he clearly loves his little sister. He is clearly thankful to have her. And he has been looking forward to the new one steadily since I told him--proudly noticing when I'm getting rounder, etc. His enthusiasm has been slightly dampened by not having anyone to tell who will get excited, but only slightly dampened. (Actually, I have been very disappointed by my extended family's reaction--my aunt, whom my mother has told repeatedly that I am pregnant, will only respond with a "Yes, you told me." Hmph.) But the attitude he adopts towards the toddler is that of an overzealous prison-warden. Or he treats her like an animal or a toy, manhandling her at will in the name of "play." He will correct her under my nose as if I can't see what she's doing, or as if he is more capable. Now I do remember my mother correcting us for these same errors, I just don't remember it being so bad. I am on the verge of declaring it a hot-sauce punishable offense if the words "No" or the baby's name escape his lips with certain derogatory emphasis!!
I don't want to punish this repetitive mockery, etc., severely. It is the cumulative effect rather than the individual acts that are problematic, and yet, some days it reduces me to tears. In part because I do not want to yell, scream, punish. I do not want to feel frustrated, out of control, violent. I do not, in short, want to turn into my mother, or for my family's dynamic to be that of my family when we were growing up--you know, what I've mentioned fearing about having a big family?? I don't want to constantly be breaking up fights, stupidly dangerous play, wrestling, to deal with the baby's protests when she clearly doesn't want him to do what he's doing--some of the same things that I have to do when my son interacts with my youngest brother (but better not to go there. . .). I can't even handle two, how will I handle three? How will I handle three, especially, with patience and love? I just don't see it. Perhaps having two closer together, they will interact better with each other. I don't know.
The pressing problem right now is with the oldest, but it makes the prospect of 3 fearful. He is taking on little tiny dribbles of responsibility intermittently, but causing more problems than ever in the grand scheme of things. When the damage is done and I am distraught and on the verge of tears for no reason that he can possibly imagine (and I don't want him to feel guilty, since part of the problem is my own perceived inadequacy), he becomes quite compassionate. This, of course, doesn't really help. I've always been told how well-behaved he is, and mostly I've been inclined to agree. But lately. . . I just don't know. His harassing of the toddler, alternated with policing her, or complaining about her movements, location, sounds and smells (a dirty diaper apparently induced convulsions this afternoon, before he indicated a desire to attempt to change said diaper!), wears me thin. Is it age? A pre-preteen thing? Jealousy? Not knowing quite how to position himself between adults and a baby? When I was 10, I had 3 sisters. Very different.
I know, not my most cerebral post. And so I'm not misunderstood, I do basically think he's a very good, smart child. Just increasingly obnoxious. :( I find myself longing uncharacteristically for the start of school without believing that it will remedy the situation.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Breastfeeding Virgin - Madonna Lactans - Francisco de Zurbarán
I admit to being, actually, a little short on inspiration for my series of Mary-posts. I am unsure of everything from how to title the posts to how to begin them! But I decided, nevertheless, to start with an artist whom I discovered when I was breastfeeding my daughter and came across the Our Lady of La Leche shrine mentioned in an article. I forget now where the article was posted or published, but it was written by Marion Amberg about couples who, hoping for an end to their fertility problems, took pilgrimages to the shrine. After learning about this particular representation of Our Lady, I traced it on the internet and learned of the Grotto of the Milk in Bethlehem with its interesting devotion. Then, I sought representations of the Virgin breastfeeding from throughout art history. I have a few favorites, among them this painting titled Holy Family by Francisco de Zurbarán. I believe I found it on a site that sells posters, and since I was only intending it for personal use, I didn't think about recording the original site. But as long as nobody tells my composition students, it'll juts be between us!
I find this a particularly touching image. I like the portrayal of the affection that exists between the three members of the Holy Family. I also think that the involvement of Joseph in this intimate moment of feeding between Mother and Child is rather profound. It seems that the painted must have had an intimate knowledge of breastfeeding, as this is a very tender moment, not portrayed in a static manner at all. The naturalism of the scene is quite striking. Another interesting feature of the painting is that the figures seem to be clad in rather realistic and appropriate garments. I did find that this particular painter is from Extremadura--a rather arid and impoverished region of Spain, and the house and landscape does not appear too unlike the scenery in contemporary films set in Extremadura. Nevertheless, this is believable as a first century scene from the Middle East or northern Africa.
On a site called Olga's Gallery, I discovered some biographical information on Francisco de Zurbarán (there are some popups on the original site):
A highly original Spanish artist, Francisco de Zurbarán, until recently was not known beyond Spain. His works are rarely met in European museums and are highly appreciated by collectors.
He was born in Fuente de Cantos (Estremadura) into the family of a petty merchant. His professional training he received in Seville in 1616/17 in the workshop of Pedro Diaz da Villanueva. Then he settled near his birthplace to paint a large number of religious pictures for the monasteries and churches.
In Seville, where he settled in 1629, he became the leading artist. There he produced many altarpieces and decorated a number of monasteries with extensive fresco style cycles. In 1630-1645, Zurbarán executed a lot of paintings of different saints; they are evidence of his talent as a portraitist. They are usually separate figures in full height, with a dark or neutral background. These paintings were used for decoration of the churches and were hung on both sides of a central painting or altar. Zurbarán executed a series of such paintings for churches and also for the Hospital de la Sangre in Seville.
His style, with massively simple figures and objects, clear, sober colors and deep solemnity of feeling expressed in thickly applied paint, made him the ideal painter of the austere religion of Spain.
His fortunes fell with Murillo's rise. In 1658 he moved to Madrid, where he entered the Santiago Order. In order to support himself he had to become an art dealer, though he was not successful in business either. He died in Madrid in 1664 in poverty.
The site also includes a number of de Zurbarán's other paintings, including two of the Immaculate Conception. Most of those included on this gallery page are religious-themed paintings, with several depicting the Virgin Mary. An additional painting titled The Virgin with Infant Christ also depicts Mother and Child breastfeeding. Again, there is a tenderness between mother and child that is very natural. The Infant reaches to caress the Mother's other breast while being held tight against His Mother. She glances down at him in utter absorbtion. Again, the dress of the figures suggests an idealized past rather than the artist's present. The figures are alone against a shadowy background with a nonspecific light source illuminating the upper left hand corner--enough to suggest the Light brought into the world by this woman who now nourishes Him at her breast. I may be wrong, but it appears that Mary even has a snack at her side to nourish her body in order to nourish her Child--a nice touch, if I am reading it correctly. Whether he is working with a model (as is likely) or from an ideal in his head, both Mother and Child remain consistent (to my eye) between the two paintings by de Zurbarán.Bending low and cradling Him near,
Feeling his warmth and smelling his milky breath,
Mother of God, she feeds Him of herself;
And glancing into Joseph's tender eyes
She reaches him amid the baby's sighs.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Of Herbs and. . . Religious Art?
Well, thanks to Melanie and "C," I have a new project of sorts on my hands. Who would have thought that my child- and motherhood musings would come to this? But in a previous post, the question of representations of the Blessed Virgin Mary mothering was raised, and led me to think of some of the images of Mary breastfeeding that I discovered when I was nursing my now-weaned (at around 18 months) toddler. So I am on a quest. My thought is that images of Mary mothering may not be entirely domestic in nature. We have to consider the subject, and realize that all but the representations that strive to be heretical and blasphemous will be idealized representations of the subject. Hence, no images of Mary changing diapers (sorry, C!). ;) But the mothering images will present the Blessed Mother engaging with the child Jesus, who will usually be portrayed as a child. I will strive to find and post pictures that avoid the formalized, static poses, unless there is something particularly "motherly" being portrayed in a stylistic manner, as in early representations of the Madonna Lactans--the breastfeeding Virgin. While I am very fond of devotional art of all types and periods, I will be restricting this "quest" to fine art portrayals--more or less "canonical" artists, the standard "periods" of art history.
I have found three categories of Virgin Mary portraits that interest me: first, the Madonna Lactans--Mary as Nursing Mother, whom I first discovered after reading about the shrine to Our Lady of La Leche in St. Augustine, FL, which I would like to visit one day. I am also interested in more generic, "motherly" images of Mary--portrayals that emphasize human motherhood. Third, I will be looking for those images that I think best represent Mary in her role as Patroness of Graduate Student Mothers--or didn't you know about that one? I call these portrayals "Our Lady of the Dissertation." You can quote me on that. Here is an example by Botticelli (Also known as Madonna of the Magnificat):
To me, this will signify the effort to produce a great (meaning substantial, not superior) intellectual work while undertaking the great work of parenting.
While searching for images, I came across this one, which I thought might be of interest:
From this site, which specializes in unusual medicinal plant seeds, this is the St. Mary's Milk Thistle:
More inspiration soon!
I have found three categories of Virgin Mary portraits that interest me: first, the Madonna Lactans--Mary as Nursing Mother, whom I first discovered after reading about the shrine to Our Lady of La Leche in St. Augustine, FL, which I would like to visit one day. I am also interested in more generic, "motherly" images of Mary--portrayals that emphasize human motherhood. Third, I will be looking for those images that I think best represent Mary in her role as Patroness of Graduate Student Mothers--or didn't you know about that one? I call these portrayals "Our Lady of the Dissertation." You can quote me on that. Here is an example by Botticelli (Also known as Madonna of the Magnificat):
To me, this will signify the effort to produce a great (meaning substantial, not superior) intellectual work while undertaking the great work of parenting.While searching for images, I came across this one, which I thought might be of interest:
From this site, which specializes in unusual medicinal plant seeds, this is the St. Mary's Milk Thistle:Silybum marianumOf course we assume that Mary's milk was abundant, and this herb is akin, apparently, to her blessing on nursing mothers. For those interested, they can't ship these particular seeds to Arkansas, Oregon, or Washington State.
The boiled flower heads of this plant are said to increase milk supply in nursing mothers.
More inspiration soon!
Monday, July 9, 2007
Loaves and . . . Fruit Snacks? and 4 O'clocks
Not to distract from the seriousness of the previous week's posts, but. . .
We were in Mass yesterday, and as my toddler has rejected the prospect of staying in the nursery during Mass, even when a nursery is available, we have adopted the habit of bringing several items for her amusement including, I am ashamed to say, a few small but fragrant snack items--Gerber fruit snacks, fruit strips, and breakfast bars (which are crummy, and so only for emergencies). This started because she would sometimes be ready to eat before the end of Mass, and a little something was necessary to keep her quiet. Once she has reached an age of understanding "we don't really eat in . . . X," we will remove the snacks from our routine.
These fruit snacks are softer versions of the ones available to be packed in school lunches--they come in a little pouch and she just loves fishing them out with her little hands until they are all gone, at which point she crumples the bag and we have to do a little minimal noise control. So yesterday, she had eaten her fruit strp and rooted through her little activity bag to find the fruit snacks, which I opened for her and she promptly gobbled up. Several minutes passed, and she made a little noise and, with surprise & triumph, showed me two more fruit snacks rescued from the pew! Now I thought for sure that I had monitored fruit snack consumption so that none escaped. But she ate the two fruit snacks and I returned to trying to listen to--oh, probably the homily at this point. The baby fidgeted a little, walked back and forth on the kneeler in her bare feet, having taken off her shoes during the readings, presumably to sample the texture of the floor and kneeler with her toes. She settled down again, this time between Daddy and Momma instead of between Momma and Brother. And what do you think she found? A yellow, pineapple shaped fruit snack! She again regarded it with pleasure and surprise, promptly dropped it in the pew, recovered it with my help, and ate it happily. So I'm starting to become amused and a little embarassed. I know I monitored the initial consumption of fruit snacks better than that! But these things were multiplying like. . . you guessed it--"loaves and fruit snacks." After all, "fruit snacks" started with the same letter and has the same umber of syllables and the same stress pattern as "fishes." So I had just finished this thought--of questionable taste (unless you ask the daughter, who would have found it delicious, no doubt), when it was time to stand for the Profession of Faith. Guess what? I caught site of yet another fruit snack--on the floor in front of my husband's feet! So amid my amusement, I try to keep my daughter occupied so that she doesn't try to rescue the dead fruit snack from off the floor. Finally, as we sat again, I motioned to my husband, who retrieved the offending object.
I imagined the older woman behind me, who at various points seemed amused by the toddler's antics and perhaps pleased that she wasn't making more of a disturbance, wondering how on earth we focused on the Mass. Well, I think I've realized that the experience of a Mass with family sometimes involves being thankful for the sweet little person who causes such distraction! (And catching what glorious moments we can in between!) At least, that's my answer for yesterday!
* * * * *
On a different subject, Entropy reminded me in her post of the wonders of 4 o'clocks--small flowers that bloom promptly at 4 o'clock (daylight savings time notwithstanding)--that are impossible to kill and have the most wonderful fragrance! She posts a picture. I remember that we had them in the greatest varieties! Yellow & light pink, fuschia, striped. . . My grandmother would always try to cross-pollinate to get new varieties. She would tie little strings around the branches of the ones she pollinated with other colors so that she would remember where the seed would be. Meanwhile, my cousins & sisters would collect the seeds in little piles--they called the not-quite-ripe ones "stripeys" because they were black striped with green.
I haven't had any luck getting them to grow in Texas. I'm not sure if the ground is too hard, or if it's too dry, or what. In New Orleans, you just drop them on the ground and they sprout almost instantly. Here, when I tried to grow some, nothing ever happened. Anyway, it was nice to be reminded of these pretty little flowers.
We were in Mass yesterday, and as my toddler has rejected the prospect of staying in the nursery during Mass, even when a nursery is available, we have adopted the habit of bringing several items for her amusement including, I am ashamed to say, a few small but fragrant snack items--Gerber fruit snacks, fruit strips, and breakfast bars (which are crummy, and so only for emergencies). This started because she would sometimes be ready to eat before the end of Mass, and a little something was necessary to keep her quiet. Once she has reached an age of understanding "we don't really eat in . . . X," we will remove the snacks from our routine.
These fruit snacks are softer versions of the ones available to be packed in school lunches--they come in a little pouch and she just loves fishing them out with her little hands until they are all gone, at which point she crumples the bag and we have to do a little minimal noise control. So yesterday, she had eaten her fruit strp and rooted through her little activity bag to find the fruit snacks, which I opened for her and she promptly gobbled up. Several minutes passed, and she made a little noise and, with surprise & triumph, showed me two more fruit snacks rescued from the pew! Now I thought for sure that I had monitored fruit snack consumption so that none escaped. But she ate the two fruit snacks and I returned to trying to listen to--oh, probably the homily at this point. The baby fidgeted a little, walked back and forth on the kneeler in her bare feet, having taken off her shoes during the readings, presumably to sample the texture of the floor and kneeler with her toes. She settled down again, this time between Daddy and Momma instead of between Momma and Brother. And what do you think she found? A yellow, pineapple shaped fruit snack! She again regarded it with pleasure and surprise, promptly dropped it in the pew, recovered it with my help, and ate it happily. So I'm starting to become amused and a little embarassed. I know I monitored the initial consumption of fruit snacks better than that! But these things were multiplying like. . . you guessed it--"loaves and fruit snacks." After all, "fruit snacks" started with the same letter and has the same umber of syllables and the same stress pattern as "fishes." So I had just finished this thought--of questionable taste (unless you ask the daughter, who would have found it delicious, no doubt), when it was time to stand for the Profession of Faith. Guess what? I caught site of yet another fruit snack--on the floor in front of my husband's feet! So amid my amusement, I try to keep my daughter occupied so that she doesn't try to rescue the dead fruit snack from off the floor. Finally, as we sat again, I motioned to my husband, who retrieved the offending object.
I imagined the older woman behind me, who at various points seemed amused by the toddler's antics and perhaps pleased that she wasn't making more of a disturbance, wondering how on earth we focused on the Mass. Well, I think I've realized that the experience of a Mass with family sometimes involves being thankful for the sweet little person who causes such distraction! (And catching what glorious moments we can in between!) At least, that's my answer for yesterday!
* * * * *
On a different subject, Entropy reminded me in her post of the wonders of 4 o'clocks--small flowers that bloom promptly at 4 o'clock (daylight savings time notwithstanding)--that are impossible to kill and have the most wonderful fragrance! She posts a picture. I remember that we had them in the greatest varieties! Yellow & light pink, fuschia, striped. . . My grandmother would always try to cross-pollinate to get new varieties. She would tie little strings around the branches of the ones she pollinated with other colors so that she would remember where the seed would be. Meanwhile, my cousins & sisters would collect the seeds in little piles--they called the not-quite-ripe ones "stripeys" because they were black striped with green.
I haven't had any luck getting them to grow in Texas. I'm not sure if the ground is too hard, or if it's too dry, or what. In New Orleans, you just drop them on the ground and they sprout almost instantly. Here, when I tried to grow some, nothing ever happened. Anyway, it was nice to be reminded of these pretty little flowers.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
The Conversation Continues
Over at Et Tu Jen's blog, where she addresses Motherhood, Fulfillment, and Careers. While she does harken back to a time when women were content not having careers, she brings up an interesting point, which I'm going to represent by asking, why was it that women didn't realize how darned oppressed they were all those centuries? One obvious reason is that they were too darned busy running the household, doing chores or working in the fields or whatever else they had to do to fulfill their family's societal role or help provide for their families, raising children, cooking meals, etc., and that women's responsibilities effectively kept them in their places, unlike men, who had a limited but greater level of social mobility, depending on the society. (Of course, when you look at the bumper sticker that says that well-behaved women rarely make history, the same could be said about men. Also, one might add that women of low birth or economic status rarely made history either.) Women started noticing that they were trapped in the home at about the time their wealth and leisure permitted the time to think of such things. But that's not where Jen goes with her post.
Rather, she contends that the structure of society itself provided women with what they now seek in careers outside of the home, namely
Update: Jen absolutely does ask the same questions I asked above! Just on a different site!! (I do contend, though that the discontent started before the 1960s--try the 19th Century! Or the Industrial Revolution!)
Rather, she contends that the structure of society itself provided women with what they now seek in careers outside of the home, namely
- Adult conversation
- Breaks from the 24/7 care of their children
- Community recognition for accomplishments and talents (i.e. if you were the best seamstress or the best piano-player in the village, everyone recognized it)
- Clear, important goals and challenges (i.e. women's work was far more challenging, time-consuming and critical to survival)
- Stability in case of emergency (e.g. if a woman's husband died, left, was abusive, etc. her parents, siblings, and other extended family were nearby and could provide support and a place to live)
Update: Jen absolutely does ask the same questions I asked above! Just on a different site!! (I do contend, though that the discontent started before the 1960s--try the 19th Century! Or the Industrial Revolution!)
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Utopian Child Care at a High School (A Second Hand Report), and Wider Implications
Someone once mentioned to me that a Catholic school in San Antonio that had high incidence of unwed mothers decided to try a radical method of correcting the situation. Instead of expelling the unfortunate mothers and ostracizing them, contributing to their disgrace and difficult financial situation (or providing implicit pressure for the girls to have abortions to avoid being expelled), this school set up a daycare on the campus that was staffed, in part, by the girls themselves, and that this did more than Home Ec and Sex Ed combined to make the girls understand the realities of life with a child and to consider the consequences of their actions more carefully. Now, this did attract negative attention as I understand it, but the results spoke for themselves. This seems to be an example of a positive move towards helping mothers and educating young people. It also represents a bringing of children into unaccustomed spaces where they might be accessed by their own mothers periodically. I'm sure there were those who doubted that the students would get anything accomplished with their babies and others' close by.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Best of Both Worlds
After my recent posts and the responses that others have posted, I found, on my wanderings, two posts that seem to address what I will call wanting "the best of both worlds." Because I believe that that's what I'm striving to achieve. I do naturally assume that most mothers want to spend time--some time, all of their time, more time, whatever--with their children. I feel that this can be accomplished more than it is being now by a pervasive change in attitude. And, well, it doesn't seem that I'm alone here.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Condensed Version of What I've Been Trying to Communicate
Feminism
- Few people who talk about feminism and motherhood (specifically, none of the commentors on the post about child-free woman-only beaches in Italy) consider for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life.
- It may be (as Anastasia notes) that people are afforded too much child-free space, leading to the opinion that children are little obscenities ad should be hidden until they reach an acceptable age.
- Within feminism certain choices are affirmed, but others are not--because they’re driven by so-called "outdated ideologies."
- Not having a child at all--or certainly not having more than one--is considered by many to be the "enlightened" choice.
- Individuals who consider themselves "feminists" very rarely speak out against how the most vocal and most politically active "feminists" wish to portray themselves.
- Feminism is an ideology that is loosely based at best.
- Feminism strongly suggests that certain behaviors are appropriate in certain situations, and it does suggest that the woman look out for #1 without considering much else, really.
- I consider "feminism" to be distinct from "women's rights." The former label does not afford much besides political baggage and free-associations.
- Feminism states: Any woman who is pro-woman is feminist (as long as she is pro-woman in a way we like). That way, feminism makes sure that it can claim to be all encompassing (within limits).
- Feminism is about women's rights to have rights. It doesn't matter what the rights are or whether they're right by any standard--objective or otherwise. Rather, it seems to be looking for something prohibited to claim as a right. Maybe feminism itself is in crisis due to this lack of a unified cause.
- Pro-motherhood feminism always includes the caveat that the motherhood shouldn't really interfere with one's convenience--hence the emphasis on children being "planned."
- In order to subscribe to an ideology--to a belief system of any kind--I have to have a good idea, first of all, of the tenets of that belief system, and second of all, I have to be able to accept those tenets.
- While feminism has certainly afforded us choice, I maintain that it has affirmed one choice (many choices, actually) over its (their) alternative(s).
- It is perfectly acceptable for a feminist to condemn--implicitly or explicitly--the choices of a woman who bases her choices on so-deemed "patriarchal institutions," such as Christianity, for example. Her choices and her intelligence are thus judged in one fell swoop.
- In academia, it is possible to make one's schedule family friendly.
- Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, etc.
- Research can be done in the presence of children.
- The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity.
- Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere.
- The idea that children need to, can and should make room for women's own goals is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.
- The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace.
- We need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph.
- Individual choices concerning what to do with children might differ from what they are currently if an atmosphere conducive to children were more pervasive.
- Some of our opinions on this subject are influenced by the fact that children are not well-tolerated in certain situations. I'm not sure why this is so offensive a point. To extend--we might have more options if children were better tolerated.
- It would be infinitely simpler to send my children to daycare, so I must have reasons for what I do, and those reasons are not affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia.
- I advocate the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. So if I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied.
- There is a difference between saying, "this is what's best for me" and saying, "I do things this way because I believe that my method is preferable." My statement that it is my belief that my method is preferable does not preclude logic and reasoning, and my beliefs on this subject are indeed based on logic and reasoning (not prejudice or even-- horrors!--faith.), as are most of the things I believe.
- The expression of the belief that all children benefit from being around their parents while they are young, or of any of the other opinions that I have expressed, does not infringe on anyone’s right to do anything. Rather, the expression of that belief is intended to make people consider possible bases and consequences of such a belief, and perhaps see that I am advocating a change in attitude that might make such choices more frequent and available to more people.
- Saying that my choices are different, not influenced by the prevailing mindset, and that it would be nice if the prevailing mindset were different does not say that my choices are best for everyone, or that I want everyone to choose like me. Hell! If I said that, I’d have to put up with everyone else’s little monsters!! ;)
A Logical Extension
Another thought. . . I feel myself to be an advocate of the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden, just as some people consider themselves advocates of reproductive rights. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. While I have been told not to blame feminism for this, I was 8 months pregnant with my first child (and 19 years old), sitting in a senior-level undergraduate literary theory class, when my male professor asked me, of all people in the class, a visual representation of motherhood, to read a passage from a Marxist-Feminist essay on that standard piece of feminist reading (and one of the most reprehensible works I think I read as an undergrad) The Awakening, that concluded that motherhood renders one's life meaningless. Hmmmm. . . If I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied. It's my own pro-life crusade, if you will, because how many abortions start with the thought, "I just can't. . ."?
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
It should come as no surprise. . .
Really. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I feel the way I do about children and daycare. Because it's tough to juggle schedules. It's tougher some days than others, but there are definite challenges involved with bringing children places--especially places that are not child-friendly. Academic departments, for example. It would be infinitely simpler to relegate them to the care of others--sure! So there has to be a reason that I do what I do, no? A reason that I have not seen affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia. So I might as well write about my ideals before I have to compromise them at some point down the line. I dread the semester when I can't make it work. So far, admittedly, I've been lucky. But then, I've had only one baby at a time. Still, I will avoid it for as long as I can, and I will keep them in child care for as few hours a week as I can manage (which academia does allow), when and if the time comes. It's a conscious choice, and like most conscious choices, it does involve judgment of the alternative options (as the homeschooling parents out there know, right? ;) ).
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Let's Talk About Children. . .
. . . Since we've talked about feminism and motherhood. The original posts that got me thinking about the ways feminists talk about motherhood were about the prohibition of children from certain spaces and the relegation of children to private spaces based on an inferiority of children. One commenter actually said that she considered herself to be raising her children to become human. This is an interesting extension of the argument that says a fetus isn't human--in her construct, she could easily justify the infanticide of ancient Greece and Rome--or of that girl who gave birth in the bathroom during prom. Clearly, she was exaggerating (I hope). Just as clearly, many, many of these women have some psychological problem that makes them resent and lash out against the smallest, least protected, most powerless members of our society who are still acknowledged as such. So we'll suggest that this is a personal problem shared by this substantial group of individuals who also happen to gather together under the label of "feminist." We will further concede that this group is perhaps a bit extreme in their not wanting to be disturbed by children--or by women talking to their children--in the grocery stores. Having made a great number of concessions, I have a few observations to make.
Academia is a very flexible career choice. If one wants to be in a 40+ hour a week desk job, one has the option of administration. However, many academic administrators work considerably less than that. If one wants to split one's time between editorial duties with a journal and teach a class or two, that is an option also. If one has what is considered a "good" teaching load as a tenure-track professor, one likely teaches 2-3 courses a semester. Once tenured, this might decrease further. If one has taught the same class multiple times, one is usually able to teach without much time spent preparing. Then, there is the research requirement, which can be accomplished anywhere. Conferences are like mini-vacations for those who can afford them and are accustomed to them, though for a beginner and one with a modest income, they can afford considerable stress.
Enter children. Or, consider children if they happen to exist already. Clearly, an administrative job would provide challenges for someone who wanted to spend a significant amount of time parenting. If one has a teaching job, however, it is possible for the number of hours actually spent away from the home to resemble a part-time rather than a full-time job. It is even possible, with departmental cooperation, to make one's schedule family friendly by working only 2 or 3 days a week, or by working mornings or evenings only (perhaps alternating with a spouse) and spending the remaining time with one's children. Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, meetings with students, less important departmental meetings, film showings, lectures or other after-hours activities (this would of course depend on the age and behavior of th child(ren) involved). This is challenging, but has its rewards. Research can be done in the presence of children just as easily as housework was traditionally--not that I'm saying that this was/is always easy. Clearly there are good hours and bad hours, and good days and bad days. But you know what? That article or whatever can be written with the kids--at least, if you don't procrastinate like me!!--and if you don't blame the kids for taking up too much of your time, and if you're not afraid to let them entertain themselves, or to stop when they need your attention. It can be done--just as easily as blogging with kids. The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity. Conferences are rare, but can be turned into family vacations, with the other spouse filling in time gaps while the attendee is in sessions. Or if not, what's a weekend away once a year? Not too traumatic. (But don't--for God's sake DON'T--breastfeed in an MLA session!! I can't remember the name of the audacious academic who pulled that "stunt," but I have it on good authority--good feminist authority--that one simply can not do that!!--The horrors!!)
I have been asked point-blank if my children are in day-care. I have said no. And I have been asked how I get any work done. I have been told about the impossibilities of working on anything with (a) child(ren) around--all by other women. All by my peers. And I have been doing this for 10 years. Well, unless you count all that time when I was living at home with 5 siblings helping my mom go to school while I was an undergraduate. In that case, I've been doing it much longer. I have not asked how they afford 40-hour child care. I don't want to know. I can't, and I really don't want to try. But I am a fairly lone figure pushing my stroller on a regular basis through the halls of the department. My children are well known by all who see them--and this has been my modus operandi since I stepped into the building almost (God help me!) 8 years ago. Others have their children with them sometimes, but only occasionally, whether to show off, or because of a school/daycare holiday, or illness. But I maintain that it doesn't really have to be like this. Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere. Truly--I believe it is a matter of perception. And that's where I think feminism has some part to play. Unless one wants to say that it could have a pro-child part to play but doesn't. But the idea that children, who once were the responsibility of women but need not be, should be relegated to other spaces to make room for women's own goals, needs, desires, whatever, certainly is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.
Women in academia are supposed to be feminist. No one will dispute that. It's one of those "well, she's intelligent, so she must agree with this. . ." These assumptions run rampant through academia. The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace. While some may disagree, this is rare. I have known professors to keep their children in after-care daily rather than have them at home with the parents (both academics) when the parents' schedules ended earlier than a 5 P.M. day. I have seen children kept in child care situations "just in case" meetings or other activities should come up. On the other hand, I have met two academics--a single father and a mother (possibly separated--I'm not sure) who, in their early days of tenure-track, brought their children with them to class, office hours, after hours situations. These are the professors I admire, as they balanced their career goals and their family goals, standing up for their children's rights to exist, to exist in public, and to be with their parents. What may have been borne of difficult situations turned into triumph for all involved. And we just need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph. But does feminism teach this, really?
Academia is a very flexible career choice. If one wants to be in a 40+ hour a week desk job, one has the option of administration. However, many academic administrators work considerably less than that. If one wants to split one's time between editorial duties with a journal and teach a class or two, that is an option also. If one has what is considered a "good" teaching load as a tenure-track professor, one likely teaches 2-3 courses a semester. Once tenured, this might decrease further. If one has taught the same class multiple times, one is usually able to teach without much time spent preparing. Then, there is the research requirement, which can be accomplished anywhere. Conferences are like mini-vacations for those who can afford them and are accustomed to them, though for a beginner and one with a modest income, they can afford considerable stress.
Enter children. Or, consider children if they happen to exist already. Clearly, an administrative job would provide challenges for someone who wanted to spend a significant amount of time parenting. If one has a teaching job, however, it is possible for the number of hours actually spent away from the home to resemble a part-time rather than a full-time job. It is even possible, with departmental cooperation, to make one's schedule family friendly by working only 2 or 3 days a week, or by working mornings or evenings only (perhaps alternating with a spouse) and spending the remaining time with one's children. Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, meetings with students, less important departmental meetings, film showings, lectures or other after-hours activities (this would of course depend on the age and behavior of th child(ren) involved). This is challenging, but has its rewards. Research can be done in the presence of children just as easily as housework was traditionally--not that I'm saying that this was/is always easy. Clearly there are good hours and bad hours, and good days and bad days. But you know what? That article or whatever can be written with the kids--at least, if you don't procrastinate like me!!--and if you don't blame the kids for taking up too much of your time, and if you're not afraid to let them entertain themselves, or to stop when they need your attention. It can be done--just as easily as blogging with kids. The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity. Conferences are rare, but can be turned into family vacations, with the other spouse filling in time gaps while the attendee is in sessions. Or if not, what's a weekend away once a year? Not too traumatic. (But don't--for God's sake DON'T--breastfeed in an MLA session!! I can't remember the name of the audacious academic who pulled that "stunt," but I have it on good authority--good feminist authority--that one simply can not do that!!--The horrors!!)
I have been asked point-blank if my children are in day-care. I have said no. And I have been asked how I get any work done. I have been told about the impossibilities of working on anything with (a) child(ren) around--all by other women. All by my peers. And I have been doing this for 10 years. Well, unless you count all that time when I was living at home with 5 siblings helping my mom go to school while I was an undergraduate. In that case, I've been doing it much longer. I have not asked how they afford 40-hour child care. I don't want to know. I can't, and I really don't want to try. But I am a fairly lone figure pushing my stroller on a regular basis through the halls of the department. My children are well known by all who see them--and this has been my modus operandi since I stepped into the building almost (God help me!) 8 years ago. Others have their children with them sometimes, but only occasionally, whether to show off, or because of a school/daycare holiday, or illness. But I maintain that it doesn't really have to be like this. Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere. Truly--I believe it is a matter of perception. And that's where I think feminism has some part to play. Unless one wants to say that it could have a pro-child part to play but doesn't. But the idea that children, who once were the responsibility of women but need not be, should be relegated to other spaces to make room for women's own goals, needs, desires, whatever, certainly is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.
Women in academia are supposed to be feminist. No one will dispute that. It's one of those "well, she's intelligent, so she must agree with this. . ." These assumptions run rampant through academia. The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace. While some may disagree, this is rare. I have known professors to keep their children in after-care daily rather than have them at home with the parents (both academics) when the parents' schedules ended earlier than a 5 P.M. day. I have seen children kept in child care situations "just in case" meetings or other activities should come up. On the other hand, I have met two academics--a single father and a mother (possibly separated--I'm not sure) who, in their early days of tenure-track, brought their children with them to class, office hours, after hours situations. These are the professors I admire, as they balanced their career goals and their family goals, standing up for their children's rights to exist, to exist in public, and to be with their parents. What may have been borne of difficult situations turned into triumph for all involved. And we just need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph. But does feminism teach this, really?
When Feminists Talk about Motherhood. . .
This is an interesting post from Anastasia, an academic mom whose blog I read (see sidebar) and who has a few things to say about how feminists discuss motherhood when nobody's looking (or nobody important, or nobody who is expected to disagree). What interests me about this is that it represents one of the major reasons that I have never been able to call myself a feminist, even when I was more friendly to feminism than I am today, and why I actively wrote papers in grad school that worked against the anti-mother rhetoric of feminist theory. What further interests me is that Anastasia seems like someone who would consider herself much more of a feminist than I do! Beware the language (which I'm not necessarily going to say is inappropriate), and let me know what you think when you come back! The comments, you will notice, are very anti-child, a backlash against Anastasia's reasoning that children need to be considered and included, and mainly focus on the type of parent who doesn't do much parenting and, let's face it, probably wasn't equipped to have children in the first place. This rather reminds me of Darwin's post about a playground incident in which he was called down for correcting a child who was terrorizing his much younger daughter. If people didn't hate kids in private and "respect their rights and privacy" in public, instead of, you know, saying "Excuse me, but your child is being incredibly rude and needs to be disciplined before s/he hurts someone" and accepting that some children are indeed well-disciplined, maybe this rhetoric of intolerance wouldn't persist in so-called "intellectual" circles. When everyone agreed on how children should behave, only the crotchety "Mr. Wilson" types from Dennis the Menace were expected to hate children. (Granted that some old-style "discipline" is now recognized as abuse, but many go too far in the opposite direction.) In some circles, cities, stores, it has become the norm.
For a related sentiment, a more subtle child-hatred, see Pro Ecclesia and the source, The Cause of Our Joy, on "The Town Without Children," which is, of course, the logical consequence of child-hatred and child-exclusion.
One more thing: It occurs to me after reading a HUGE number of the comments on the original post (don't go there, just don't; I can't be responsible for the consequences, and I don't want them following you back here--I put the link purely out of a sense of obligation), that no one considers for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life. WOW!
For a related sentiment, a more subtle child-hatred, see Pro Ecclesia and the source, The Cause of Our Joy, on "The Town Without Children," which is, of course, the logical consequence of child-hatred and child-exclusion.
One more thing: It occurs to me after reading a HUGE number of the comments on the original post (don't go there, just don't; I can't be responsible for the consequences, and I don't want them following you back here--I put the link purely out of a sense of obligation), that no one considers for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life. WOW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)