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.