I've tentatively signed up for Familia in the fall. For those not familiar with it, Familia is a Catholic lay apostolate focused on the family. That doesn't help? No, I didn't think so. It's a program that invites women and men to get together in groups by gender and discuss topics based in encyclicals that relate specifically to the family. Given that the groups are gender-based, you might assume that the topics are predetermined based on gender. You would be right. And therein lies much of my hesitation. Part of the description from the Familia web site reads, "The unique and complementary roles of a husband and wife can be the source of joy or confusion as the two individuals work together to become one." What worries me about this is that "the unique and complementary roles of a husband and wife" could be read either broadly or narrowly, and I fear a narrow interpretation. Though they claim to want to "support every aspect of each person's vocation," I fear that what "every aspect of each person's vocation" entails will be narrowly defined. Case in point: when I looked at the materials on the web site, the men's program begins with a discussion of the dignity of work. The women's program is about femininity--and they use the rather reprehensible term, "authentic feminism." I object to the term for several reasons, but let's just start by saying that this is a rhetorical move that is designed to contradict feminism by re-appropriating the use of the term and turning it to Catholic-based purposes. So really, it muddles things by suggesting that the two things--feminism and Catholic conceptions of femininity--are equivalent, or at least complimentary, which they aren't. And it is intended to appeal to women who wish to see themselves as feminist, as a kind of "lure" into the Catholic conception of femininity. I should say "a" Catholic conception of femininity, because there is not a unified Catholic conception of femininity--there is no "official" description of Catholic gender, even within marriage. Equally disturbing to me is this: the men's program talks about what men do; the women's program talks about what women are.
I fear that this program, if not specifically designed for women who do not work, is at least designed for women whose jobs are secondary--to family life, or more specifically, to their husbands' jobs. I think of it in terms of primary and secondary careers. While a couple of the women at the informational meeting who had been participating in Familia for a while had jobs, the implication was that the balance between work and home had needed adjustment, and this program pointed that out. My family is of the utmost importance to me, but I also have, for better or worse, whether I like it or not (and depending on my mood it can go either way), the primary career right now. Or I will when I get a permanent position, so right now I have the task of diligently preparing to have the primary career. This is not to say that I devalue my husband's work, but right now, his position--while enjoyable to him at times, on a level--is not what he wants to be doing long-term. I hope that when I do find a position, he finds a position that is equally agreeable to him. That is the ideal goal. So I seek a balance, and I do not particularly want to be sent messages through the materials and discussions that suggest that I am not doing right by my family by devoting effort to work. It is a delicate balance, and I don't always manage it well, but will hearing about the "true nature" of woman help? Not sure. And it the program frustrates me so that I am thinking and pondering and arguing about it for hours afterward, that surely won't lend itself to professional productivity or domestic tranquility.
Clarification: I've been thinking about the terms "primary" and "secondary" career, and they don't set well with me. I might prefer the term"supporting career" to denote the career that might--if necessary--be abandoned or changed for one reason or another, or by choice of the person who holds that particular job. Right now, as I indicated (but not strongly enough) I don't have a career, I have a potential career. My husband's current career path, which it might be if he wanted to stay in this position or if we weren't planning to move on from here, is "supporting" only in the sense that it allows my potential career path to exist. It has facilitated the completion of my degree and is the steadier of our two sources of income--a real, full-time job, not dependent on the budget cycle or departmental funding from one academic year to the next. But it is also not the career goal we have both been working toward--the one that will carry us into a (hopefully) more permanent location, with greater earning power for the two of us combined and the family overall. Come to think of it, I'm not crazy about the term "career," as it implies living to work rather than working to live, but that's a different topic. . .
Showing posts with label Catholic women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic women. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2009
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!)
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.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I'm calling it a Catholic Motherhood Meme
Well, I feel the need to post this now rather than tomorrow, as I had intended, because for some reason, the original post was removed! We had just finished a lively exchange over at Sphere of Influence that I linked to the other day. . .
The following questions were posted by Angela Messenger on the same day I posted my So What Do Good Catholic Women Do? post. She asks "What Makes a Woman a Good Catholic Mom?
1. Is it a woman who has 10 children? Or 8? Or 6? Or 2?
2. Is it a married woman who stays at home? Should she work? In a "career" or a "job."?
3. Does a good Catholic mom pursue her dreams of further education for herself while her children are still at home? Or should she put her own ambitions aside to raise her kids?
4. Does a good Catholic mom take her kids to weekday Mass as well as Sunday Mass? Does a good Catholic mom let the kids have one weekend "off" from Mass a month?
5. Does a good Catholic mom use any kind of birth control?
6. Does a good Catholic mom home-school or send the kids to parochial school or can/should they go to public school?
7. Does a good Catholic mom defer to her husband as the head of the house? Is she obedient to him?
8. If a Catholic mom is divorced and has received a decree of nullity should she be able to date?
9. Should Catholic moms volunteer in lay ministry, teaching catechism, leading adult bible study or a prayer group or should she be looking after her kids?
Just some points to ponder. I don't expect an answer to each question like this is a quiz. Just trying to put my finger on the pulse of Catholic motherhood.
The thing is, these can be answered according to opinion, or according to the catechism. But since I'm on kind of a roll today, here are my answers:
1. Family size is a very personal thing, even for a Catholic woman. It depends on what the married couple feels is advisable given their own set of circumstances. While the Church teaches that married couples should be "open to life," it does not prescribe what that means. It is possible that the needs of one child, or the ability of the parents to care for the child or children, might dictate the need to refrain from having a large number of children. The guidelines, as I understand it, are to determine family size according to generosity, but also to be sensible in what the family can support emotionally and financially.
2. Well, I think we all know pretty well what I have to say about motherhood excluding a career.
3. There is no reason that any mother--Catholic or not--should refrain from pursuing her own educational goals. A well-educated mother can only benefit her family and her children. In addition, it is counterproductive for any Catholic to suggest that a mother must refrain from educating herself for the benefit of her children, as this contributes to the "motherhood as self-defeating" and "motherhood as self-negating" principle (รก la Kate Chopin) that feminists latch onto in order to justify such things as elective abortions. If motherhood prevents women from achieving self-realization through education and developing her intellect, then why should it be valued as a role for women? In order to combat that thinking, we need to combat what leads to that thinking. Had I stopped my education when I became pregnant with my son, I still would not have completed my B.A. Had I not continued my education, I would very likely not be Catholic now. So what kind of Catholic mother would I be?
4. If the family is able to attend daily Mass, that is wonderful. Some parishes' Mass schedules are a bit prohibitive, and I've already discussed squirmy toddler issues! But please--letting the kids have the weekend off from Mass? Yes, let's teach them to disrespect the seriousness of the Mass and the Church's requirement that every Baptized Catholic attend every Sunday, so that we can wonder why they stop going to Mass in high school or college!
5. See Humanae Vitae.
6. Educational choices depend so much on the schools available in the area where the family lives. I think that parochial schools should be considered, but if unacceptable for educational or religious reasons, there is no reason that a good public school can not be acceptable, as long as the correct religious education is also provided. (See a future posting for my ideas about homeschooling.)
7. A good Catholic family is composed of a husband and wife who have mutual respect for one another. I can't imagine any situation in which a wife should "obey" her husband against her better judgment, and if the two respect each others' intelligence and judgment, there should be no question of "deferment"; rather, both parents should be able to guide the family through mutual understanding.
8. I think that if an annulment is granted, whether or not to date is a personal decision. The children should not be permitted to manipulate the mother through guilt, but neither should the children be subjected to undue stress. Basically, the same cautions would apply to this case in terms of the children's well-being as are typically advised in a divorce situation. Otherwise, she should conduct herself as morally and discreetly as any Catholic single dating.
9. All Catholics, as I understand it, are called to volunteer their time to the Church insofar as they are able. Some family situations allow for this more than others, and I don't think that anyone would say that it should cause the mother or family undue inconvenience to volunteer. I have seen the argument that children can be involved in the volunteering and should be taught about volunteering, but that does depend on the number and ages of the children. If a mother has to enroll her children in daycare in order to volunteer, is that in the right spirit of Catholic volunteering or Catholic motherhood? Similarly, if she leaves as soon as her husband comes home in order to volunteer with her parish, is this in the best interest of her family as a whole? Again, this varies greatly depending on the dynamic within a family.
So essentially, my conclusions from my last post remain more or less unchanged, with some more specific provisions. We are called to discern, as Catholic women and Catholic mothers, how we can best care for our families and respond to God's will in our lives. As long as we do so faithfully, we are being "good Catholic mothers."
The following questions were posted by Angela Messenger on the same day I posted my So What Do Good Catholic Women Do? post. She asks "What Makes a Woman a Good Catholic Mom?
1. Is it a woman who has 10 children? Or 8? Or 6? Or 2?
2. Is it a married woman who stays at home? Should she work? In a "career" or a "job."?
3. Does a good Catholic mom pursue her dreams of further education for herself while her children are still at home? Or should she put her own ambitions aside to raise her kids?
4. Does a good Catholic mom take her kids to weekday Mass as well as Sunday Mass? Does a good Catholic mom let the kids have one weekend "off" from Mass a month?
5. Does a good Catholic mom use any kind of birth control?
6. Does a good Catholic mom home-school or send the kids to parochial school or can/should they go to public school?
7. Does a good Catholic mom defer to her husband as the head of the house? Is she obedient to him?
8. If a Catholic mom is divorced and has received a decree of nullity should she be able to date?
9. Should Catholic moms volunteer in lay ministry, teaching catechism, leading adult bible study or a prayer group or should she be looking after her kids?
Just some points to ponder. I don't expect an answer to each question like this is a quiz. Just trying to put my finger on the pulse of Catholic motherhood.
The thing is, these can be answered according to opinion, or according to the catechism. But since I'm on kind of a roll today, here are my answers:
1. Family size is a very personal thing, even for a Catholic woman. It depends on what the married couple feels is advisable given their own set of circumstances. While the Church teaches that married couples should be "open to life," it does not prescribe what that means. It is possible that the needs of one child, or the ability of the parents to care for the child or children, might dictate the need to refrain from having a large number of children. The guidelines, as I understand it, are to determine family size according to generosity, but also to be sensible in what the family can support emotionally and financially.
2. Well, I think we all know pretty well what I have to say about motherhood excluding a career.
3. There is no reason that any mother--Catholic or not--should refrain from pursuing her own educational goals. A well-educated mother can only benefit her family and her children. In addition, it is counterproductive for any Catholic to suggest that a mother must refrain from educating herself for the benefit of her children, as this contributes to the "motherhood as self-defeating" and "motherhood as self-negating" principle (รก la Kate Chopin) that feminists latch onto in order to justify such things as elective abortions. If motherhood prevents women from achieving self-realization through education and developing her intellect, then why should it be valued as a role for women? In order to combat that thinking, we need to combat what leads to that thinking. Had I stopped my education when I became pregnant with my son, I still would not have completed my B.A. Had I not continued my education, I would very likely not be Catholic now. So what kind of Catholic mother would I be?
4. If the family is able to attend daily Mass, that is wonderful. Some parishes' Mass schedules are a bit prohibitive, and I've already discussed squirmy toddler issues! But please--letting the kids have the weekend off from Mass? Yes, let's teach them to disrespect the seriousness of the Mass and the Church's requirement that every Baptized Catholic attend every Sunday, so that we can wonder why they stop going to Mass in high school or college!
5. See Humanae Vitae.
6. Educational choices depend so much on the schools available in the area where the family lives. I think that parochial schools should be considered, but if unacceptable for educational or religious reasons, there is no reason that a good public school can not be acceptable, as long as the correct religious education is also provided. (See a future posting for my ideas about homeschooling.)
7. A good Catholic family is composed of a husband and wife who have mutual respect for one another. I can't imagine any situation in which a wife should "obey" her husband against her better judgment, and if the two respect each others' intelligence and judgment, there should be no question of "deferment"; rather, both parents should be able to guide the family through mutual understanding.
8. I think that if an annulment is granted, whether or not to date is a personal decision. The children should not be permitted to manipulate the mother through guilt, but neither should the children be subjected to undue stress. Basically, the same cautions would apply to this case in terms of the children's well-being as are typically advised in a divorce situation. Otherwise, she should conduct herself as morally and discreetly as any Catholic single dating.
9. All Catholics, as I understand it, are called to volunteer their time to the Church insofar as they are able. Some family situations allow for this more than others, and I don't think that anyone would say that it should cause the mother or family undue inconvenience to volunteer. I have seen the argument that children can be involved in the volunteering and should be taught about volunteering, but that does depend on the number and ages of the children. If a mother has to enroll her children in daycare in order to volunteer, is that in the right spirit of Catholic volunteering or Catholic motherhood? Similarly, if she leaves as soon as her husband comes home in order to volunteer with her parish, is this in the best interest of her family as a whole? Again, this varies greatly depending on the dynamic within a family.
So essentially, my conclusions from my last post remain more or less unchanged, with some more specific provisions. We are called to discern, as Catholic women and Catholic mothers, how we can best care for our families and respond to God's will in our lives. As long as we do so faithfully, we are being "good Catholic mothers."
So What Do Good Catholic Women Do?
Though I admit that I am piggybacking off of other blogs I've read, I have been honestly searching for the answer to this question. I get a lot of negatives:
I also get some tentatives (of which that last "don't" might be considered one):
Of course, these are rather bloggy answers, and likely don't reflect the opinions of the majority of Catholic women, for what that's worth. And even my bloggers probably don't agree with all of the negatives or all of the tentatives. Incidently, I am not contesting those of the above that are specific Church teachings, I'm just pointing out the phrasing which suggests a defining of femininity in the negative--that is, we're defined by what we're not (thank you, Irigaray).
I think we all agree that what one does on a day-to-day basis should reflect one's faith. At least, I've heard enough homilies on the subject to know that that's how it should work, ideally. But where we go from there is another question. I have been attacked on a blog for making the tongue-in-cheek comment that I was going to wear pants to Mass--and I do, most of the time. Nice pants, but pants. Now this doesn't mean that I want to be a man, or that I think gender is socially constructed (sorry to my fellow-academics, I just don't find Judith Butler all that convincing--fun to play with, but not convincing!). I'm pretty much a nature & nurture kind of gal. There are some aspects of gender that are tied to biology. However, there are many, many messages that we receive from family and society that condition us to think in terms of what the appropriate roles are for each gender. There is nothing inherently masculine about paying bills, yet men in the early part of the 20th Century took this upon themselves as part of being "breadwinners" (or making sure the wife didn't find out about the mistress or the booze money). There is nothing inherently feminine about doing housework, as my husband can tell you. But how many husbands acknowledge this? In how many households are cooking and cleaning duties shared equitably? I'd like to think an increasing number do share, but I'd need to see some statistical proof. My friend was told by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school that men are not suitable caregivers for their own children because of their sexual proclivities. I'm tempted to think that this is not particularly biological, and represents this person's own tendencies toward deviance. Scary.
And then there's the NFP literature, which tells me more about what women do and do not, should and should not do. It seems, for example, that women do not (or perhaps should not) really want sex. They tolerate it, perhaps even tolerate it willingly, but really they welcome the opportunity to abstain during fertile times so that they are not overwhelmed by their husbands' sex drive. (No, I'm not making this stuff up.) Now, biologically speaking, it is during the fertile time that the female sex drive is highest. That would be why the human species is able to perpetuate itself in spite of all logical objections, but this isn't the Catholic in me speaking, it's the skeptic, so moving right along. . . As for men, they are so lusty that the wife needs to be careful not to wear "that shorty nightgown" that turns him on when they have agreed to space pregnancies, because then she's being a tease. Now, do keep in mind that this stuff was written by a couple now in their 70s. It needs to be updated a bit!
There is a lot of self-sacrifice required of the Catholic woman, as far as I can tell. Much more than is required of the Catholic man. While both are doled equal shares of "talent" (I'm not sure about "time" and "treasure," since these vary greatly from person to person regardless of gender), how she uses hers is dependent to a degree on her fertility. I see this not as a mandate of the Church, but rather, as a cultural determination, depending on the social Catholicism around her. Theoretically, it is possible that if a woman is called to some kind of service, even if married, that this vocation could constitute a valid reason to limit family size. On the other hand, there are plenty of Catholic women who believe in women's ability to have a family and pursue a career, and others who feel that motherhood precludes returning to work. I was raised with the idea that a woman can be a mother and pursue other interests--even outside of the home--without her children suffering. In fact, it was always a matter of pride for me that my mother had the talents that she did. I hope that my children may feel the same about me.
J. R. R. Tolkien has been criticized because his wife had the talent to be a famous concert pianist, but married him and raised his children instead. I don't think he is to blame for this, though social conventions were. Had she had the choice to pursue both, would she have done so? Was it unfair on some level that she was not able to pursue her unique talent?
There is a tendency to restrict women to their single vocation to the exclusion of all else. A man who chooses to work is not restricted from being a father. The religious life is a special case for both sexes, because it is a specific, life-long devotion and dedication of self. But if a woman has talents that may have wider applications than child-rearing, must she channel all of herself into that role? Or should it be acknowledged that she has a lot to offer her children, and a lot to offer others as well?
Well, like all good rhetorical questions, mine imply their own answers. I was amused Easter Sunday by a woman who, when the priest commented that we have overcome the idea, common in Judaism at Jesus's time, that women are subservient, looked at the person next to her with wide-eyed indignation. Her expression was plain, as if to say, "Oh, have we?" Unfortunately, I can see where she may have gotten the impression that we haven't--not necessarily from the Church, but from fellow-Catholics. Or she may be harping on birth control and abortion, which is also possible. I will choose to assume that those issues did not motivate her expression.
So what do good Catholic women do? The same as good Catholic men, while of course, acknowledging their biological differences. I know all about men and women being created different for a reason. I am less clear about what exactly this means, and what the practical implications are. I believe that JPII addressed this at length in one of his works, though it is my understanding that his theorizing is not prescriptive, but allows for conscientious interpretation. Yet so frequently, I am met with the "God-given differences between men and women" in support of a prejudice against some thing that feminists say is O.K., whether it's working or wearing pants or whatever. As far as I can tell, we are called to act in accordance with the teachings of the Church and discern insofar as we are able what God's will is for our lives. For me right now, that means finishing the Ph.D., eventually looking for a job, and raising 3 children (not 2!) as faithfully as possibly!
Now what it means to be a Catholic academic, I haven't figured out yet. . .
- They don't use birth control
- They don't dress immodestly
- They are not priests (and maybe shouldn't be altar servers)
- They don't (or shouldn't) go back to work after having children
I also get some tentatives (of which that last "don't" might be considered one):
- They might (if they're very traditional) cover their heads in church
- They probably have more than one child (when possible)
- They might homeschool (or at least supplement the education their children receive with a hearty complement of orthodoxy)
- They should volunteer in the parish whenever possible, but not to the exclusion of men
Of course, these are rather bloggy answers, and likely don't reflect the opinions of the majority of Catholic women, for what that's worth. And even my bloggers probably don't agree with all of the negatives or all of the tentatives. Incidently, I am not contesting those of the above that are specific Church teachings, I'm just pointing out the phrasing which suggests a defining of femininity in the negative--that is, we're defined by what we're not (thank you, Irigaray).
I think we all agree that what one does on a day-to-day basis should reflect one's faith. At least, I've heard enough homilies on the subject to know that that's how it should work, ideally. But where we go from there is another question. I have been attacked on a blog for making the tongue-in-cheek comment that I was going to wear pants to Mass--and I do, most of the time. Nice pants, but pants. Now this doesn't mean that I want to be a man, or that I think gender is socially constructed (sorry to my fellow-academics, I just don't find Judith Butler all that convincing--fun to play with, but not convincing!). I'm pretty much a nature & nurture kind of gal. There are some aspects of gender that are tied to biology. However, there are many, many messages that we receive from family and society that condition us to think in terms of what the appropriate roles are for each gender. There is nothing inherently masculine about paying bills, yet men in the early part of the 20th Century took this upon themselves as part of being "breadwinners" (or making sure the wife didn't find out about the mistress or the booze money). There is nothing inherently feminine about doing housework, as my husband can tell you. But how many husbands acknowledge this? In how many households are cooking and cleaning duties shared equitably? I'd like to think an increasing number do share, but I'd need to see some statistical proof. My friend was told by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school that men are not suitable caregivers for their own children because of their sexual proclivities. I'm tempted to think that this is not particularly biological, and represents this person's own tendencies toward deviance. Scary.
And then there's the NFP literature, which tells me more about what women do and do not, should and should not do. It seems, for example, that women do not (or perhaps should not) really want sex. They tolerate it, perhaps even tolerate it willingly, but really they welcome the opportunity to abstain during fertile times so that they are not overwhelmed by their husbands' sex drive. (No, I'm not making this stuff up.) Now, biologically speaking, it is during the fertile time that the female sex drive is highest. That would be why the human species is able to perpetuate itself in spite of all logical objections, but this isn't the Catholic in me speaking, it's the skeptic, so moving right along. . . As for men, they are so lusty that the wife needs to be careful not to wear "that shorty nightgown" that turns him on when they have agreed to space pregnancies, because then she's being a tease. Now, do keep in mind that this stuff was written by a couple now in their 70s. It needs to be updated a bit!
There is a lot of self-sacrifice required of the Catholic woman, as far as I can tell. Much more than is required of the Catholic man. While both are doled equal shares of "talent" (I'm not sure about "time" and "treasure," since these vary greatly from person to person regardless of gender), how she uses hers is dependent to a degree on her fertility. I see this not as a mandate of the Church, but rather, as a cultural determination, depending on the social Catholicism around her. Theoretically, it is possible that if a woman is called to some kind of service, even if married, that this vocation could constitute a valid reason to limit family size. On the other hand, there are plenty of Catholic women who believe in women's ability to have a family and pursue a career, and others who feel that motherhood precludes returning to work. I was raised with the idea that a woman can be a mother and pursue other interests--even outside of the home--without her children suffering. In fact, it was always a matter of pride for me that my mother had the talents that she did. I hope that my children may feel the same about me.
J. R. R. Tolkien has been criticized because his wife had the talent to be a famous concert pianist, but married him and raised his children instead. I don't think he is to blame for this, though social conventions were. Had she had the choice to pursue both, would she have done so? Was it unfair on some level that she was not able to pursue her unique talent?
There is a tendency to restrict women to their single vocation to the exclusion of all else. A man who chooses to work is not restricted from being a father. The religious life is a special case for both sexes, because it is a specific, life-long devotion and dedication of self. But if a woman has talents that may have wider applications than child-rearing, must she channel all of herself into that role? Or should it be acknowledged that she has a lot to offer her children, and a lot to offer others as well?
Well, like all good rhetorical questions, mine imply their own answers. I was amused Easter Sunday by a woman who, when the priest commented that we have overcome the idea, common in Judaism at Jesus's time, that women are subservient, looked at the person next to her with wide-eyed indignation. Her expression was plain, as if to say, "Oh, have we?" Unfortunately, I can see where she may have gotten the impression that we haven't--not necessarily from the Church, but from fellow-Catholics. Or she may be harping on birth control and abortion, which is also possible. I will choose to assume that those issues did not motivate her expression.
So what do good Catholic women do? The same as good Catholic men, while of course, acknowledging their biological differences. I know all about men and women being created different for a reason. I am less clear about what exactly this means, and what the practical implications are. I believe that JPII addressed this at length in one of his works, though it is my understanding that his theorizing is not prescriptive, but allows for conscientious interpretation. Yet so frequently, I am met with the "God-given differences between men and women" in support of a prejudice against some thing that feminists say is O.K., whether it's working or wearing pants or whatever. As far as I can tell, we are called to act in accordance with the teachings of the Church and discern insofar as we are able what God's will is for our lives. For me right now, that means finishing the Ph.D., eventually looking for a job, and raising 3 children (not 2!) as faithfully as possibly!
Now what it means to be a Catholic academic, I haven't figured out yet. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)