I am in the process of recovering from a very stressful meeting with Dr. Adviser. I was dreading it in the first place, and so having a mini-panic-attack which for me means that I am pretty much sick to my stomach. It started out bad and got better, though I know I will be replaying various segments of the 2-part lecture: part 1-I'm disappointed in your progress; part 2-this is what happens when you get pregnant as a grad student and it's not going to get any better. Great. What I didn't need was for my dominant emotion coming out of the meeting to be "WELL, I DIDN'T EXACTLY ASK FOR THIS, DID I?" That's a really healthy attitude for someone about to enter her 7th months of pregnancy. I didn't realize that was as close to the surface as it was.
Problem #1: Well, we've already covered the "I don't really want to do this," haven't we? The thing is that when I'm doing it, it's stimulating. When I'm not doing it, I dread doing it so much that I have no motivation to push myself.
Problem #2: Teaching 15 weeks worth of material in 5 weeks, while pregnant and anemic, hence exhausted, every day for an hour and a half in the heat of summer in Texas, having to trudge to another building in the heat, and trying to find someone to watch the children while I do it since my husband was unable to do it this time and even if I liked daycare, I could not afford any of the child care programs that could accommodate the time of day when I taught.
A couple of interesting highlights from the meeting that perhaps deserve further consideration:
Well, at least you can look at it this way--when you finish, you will already have your family. You won't be looking at starting a family when you get a job--oh wait! when you get tenure, like Drs. 1, 2, and 3 who--oh by the way--are not full professors yet because that's what happens when you take time out for kids.
The system doesn't really allow for time off for pregnancy. It's just not "woman friendly."
The last time you were pregnant you were far enough ahead that you could take some time off without it hurting you, but that just can't happen this time.
So there go all of my rosy optimistic ideas. Poof!
Clearly Dr. Adviser is not familiar with Natural Family Planning and that whole "openness to life" thing! And neither is anyone else. So basically, the problem is not so much the getting pregnant in graduate school. The problem is converting to Catholicism in grad school. I guess I should have waited for tenure first.
I'm sure there's a lot more that will come back to me from this conversation. I had at least expected some constructive feedback on what I had written. I was given something to research that might prove interesting--just the seed of something, but a direction to pursue nonetheless.
I am reminded of one of my earlier angry momma posts that asked whether God liked to play tricks on unsuspecting Catholic women by letting them know somewhere along the line that they're supposed to have large families instead of those other pursuits that they had--especially before they were married or before they were Catholic. It's all very well to say "re-prioritize," but a lot depends on where the family is at the point of re-prioritizing, and most who make that observation are either 1) the men--usually husbands, frequently husbands whose wives are stay-at-home moms, or 2) women whose husbands have jobs that allow for re-prioritizing of personal and familial goals. It also implies a degree of materialism and frivolity of personal and familial goals. So how does one "re-prioritize" away the financial need for a teaching assistantship, either to take care of babies or to finish a dissertation? And how does one "re-prioritize" away the need to finish last 3 chapters of a dissertation, abandoning the Ph.D. altogether? In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I just don't see the value of abandoning everything at this point. In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I don't really want to abandon everything at this point, as my "children in academia" posts should indicate.
But I'm getting off track. That's not at all where I wanted this to go, but it's all bound together. I know what's at stake and why I need to finish (after all, he's got 3 grad students in the pipeline after me--one of whom is also pregnant!). But that doesn't make any of this any easier--emotionally, physically, or intellectually.
Showing posts with label NFP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFP. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
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. . .
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
To Clarify. . . -or- The Angry Momma Post
My last post was intended primarily to raise a couple of issues: that when a married Catholic female decides to "live her marriage," as it's called, according to Church teaching, there is the possibility of unplanned pregnancies, whether because of miscalculation, lack of self-control, liquor, whatever. In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, particularly one that is "too soon" if you will, the intellectual class will wonder, particularly if she is in their midst, why she allowed this to happen to her. While it is true that certain professions are less supportive of frequent procreation than others, this was not the primary motivating factor behind my post. The reason my question of whether married Catholic women belong in the workplace was rhetorical, and the reason I clarified that I thought that married Catholic women do indeed belong in the workplace, is that I anticipated being told that when God blesses one with children, it is one's duty to stay home. I didn't really want to get into that. My real question was, how does one deal with the inevitable sneers in the event of an "oops" (or blessing)? Does one ignore and rest secure in the knowledge that one is doing God's will, and if so, how does this enter casual conversation? Does one try to raise consciousness and assert that children are not incompatible with careers? What I am hearing instead might run something like this. . .
HEADLINE: "GOD PLAYS DIRTY TRICK ON CATHOLIC WOMEN"
After allowing her to pursue her interests and develop intellectually for the better part of two decades, in the hope that she can make a livable wage using her God-given talents, God decides that the archetypal Catholic woman is not meant to pursue that path anyway, and instead blesses her with a large family. Unfortunately, her husband, in order to support her efforts, has been working in a job that is insufficient to support the large family economically rather than searching all over the country to find a livable wage for the large family that they didn't know they were going to have. Obviously, this is her fault for not being aware of her calling before she entered graduate school.
As one friend was told (jokingly, I assume) by her husband, she's just going to have to take this one up with God.
Gotta tell you, friends, if I really thought that this was the essence of Church teaching on the role of women in the family, I would probably have been a deathbed convert. As it stands, I do not believe that unplanned pregnancies are a signal to change vocation.
But what if they were? There is a definitive test for the vocation of motherhood. When you look at the little stick and see two lines instead of one, it means that God wants you to undertake the vocation of motherhood. It's a pretty easy sign to read, especially when you consider that there are digital ones nowadays that say "pregnant" or "not pregnant" instead of leaving it up to the women to interpret a "+" or "-" or the single- or double-lines. So that's good, no mystery there.
But what about you single women? I don't think a litmus test has been invented yet that you put on your tongue and it says "career path," "religious life," "marriage and kids in your future." God's calling may show itself a lot more subtly in your lives than in ours, I think. And when the time comes, you may not want to choose "either-or," but both. I, for one, believe that God made us capable of serving him in multiple ways, even within one person's lifetime.
HEADLINE: "GOD PLAYS DIRTY TRICK ON CATHOLIC WOMEN"
After allowing her to pursue her interests and develop intellectually for the better part of two decades, in the hope that she can make a livable wage using her God-given talents, God decides that the archetypal Catholic woman is not meant to pursue that path anyway, and instead blesses her with a large family. Unfortunately, her husband, in order to support her efforts, has been working in a job that is insufficient to support the large family economically rather than searching all over the country to find a livable wage for the large family that they didn't know they were going to have. Obviously, this is her fault for not being aware of her calling before she entered graduate school.
As one friend was told (jokingly, I assume) by her husband, she's just going to have to take this one up with God.
Gotta tell you, friends, if I really thought that this was the essence of Church teaching on the role of women in the family, I would probably have been a deathbed convert. As it stands, I do not believe that unplanned pregnancies are a signal to change vocation.
But what if they were? There is a definitive test for the vocation of motherhood. When you look at the little stick and see two lines instead of one, it means that God wants you to undertake the vocation of motherhood. It's a pretty easy sign to read, especially when you consider that there are digital ones nowadays that say "pregnant" or "not pregnant" instead of leaving it up to the women to interpret a "+" or "-" or the single- or double-lines. So that's good, no mystery there.
But what about you single women? I don't think a litmus test has been invented yet that you put on your tongue and it says "career path," "religious life," "marriage and kids in your future." God's calling may show itself a lot more subtly in your lives than in ours, I think. And when the time comes, you may not want to choose "either-or," but both. I, for one, believe that God made us capable of serving him in multiple ways, even within one person's lifetime.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
"It's Just a Catholic Thing" (?) in the Professions
A few months after my daughter (now 16 months) was born, I had her with me in my department, likely for a meeting with my dissertation adviser. A professor whom I had never met saw me, and, being an outgoing, friendly type, he proceeded to tell me about his daughter who was expecting, to tell me that two children is sufficient because that's one for each knee, and a number of other things that I have now forgotten. He asked me if I had any other children, and, as I responded affirmatively, he asked slyly, "They're not Irish twins, are they?" Now, I thought cluelessly, my husband is part Irish, but I'm not. Obviously, I had no idea what Irish twins are. Asked to explain, he informed me that Irish twins were siblings born within one year--which, of course, would be unlikely given the likelihood that impoverished Irish Catholics (he wasn't talking about Orangemen, after all) would be breastfed. A few minutes later, he repeated the joke for the benefit of my officemate, herself raised Catholic, and we agreed with good-natured disapproval that this was a thinly-veiled Catholic joke.
The joke evokes nineteenth-century immigrants with families of 5-12 children, overworked women, shabby brown clothing, tenement housing, clothes lines--you get the picture. So my question is, how do contemporary intellectual Catholic women deal with such a situation? Over the past couple of years, I have had at least three friends ask themselves this question in one way or another. All were working, one a Ph.D. student. Two were using NFP and one not. In these situations, "oops-s" or "what the heck" moments inevitably happen. So then what? One friend had been married for long enough that she could easily pass it off as "we've been trying" or "we were ready," or whatever. One friend decided that since she had been married for less than a year and people had just given her presents, she would ask not to have a baby shower.
This question comes to mind for a couple of reasons. First, well, people ask the most audacious questions! When I was pregnant last, the father of one of my son's friends from school saw us in Target, expressed surprise, and asked, "Were you trying, or was this a surprise?" One of the aforementioned friends remarked, as we discussed similar such remarks, "Do they realize that they're asking you whether you're having sex?"
O.K., so people are nosey. But it goes beyond that. In certain circles, it is just the unspoken rule that you should space your children according to your career goals. Hence, one female professor mentioning that her youngest was her "tenure baby," though it was unclear if he was the result of the celebrating, or her award for accomplishing the task! Within a year of my entering the M.A. program, one of my professors had her "last chance" baby, and two months after I had my daughter, my almost-adviser had her post-tenure baby. Others waited--and advised their grad students to wait--not until tenure, but until getting the tenure-track job. Recently, the female grad students in the department have decided that A.B.D. is a convenient time to have children, a decision I support wholeheartedly, obviously! But there is still somewhat of an unspoken consensus that children are to be spaced rather further apart that one to two years. While my "spacing"--a new baby with a 7-year-old--drew attention from a school dad (also a professional, incidently, but a professional father), spacing children every two years (considered ideal by those who are actively growing their families) is a professional faux pas. So what about Catholic professional/academic mothers?
Some, of course, believe that these terms are contradictory, and I could point you to the blogs to prove it. My friend who works at a Catholic high school has been condescendingly treated to the casual assumption that she would not be returning to work--EVER--by her colleagues for the last several months. But the role of Catholic women in the family is not my purpose for this post. Rather, I am embarrassed to admit that popular opinion is my concern.
Morality and Church teaching aside (though very much bound up with this post, as I hope is obvious), "accidents" are for teenagers, low-income households, minorities, and Catholics? All of these are stereotypes, but stereotypes which the average enlightened intellectual holds in the deep recesses of her politically correct heart. Just look at Amanda Marcotte.
This begs the question. . . Do married Catholic women really not belong in the workplace? This question is rhetorical. I do not expect an answer. Rather I am using the question to imply its answer--that of course married Catholic women belong in the workplace, if they so choose! So then, what about the "oops" factor? NFP "works," but people have different levels of resistance, and error and the Will of God are always factors! ;) Perhaps married Catholic females belong in the workplace to enlighten the masses, and should cling to the beatitudes for encouragement: that those who suffer mockery in the name of holiness will have their reward. But if asked, "You're pregnant again?" that's hardly an answer that will satisfy the average enlightened intellectual, provided the discussion occurs openly rather than in a series of sneers and snickers (yes, I am hard on my fellow academics). I have even encountered resistance to the motherhood-academic combination in Catholic academic circles (circles formed to discuss the intersection of faith and professional life!), so how much more should secular academics resist the Catholic academic's attempt to live her marriage faithfully, understanding its possible consequences (blessings)?
Large families and accidents--Catholic stereotypes both. Neither FEMLA, nor tenure procedures, nor enlightened liberalism allows for those realities. I don't know the answer, and I hate a cliff-hanger post. I further hate admitting that the sneering disturbs me. But it does. So while married professional women wait to reproduce until they reach their goals, what does the Catholic woman do? Stay home? Or not marry until after tenure/promotion?
The joke evokes nineteenth-century immigrants with families of 5-12 children, overworked women, shabby brown clothing, tenement housing, clothes lines--you get the picture. So my question is, how do contemporary intellectual Catholic women deal with such a situation? Over the past couple of years, I have had at least three friends ask themselves this question in one way or another. All were working, one a Ph.D. student. Two were using NFP and one not. In these situations, "oops-s" or "what the heck" moments inevitably happen. So then what? One friend had been married for long enough that she could easily pass it off as "we've been trying" or "we were ready," or whatever. One friend decided that since she had been married for less than a year and people had just given her presents, she would ask not to have a baby shower.
This question comes to mind for a couple of reasons. First, well, people ask the most audacious questions! When I was pregnant last, the father of one of my son's friends from school saw us in Target, expressed surprise, and asked, "Were you trying, or was this a surprise?" One of the aforementioned friends remarked, as we discussed similar such remarks, "Do they realize that they're asking you whether you're having sex?"
O.K., so people are nosey. But it goes beyond that. In certain circles, it is just the unspoken rule that you should space your children according to your career goals. Hence, one female professor mentioning that her youngest was her "tenure baby," though it was unclear if he was the result of the celebrating, or her award for accomplishing the task! Within a year of my entering the M.A. program, one of my professors had her "last chance" baby, and two months after I had my daughter, my almost-adviser had her post-tenure baby. Others waited--and advised their grad students to wait--not until tenure, but until getting the tenure-track job. Recently, the female grad students in the department have decided that A.B.D. is a convenient time to have children, a decision I support wholeheartedly, obviously! But there is still somewhat of an unspoken consensus that children are to be spaced rather further apart that one to two years. While my "spacing"--a new baby with a 7-year-old--drew attention from a school dad (also a professional, incidently, but a professional father), spacing children every two years (considered ideal by those who are actively growing their families) is a professional faux pas. So what about Catholic professional/academic mothers?
Some, of course, believe that these terms are contradictory, and I could point you to the blogs to prove it. My friend who works at a Catholic high school has been condescendingly treated to the casual assumption that she would not be returning to work--EVER--by her colleagues for the last several months. But the role of Catholic women in the family is not my purpose for this post. Rather, I am embarrassed to admit that popular opinion is my concern.
Morality and Church teaching aside (though very much bound up with this post, as I hope is obvious), "accidents" are for teenagers, low-income households, minorities, and Catholics? All of these are stereotypes, but stereotypes which the average enlightened intellectual holds in the deep recesses of her politically correct heart. Just look at Amanda Marcotte.
This begs the question. . . Do married Catholic women really not belong in the workplace? This question is rhetorical. I do not expect an answer. Rather I am using the question to imply its answer--that of course married Catholic women belong in the workplace, if they so choose! So then, what about the "oops" factor? NFP "works," but people have different levels of resistance, and error and the Will of God are always factors! ;) Perhaps married Catholic females belong in the workplace to enlighten the masses, and should cling to the beatitudes for encouragement: that those who suffer mockery in the name of holiness will have their reward. But if asked, "You're pregnant again?" that's hardly an answer that will satisfy the average enlightened intellectual, provided the discussion occurs openly rather than in a series of sneers and snickers (yes, I am hard on my fellow academics). I have even encountered resistance to the motherhood-academic combination in Catholic academic circles (circles formed to discuss the intersection of faith and professional life!), so how much more should secular academics resist the Catholic academic's attempt to live her marriage faithfully, understanding its possible consequences (blessings)?
Large families and accidents--Catholic stereotypes both. Neither FEMLA, nor tenure procedures, nor enlightened liberalism allows for those realities. I don't know the answer, and I hate a cliff-hanger post. I further hate admitting that the sneering disturbs me. But it does. So while married professional women wait to reproduce until they reach their goals, what does the Catholic woman do? Stay home? Or not marry until after tenure/promotion?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)