Well, I can't say that I haven't had some blogworthy ideas lately, but I haven't felt like actually blogging them. I want the ideas to be "out there," so to speak, but without the effort of actually posting them--you know, typing in the URL, clicking "New Post" . . . That's where I get stuck. Once I'm here, it's like rolling off a log. Especially when I use tired cliches like that.
I thought about posting for Thanksgiving, but I couldn't decide whether to post something negative about how holidays raise false expectations or muster up some things I'm thankful for (I do have a number but posting them might seem a little redundant) for a sentimental post (actually, Chris strikes a nice balance here!). . .
I had one in my head about Sesame Street, in reference to this article, and one about the response I wrote to a company (one of the many) that feels the need to address parents' concerns about safety in the wake of the recalls of Chinese-made products. I would still like to post on these, but don't hold it against me if I don't manage it. . .
Here I am, nearing the end of week 3 with my new baby. My husband is getting ready to return to work on Monday. And it's getting tough. The first 2 weeks seemed to fly by quickly and easily. I was recovering well. I had energy. The toddler was sweet. The baby was sleeping a good 4+3 hours a night. And I could reminisce about the birth experience. All I had were minor annoyances--the normal postpartum stuff and then the limitations that I have been gradually ignoring: not picking up the toddler, not leaving the house with the newborn, that kind of thing. But reality is setting in. When I'm not holding one child, I'm holding the other one. Sometimes I'm holding both (though when I'm not tired, that can be really sweet). If I'm not nursing one, I'm looking for something the toddler will eat or feeding my baby's milk supply (most of the time, actually. . .). I feel both in demand and completely useless, since I've been warming my corner of the sofa/futon for the last 3 months of the pregnancy and the first 3 weeks of the baby's life. If I have any clothes that fits me, it is buried in the Closet-of-Rubbermaids and I haven't been able to access it. So I'm still sporting maternity fashions which, while comfortable, are getting blissfully but annoyingly loose. (I'm only 5 lbs. from my pre-pregnancy weight-which was still too much!)
Things cross my mind, like the dissertation--I wonder when I will finish? The fact that I HAVE to finish. . . Knowing I won't have a job past the spring. . . Knowing that even if English offers me a teaching assignment for the Summer (but these are in high demand and if I'm not a grad student, my chances of getting one are less likely), classes are only offered during the day every day of the week, which would require a perpetual babysitter or away-from-home child care (neither of which is possible). Similarly, next fall and spring (if hired by the department) I may not be able to keep my evening schedule, and I would have to teach at least 2 classes as a lecturer to match my current salary as a grad student. If I get hired by anyone else (which would necessitate applying), my problems will be worse, because I don't want my babies in daycare. But then at least I could afford it, might be able to limit it to 3 (part-)days a week, and my baby would be a year (give or take). I'm also worried about not being home 2 or 3 evenings a week in the Spring (because of teaching), the impending expiration of my financial aid, the impending repayment of the same financial aid, and incidentals like needing new tires.
Do I want to stay home all of the time? No. Do I think I could? Not without getting frustrated & depressed. ('Cause that would be different.) And unless my husband found another job that paid $15,000 more, we couldn't do it financially either. (Not being greedy & materialistic here, just thinking about current payments--and that's considering that I just finished a consumer credit program that paid off our first impoverished years of marriage!!) I also worry about simpler things like how to control the rambunctious toddler (or at least keep a good rein on her) and how on earth I will ever be able to leave the house with the two of them. The toddler does not hold hands. She runs in her own direction until forced to do otherwise. My son was not like this. I have visions of loading both children in the stroller (which, having failed to hear from the person who offered to give mer her double sit-n-stand, I ordered for myself. . .) to stroll them from the apartment to the car, 10 yards or so away. . .
So where is that Little-Engine-That-Could attitude? It has gone the way of the Dodo. Actually, it was a pose. I've been putting you all on.
Well, now I have to go clear up my broken water glass that I knocked off the arm of the sofa. *sigh* Will be back to check incessantly for comments. Sometimes I think blogging is an unhealthy addiction.
P.S.--Any lurkers. . . Pleeeeeease don't tell me that God is calling me to be a stay-at-home mom, much as I respect those who I know who are stay-at-home moms!! You may believe it about me if you wish, but I've heard that before, and it's not really helpful nor do I believe it to be true. (It's kind of like telling someone who's married that he should have been a priest, because that's his true calling.) Thanks! ;)
Showing posts with label motherhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motherhood. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
The Conversation Continues
Over at Et Tu Jen's blog, where she addresses Motherhood, Fulfillment, and Careers. While she does harken back to a time when women were content not having careers, she brings up an interesting point, which I'm going to represent by asking, why was it that women didn't realize how darned oppressed they were all those centuries? One obvious reason is that they were too darned busy running the household, doing chores or working in the fields or whatever else they had to do to fulfill their family's societal role or help provide for their families, raising children, cooking meals, etc., and that women's responsibilities effectively kept them in their places, unlike men, who had a limited but greater level of social mobility, depending on the society. (Of course, when you look at the bumper sticker that says that well-behaved women rarely make history, the same could be said about men. Also, one might add that women of low birth or economic status rarely made history either.) Women started noticing that they were trapped in the home at about the time their wealth and leisure permitted the time to think of such things. But that's not where Jen goes with her post.
Rather, she contends that the structure of society itself provided women with what they now seek in careers outside of the home, namely
Update: Jen absolutely does ask the same questions I asked above! Just on a different site!! (I do contend, though that the discontent started before the 1960s--try the 19th Century! Or the Industrial Revolution!)
Rather, she contends that the structure of society itself provided women with what they now seek in careers outside of the home, namely
- Adult conversation
- Breaks from the 24/7 care of their children
- Community recognition for accomplishments and talents (i.e. if you were the best seamstress or the best piano-player in the village, everyone recognized it)
- Clear, important goals and challenges (i.e. women's work was far more challenging, time-consuming and critical to survival)
- Stability in case of emergency (e.g. if a woman's husband died, left, was abusive, etc. her parents, siblings, and other extended family were nearby and could provide support and a place to live)
Update: Jen absolutely does ask the same questions I asked above! Just on a different site!! (I do contend, though that the discontent started before the 1960s--try the 19th Century! Or the Industrial Revolution!)
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Utopian Child Care at a High School (A Second Hand Report), and Wider Implications
Someone once mentioned to me that a Catholic school in San Antonio that had high incidence of unwed mothers decided to try a radical method of correcting the situation. Instead of expelling the unfortunate mothers and ostracizing them, contributing to their disgrace and difficult financial situation (or providing implicit pressure for the girls to have abortions to avoid being expelled), this school set up a daycare on the campus that was staffed, in part, by the girls themselves, and that this did more than Home Ec and Sex Ed combined to make the girls understand the realities of life with a child and to consider the consequences of their actions more carefully. Now, this did attract negative attention as I understand it, but the results spoke for themselves. This seems to be an example of a positive move towards helping mothers and educating young people. It also represents a bringing of children into unaccustomed spaces where they might be accessed by their own mothers periodically. I'm sure there were those who doubted that the students would get anything accomplished with their babies and others' close by.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Best of Both Worlds
After my recent posts and the responses that others have posted, I found, on my wanderings, two posts that seem to address what I will call wanting "the best of both worlds." Because I believe that that's what I'm striving to achieve. I do naturally assume that most mothers want to spend time--some time, all of their time, more time, whatever--with their children. I feel that this can be accomplished more than it is being now by a pervasive change in attitude. And, well, it doesn't seem that I'm alone here.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Condensed Version of What I've Been Trying to Communicate
Feminism
- Few people who talk about feminism and motherhood (specifically, none of the commentors on the post about child-free woman-only beaches in Italy) consider for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life.
- It may be (as Anastasia notes) that people are afforded too much child-free space, leading to the opinion that children are little obscenities ad should be hidden until they reach an acceptable age.
- Within feminism certain choices are affirmed, but others are not--because they’re driven by so-called "outdated ideologies."
- Not having a child at all--or certainly not having more than one--is considered by many to be the "enlightened" choice.
- Individuals who consider themselves "feminists" very rarely speak out against how the most vocal and most politically active "feminists" wish to portray themselves.
- Feminism is an ideology that is loosely based at best.
- Feminism strongly suggests that certain behaviors are appropriate in certain situations, and it does suggest that the woman look out for #1 without considering much else, really.
- I consider "feminism" to be distinct from "women's rights." The former label does not afford much besides political baggage and free-associations.
- Feminism states: Any woman who is pro-woman is feminist (as long as she is pro-woman in a way we like). That way, feminism makes sure that it can claim to be all encompassing (within limits).
- Feminism is about women's rights to have rights. It doesn't matter what the rights are or whether they're right by any standard--objective or otherwise. Rather, it seems to be looking for something prohibited to claim as a right. Maybe feminism itself is in crisis due to this lack of a unified cause.
- Pro-motherhood feminism always includes the caveat that the motherhood shouldn't really interfere with one's convenience--hence the emphasis on children being "planned."
- In order to subscribe to an ideology--to a belief system of any kind--I have to have a good idea, first of all, of the tenets of that belief system, and second of all, I have to be able to accept those tenets.
- While feminism has certainly afforded us choice, I maintain that it has affirmed one choice (many choices, actually) over its (their) alternative(s).
- It is perfectly acceptable for a feminist to condemn--implicitly or explicitly--the choices of a woman who bases her choices on so-deemed "patriarchal institutions," such as Christianity, for example. Her choices and her intelligence are thus judged in one fell swoop.
- In academia, it is possible to make one's schedule family friendly.
- Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, etc.
- Research can be done in the presence of children.
- The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity.
- Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere.
- The idea that children need to, can and should make room for women's own goals is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.
- The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace.
- We need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph.
- Individual choices concerning what to do with children might differ from what they are currently if an atmosphere conducive to children were more pervasive.
- Some of our opinions on this subject are influenced by the fact that children are not well-tolerated in certain situations. I'm not sure why this is so offensive a point. To extend--we might have more options if children were better tolerated.
- It would be infinitely simpler to send my children to daycare, so I must have reasons for what I do, and those reasons are not affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia.
- I advocate the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. So if I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied.
- There is a difference between saying, "this is what's best for me" and saying, "I do things this way because I believe that my method is preferable." My statement that it is my belief that my method is preferable does not preclude logic and reasoning, and my beliefs on this subject are indeed based on logic and reasoning (not prejudice or even-- horrors!--faith.), as are most of the things I believe.
- The expression of the belief that all children benefit from being around their parents while they are young, or of any of the other opinions that I have expressed, does not infringe on anyone’s right to do anything. Rather, the expression of that belief is intended to make people consider possible bases and consequences of such a belief, and perhaps see that I am advocating a change in attitude that might make such choices more frequent and available to more people.
- Saying that my choices are different, not influenced by the prevailing mindset, and that it would be nice if the prevailing mindset were different does not say that my choices are best for everyone, or that I want everyone to choose like me. Hell! If I said that, I’d have to put up with everyone else’s little monsters!! ;)
A Logical Extension
Another thought. . . I feel myself to be an advocate of the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden, just as some people consider themselves advocates of reproductive rights. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. While I have been told not to blame feminism for this, I was 8 months pregnant with my first child (and 19 years old), sitting in a senior-level undergraduate literary theory class, when my male professor asked me, of all people in the class, a visual representation of motherhood, to read a passage from a Marxist-Feminist essay on that standard piece of feminist reading (and one of the most reprehensible works I think I read as an undergrad) The Awakening, that concluded that motherhood renders one's life meaningless. Hmmmm. . . If I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied. It's my own pro-life crusade, if you will, because how many abortions start with the thought, "I just can't. . ."?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Maternal Spirituality, contd.
Okay, so I started to write a really long comment in response to the recent posts from Melanie and Mrs. Darwin, but the more I wrote, the more I began to feel that a new post was in order. The suggestions provided by Melanie and others are great--very solid suggestions, some of which, like praying with the little ones, are things I do. It is nice to hear from Entropy that she, too, feels guilty for getting distracted! And nice to hear about the "selectiveness" of blogs, which I did realize on some level, but there is such a feeling of unmodified reality on some blogs (the ones that I read are like this, but I know more "artificial" blogs exist), that it's easy to get lured in and assume that the serene spirituality of Catholic mommy bloggers is the norm rather than the impression gained from highlights!! C's mention of praying for ourselves instead of others was amusing, especially since there have been real occasions when having someone tell me that they would "pray for me" was rather grating--mostly because of how it was said and my own experiences in Protestant churches when I was younger. My newer religious friends (on and off of blogs) have helped me to see the difference between the judgmental prayer offers and those that proceed from a sincere heart (not that I can tell the difference always, but I do know that having a teacher at a Catholic school say that she will pray for you & your family after a dispute about how she has wrongly insinuated that your child was rude is not appropriate!). I have to admit that Entropy's comment about the VBS teacher raised an eyebrow because I wonder sometimes in what spirit people share their prayer intentions. . . But that comes from a cynical place, and we don't want to go there! I definitely appreciate Melanie's analysis of the Our Father, which draws attention to the neediness of that prayer. While I had certainly thought about the words and heard a wonderful homily once on the meaning behind the imagery in a daily campus mass, I had not really thought about it as asking for things for ourselves. If only these were the main things we asked for! I try to focus on the "Thy will be done" part to the exclusion of the actual things I desire, and it's not always easy. Especially since I doubt my impressions of what I think I "need." This makes me think again of "Et tu, Jen?" who, I believe, has posted on the "need" vs. "want" question, but more in the first fervor of conversion spirit rather than from the place where I now find myself.
But I reintroduced this topic in a new post because I want to come back to the issue that Mrs. Darwin picks up on: just not knowing where to fit everything in a day! It sounds easy--or at least, it sounds like it should be easy--or at least, it sounds like it should be the focus of our daily activities, but really, it's extremely difficult, and difficult to make the time. Like Mrs. D, I do sometimes pray a quick prayer when something strikes me during the day--especially anxiety! I like the praying for the time to pray suggestion, but another issue for me is something I only briefly touch on in the original post--the location. Specifically, I mentioned Mass at the end of my post. Prayer before Mass always seems the most natural and least self-conscious to me. Like I said--it's really the solitude I seem to be missing lately, and without the space and time to think, I just can't feel spiritually satisfied. That's where the question about maternal spirituality comes in--is it necessarily cluttered by things and events and shared with others? What I seem to be hearing in other mothers' experiences is yes. Before my daughter was born, I relished the daily Mass on campus. But all of the times I tried to attend daily Mass when she was younger were abysmal failures. The interesting thing, too, about going to the daily Mass by myself before she was born is that everyone else was safely squared away--my husband was teaching or working (depending on the job), my son was at school. Those were the places where they belonged and I didn't feel the need to be spending time with them--or, more accurately, the want, since I'm with them more because I want to be than because of a sense of obligation!! So I was able to spend this prayerful 25 min. or so twice a week.
Interestingly, what I'm describing is not unlike not being able to find the time to write poetry. The last time I wrote poetry was when I was taking a class, and then I generally wrote the poems the day they were to be workshopped in class. Poetry writing, at least for me, proceeds from the solitude in a given day--the ability to consciously look at the day, it's events, its images, put them together using experiences from the past or present in language that departs from ordinary daily experience and makes us see those experiences differently. I guess something similar is the rationale for this blog, really--to take daily experiences and try to see them differently, to add a little bit of analysis to the events of a given day or week. It somehow requires less solitude to write analytic prose than to write poetry or to pray (and I seem to be seeing those two as somehow analogous). Writing poetry usually made me want to get beyond myself and see things more objectively, which isn't quite the same as what I've been saying about prayer (at least the "objective" part), though getting beyond myself is also a goal for prayer. On the other hand, most of my most successful poems were the deeply self-conscious ones. I think I have exhausted this comparison, however! I can put aside poetry writing indefinitely, even though there is a poem that I began writing shortly after my conversion that I want to finish someday. . . I had a professor who once made the observation that women rarely continue writing poetry after they become mothers because they feel fulfillment and no longer need to write poetry (!). She was a wonderful woman, and this likely says more about her own attitude toward motherhood (she became a mother very late in life) than about female poets!! I think that the reason behind the phenomenon she mentions is simply not being able to find the time for contemplation! (or perhaps not having a suitable space) Which brings me back, in a rather circuitous way, to my subject.
How much of spirituality is determined by the meeting of personal preference (that is, busy-ness vs. quiet contemplation) and opportunity (time and location), and how much is discipline? I could likely ask the same question about dissertation-writing, I guess. (Notice I'm not asking that. . .)
But I reintroduced this topic in a new post because I want to come back to the issue that Mrs. Darwin picks up on: just not knowing where to fit everything in a day! It sounds easy--or at least, it sounds like it should be easy--or at least, it sounds like it should be the focus of our daily activities, but really, it's extremely difficult, and difficult to make the time. Like Mrs. D, I do sometimes pray a quick prayer when something strikes me during the day--especially anxiety! I like the praying for the time to pray suggestion, but another issue for me is something I only briefly touch on in the original post--the location. Specifically, I mentioned Mass at the end of my post. Prayer before Mass always seems the most natural and least self-conscious to me. Like I said--it's really the solitude I seem to be missing lately, and without the space and time to think, I just can't feel spiritually satisfied. That's where the question about maternal spirituality comes in--is it necessarily cluttered by things and events and shared with others? What I seem to be hearing in other mothers' experiences is yes. Before my daughter was born, I relished the daily Mass on campus. But all of the times I tried to attend daily Mass when she was younger were abysmal failures. The interesting thing, too, about going to the daily Mass by myself before she was born is that everyone else was safely squared away--my husband was teaching or working (depending on the job), my son was at school. Those were the places where they belonged and I didn't feel the need to be spending time with them--or, more accurately, the want, since I'm with them more because I want to be than because of a sense of obligation!! So I was able to spend this prayerful 25 min. or so twice a week.
Interestingly, what I'm describing is not unlike not being able to find the time to write poetry. The last time I wrote poetry was when I was taking a class, and then I generally wrote the poems the day they were to be workshopped in class. Poetry writing, at least for me, proceeds from the solitude in a given day--the ability to consciously look at the day, it's events, its images, put them together using experiences from the past or present in language that departs from ordinary daily experience and makes us see those experiences differently. I guess something similar is the rationale for this blog, really--to take daily experiences and try to see them differently, to add a little bit of analysis to the events of a given day or week. It somehow requires less solitude to write analytic prose than to write poetry or to pray (and I seem to be seeing those two as somehow analogous). Writing poetry usually made me want to get beyond myself and see things more objectively, which isn't quite the same as what I've been saying about prayer (at least the "objective" part), though getting beyond myself is also a goal for prayer. On the other hand, most of my most successful poems were the deeply self-conscious ones. I think I have exhausted this comparison, however! I can put aside poetry writing indefinitely, even though there is a poem that I began writing shortly after my conversion that I want to finish someday. . . I had a professor who once made the observation that women rarely continue writing poetry after they become mothers because they feel fulfillment and no longer need to write poetry (!). She was a wonderful woman, and this likely says more about her own attitude toward motherhood (she became a mother very late in life) than about female poets!! I think that the reason behind the phenomenon she mentions is simply not being able to find the time for contemplation! (or perhaps not having a suitable space) Which brings me back, in a rather circuitous way, to my subject.
How much of spirituality is determined by the meeting of personal preference (that is, busy-ness vs. quiet contemplation) and opportunity (time and location), and how much is discipline? I could likely ask the same question about dissertation-writing, I guess. (Notice I'm not asking that. . .)
Monday, June 25, 2007
Maternal Spirituality: A Consideration and a Confession (of sorts)
I have been contemplating this phrase recently, as I realize that there is no semblance of spirituality in my life as present, and I feel as though I am creeping back into my pre-Catholic ambivalence toward prayer. I find it increasingly difficult to remember that I should be praying, much less to actually carry through with a prayer that isn't in direct response to something I have heard or read--either about a friend of stranger's needs. I have always had a difficult time praying for my own "needs"--usually because I feel that they are imagined, or that I am beneath notice (a perspective that our pastor described as coming from a place of spiritual dryness, which describes me pretty well, I think) but that is a different topic altogether.
I have never been a very spiritual person, really. I found Catholicism liberating in part because the types of spirituality were varied, and the ones I was acquainted with required very little of the "personal relationship with God" kind of thinking, and memorized prayers provided much comfort--even though I hadn't (and still haven't) memorized all that I should have. Also because intellectual activity could be a form of spirituality. My first experiences of letting go of my defenses against spirituality was yoga, which immediately preceded my conversion, and on which I have posted before, in the earliest (and least successful) days of the blog. Eventually, I discovered a shallow level of Eucharistic spirituality, and developed a sense of closeness to God in prayer (particularly to Christ) which I had not previously experienced. This left me hungering for more, though since my daughter was born, I have had only minimal glimpses, occasional tastes. Moving, teaching, another pregnancy, and personal conflicts of one sort or another (often of the religious variety) have made these less frequent and have made me forget to seek them.
Many of the blogs I occasionally peruse (I can't really call it reading them lately--I hardly get a chance to sit down in front of the computer, and wouldn't at all if didn't have a laptop) have a definite relationship with prayer. There are prayer requests, accounts of prayer, even blog entries that feel like--or explicitly resemble prayer. There are accounts of day-to-day activities that are prayer-filled (the accounts and the activities). Many (but not all) of the blogs that I'm describing now are written by mothers. These are busy women!! So there is not a lot of discussion about solitude and contemplation. If there were, I am not sure I would believe it! So from this I get a rather busier version of St. Theresa's "Little Way"--that spirituality is to be found in little, everyday acts which are the path to holiness. I can see the various benefits in that kind of thinking. It was quite a novel idea to me in a way when I first read about the "Little Flower." But I confess that this kind of spirituality is beyond me--at least at this point. Yet I almost get the message--and the feeling--that this is "maternal spirituality." So many things alter with pregnancy and caring for children, it seems natural that a quieter, personal spirituality (shared spirituality is also beyond me--at least outside of Mass) should be one of the casualties. And the sheer logistics of trying to arrange my daily schedule so that I can teach for an hour and a half and make it to campus with a half-hour or so of office hours is exhausting. That reminds me! I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow and I don't know how I will make it. I believe in the possibility of doing academic work int he presence of children, and in caring for my own children as much as possible, but sometimes it all becomes cause for despair. And with the new apartment, I don't have to pay tuition for my son, but I can't really afford child care if I need it for the toddler. Luckily I have arranged it so that in the fall, once again, I will be free during the day with my daughter (a mixed blessing some days, as it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up with her, especially as she enjoys her new-found taste of freedom in the new apartment). But I digress, and forget where I was heading anyway.
My point here is that the "Little Way" Spirituality doesn't work for me, and I have no solitude either for contemplation, prayer, reading, or academic work. It has not always seemed this bleak. I feel awkward leaving by myself in general, especially if my purpose for leaving is vague even to me. I always feel that I am leaving something behind. And during the day, I have no time alone and I am constantly busy with something that involves someone else. I feel guilty about the dissertation because I know that someone will be on my case about it at some point--in a couple of weeks when he returns from vacation (what a concept!!), actually. I had felt guilty about prayer. Recently, I haven't even remembered to feel guilty. And this is only one of the things that I imagine becoming more difficult when the new baby arrives. I have become a "Sunday only" Catholic, and not by choice. And Mass is so hurried, and so occupied with a squirmy toddler, and my thoughts stray to how the new one will fit in to the wrestling with children scheme. . . It goes by too quickly, and not quickly enough. In my first ecstasy of conversion, my discovery of spirituality, I did not imagine that I would experience such a waning. I think of this sometimes when I wander over to or check the post titles of "Et tu, Jen?"
I have never been a very spiritual person, really. I found Catholicism liberating in part because the types of spirituality were varied, and the ones I was acquainted with required very little of the "personal relationship with God" kind of thinking, and memorized prayers provided much comfort--even though I hadn't (and still haven't) memorized all that I should have. Also because intellectual activity could be a form of spirituality. My first experiences of letting go of my defenses against spirituality was yoga, which immediately preceded my conversion, and on which I have posted before, in the earliest (and least successful) days of the blog. Eventually, I discovered a shallow level of Eucharistic spirituality, and developed a sense of closeness to God in prayer (particularly to Christ) which I had not previously experienced. This left me hungering for more, though since my daughter was born, I have had only minimal glimpses, occasional tastes. Moving, teaching, another pregnancy, and personal conflicts of one sort or another (often of the religious variety) have made these less frequent and have made me forget to seek them.
Many of the blogs I occasionally peruse (I can't really call it reading them lately--I hardly get a chance to sit down in front of the computer, and wouldn't at all if didn't have a laptop) have a definite relationship with prayer. There are prayer requests, accounts of prayer, even blog entries that feel like--or explicitly resemble prayer. There are accounts of day-to-day activities that are prayer-filled (the accounts and the activities). Many (but not all) of the blogs that I'm describing now are written by mothers. These are busy women!! So there is not a lot of discussion about solitude and contemplation. If there were, I am not sure I would believe it! So from this I get a rather busier version of St. Theresa's "Little Way"--that spirituality is to be found in little, everyday acts which are the path to holiness. I can see the various benefits in that kind of thinking. It was quite a novel idea to me in a way when I first read about the "Little Flower." But I confess that this kind of spirituality is beyond me--at least at this point. Yet I almost get the message--and the feeling--that this is "maternal spirituality." So many things alter with pregnancy and caring for children, it seems natural that a quieter, personal spirituality (shared spirituality is also beyond me--at least outside of Mass) should be one of the casualties. And the sheer logistics of trying to arrange my daily schedule so that I can teach for an hour and a half and make it to campus with a half-hour or so of office hours is exhausting. That reminds me! I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow and I don't know how I will make it. I believe in the possibility of doing academic work int he presence of children, and in caring for my own children as much as possible, but sometimes it all becomes cause for despair. And with the new apartment, I don't have to pay tuition for my son, but I can't really afford child care if I need it for the toddler. Luckily I have arranged it so that in the fall, once again, I will be free during the day with my daughter (a mixed blessing some days, as it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up with her, especially as she enjoys her new-found taste of freedom in the new apartment). But I digress, and forget where I was heading anyway.
My point here is that the "Little Way" Spirituality doesn't work for me, and I have no solitude either for contemplation, prayer, reading, or academic work. It has not always seemed this bleak. I feel awkward leaving by myself in general, especially if my purpose for leaving is vague even to me. I always feel that I am leaving something behind. And during the day, I have no time alone and I am constantly busy with something that involves someone else. I feel guilty about the dissertation because I know that someone will be on my case about it at some point--in a couple of weeks when he returns from vacation (what a concept!!), actually. I had felt guilty about prayer. Recently, I haven't even remembered to feel guilty. And this is only one of the things that I imagine becoming more difficult when the new baby arrives. I have become a "Sunday only" Catholic, and not by choice. And Mass is so hurried, and so occupied with a squirmy toddler, and my thoughts stray to how the new one will fit in to the wrestling with children scheme. . . It goes by too quickly, and not quickly enough. In my first ecstasy of conversion, my discovery of spirituality, I did not imagine that I would experience such a waning. I think of this sometimes when I wander over to or check the post titles of "Et tu, Jen?"
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 (á 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 (á 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."
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Putting things into perspective. . .
I ran across this post, Some Thoughts on Motherhood, on the Wine-Dark Sea blog, as I followed the Darwins' request for prayers on behalf of Melanie Bettanelli, who faces cancer in the aftermath of a miscarriage. The post fits with an overall theme of mine--the vocation of motherhood, on which I hope one day to have non-reactionary observations to post! It also puts a number of things into perspective, particularly as it deals with the grief of losing a child, which is perhaps something most (?) expectant mothers fear on some level, myself included. I can't summarize my reactions, though the words "shame" and "sympathy" come to mind, and perhaps "humility"--my recognition of another person's humility and the experience of being humbled by another's experience.
I appreciated another post on Wine-Dark Sea titled Lent on God's Terms, which is also relevant to how I've been feeling this Lenten season (she thinks, realizing she has just eaten a Lenten candy bar). It is a feeling many I know have shared; it's as if somehow we were not, collectively, ready for Lent--at least several of the Catholics I have read, spoken to, or emailed. In my case, I have not felt particularly spiritual since well before my Toddler and the Mass post. Perhaps these posts will lead me to a new era of maternal spirituality. Certainly, I have a new incentive to pray.
I appreciated another post on Wine-Dark Sea titled Lent on God's Terms, which is also relevant to how I've been feeling this Lenten season (she thinks, realizing she has just eaten a Lenten candy bar). It is a feeling many I know have shared; it's as if somehow we were not, collectively, ready for Lent--at least several of the Catholics I have read, spoken to, or emailed. In my case, I have not felt particularly spiritual since well before my Toddler and the Mass post. Perhaps these posts will lead me to a new era of maternal spirituality. Certainly, I have a new incentive to pray.
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.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Feminism, Family, and Femmes Politiques
I was referred by a friend to an article on "Feminism and Politics." While I usually like to avoid political posts, this one intersects somewhat with my musings on motherhood and work from a while back. Here's an interesting side note--when I read the "I'm a Woman" song that the author reprints with reference to a perfume ad, I was reminded of Miss Piggy. Seriously. There's a Muppet show sketch with Miss Piggy and some has-been brunette (offhand, I forget who!) with whom Piggy was competing for Kermit. Hardly an emblem of the woman's movement, even for the sake of argument!! This is also kind of funny given the reference in the quote to bacon.
What questions does this article raise for me? I'm not sure. Perhaps what it says about what we want to believe women are, or do, or whatever. The point seems to be that, while ostensibly, all choices for women are equally valid, in the political arena, this is not the case. This is no new news. Certain "choices" are definitely represented as being "rights" more often than others. However, I'm not entirely sure when the correct choice for professional women became to have a family and a career. Or, indeed, to have a family before a career, which really seems to be what the women in question represent. Rather, career first, family later has seemed the way to go, which is why unplanned pregnancies, and especially unplanned pregnancies before a certain age are deemed damaging and burdensome. Or did I misunderstand something all this time? I don't think so. So is feminism rethinking itself (again)? Is it in crisis? Is it obsolete? Or is it just imperfectly represented for political expedience?
Or am I, in concert with the author of the article, merely focusing too hard on meaningless offhand remarks that likely meant very little except for image-building purposes? Probably. And I can even make a literacy-orality reference. In our era of recording technology, remarks uttered in a specific context, that otherwise would have evaporated after being spoken, whose context could not have been recreated after the utterance was spoken, are preserved. We can hold those who spoke the words responsible for their offhand remarks as if they had been written. We can, of course, alter the context through selective editing, but then written words can be taken out of context also. However, the fact remains that we have the words, and the lives of the women who are holding themselves up as our role models. Would they have represented themselves the same 10 years ago? 20? And does this say more about what the women of the country want to hear, or what message these women want to convey?
Lest anyone consider too conservatively the assertion that "[m]ore young women at elite colleges are planning to stay home with their children," it should be mentioned that doing just that is becoming a status marker among young women, at least in certain parts of the country. The idea seems to be, why work if you don't have to? An extension of why should I take an elective if I don't have to? or why should I pay for my own car/apartment/college/etc. if my parents are willing to do so? I'd like to follow-up on that survey and see how many of those who decide to "stay home with their children" have them in child care before the age of one year for one reason or another that is not economically-based. Is this the rise of the family, or of a voluntarily leisured class (instead of involuntarily chained to the home, or voluntarily working)? Who knows?
I apologize if your self-righteousness meter is off the charts, here. The article raises a number of questions, and I have related them with a hearty measure of cynicism. I will not say, with the author of the Post Chronicle quote, "O.K. now, ladies, stop the cat-fight!" I think that what is at stake here is larger than bi-partisan sisterhood. I think it has to do with how each and every one of us views family in general and motherhood (or mothering) in particular, how our politicians think we feel about these issues, and how our media thinks we ought to feel. Now, who can tell me which is which?
What questions does this article raise for me? I'm not sure. Perhaps what it says about what we want to believe women are, or do, or whatever. The point seems to be that, while ostensibly, all choices for women are equally valid, in the political arena, this is not the case. This is no new news. Certain "choices" are definitely represented as being "rights" more often than others. However, I'm not entirely sure when the correct choice for professional women became to have a family and a career. Or, indeed, to have a family before a career, which really seems to be what the women in question represent. Rather, career first, family later has seemed the way to go, which is why unplanned pregnancies, and especially unplanned pregnancies before a certain age are deemed damaging and burdensome. Or did I misunderstand something all this time? I don't think so. So is feminism rethinking itself (again)? Is it in crisis? Is it obsolete? Or is it just imperfectly represented for political expedience?
Or am I, in concert with the author of the article, merely focusing too hard on meaningless offhand remarks that likely meant very little except for image-building purposes? Probably. And I can even make a literacy-orality reference. In our era of recording technology, remarks uttered in a specific context, that otherwise would have evaporated after being spoken, whose context could not have been recreated after the utterance was spoken, are preserved. We can hold those who spoke the words responsible for their offhand remarks as if they had been written. We can, of course, alter the context through selective editing, but then written words can be taken out of context also. However, the fact remains that we have the words, and the lives of the women who are holding themselves up as our role models. Would they have represented themselves the same 10 years ago? 20? And does this say more about what the women of the country want to hear, or what message these women want to convey?
Lest anyone consider too conservatively the assertion that "[m]ore young women at elite colleges are planning to stay home with their children," it should be mentioned that doing just that is becoming a status marker among young women, at least in certain parts of the country. The idea seems to be, why work if you don't have to? An extension of why should I take an elective if I don't have to? or why should I pay for my own car/apartment/college/etc. if my parents are willing to do so? I'd like to follow-up on that survey and see how many of those who decide to "stay home with their children" have them in child care before the age of one year for one reason or another that is not economically-based. Is this the rise of the family, or of a voluntarily leisured class (instead of involuntarily chained to the home, or voluntarily working)? Who knows?
I apologize if your self-righteousness meter is off the charts, here. The article raises a number of questions, and I have related them with a hearty measure of cynicism. I will not say, with the author of the Post Chronicle quote, "O.K. now, ladies, stop the cat-fight!" I think that what is at stake here is larger than bi-partisan sisterhood. I think it has to do with how each and every one of us views family in general and motherhood (or mothering) in particular, how our politicians think we feel about these issues, and how our media thinks we ought to feel. Now, who can tell me which is which?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Housewife, Peasant woman, or Academic mom?
The current generation of working women is still rebelling against the housewife-image perfected by the Donna Reed and June Cleaver generation. I firmly believe this to be true. Feminism was founded on a rejection of the domestic standards upheld by the women who are no longer our mothers, but perhaps now our grandmothers. However, having lost touch with the actual experience of that familial life, are we rebelling against an idea that is hollow--the TV sitcom version of the dutiful wife/mother--or is there any remaining offense to be had?
Consider this. . . The woman of the 40's and 50's was an updated "angel of the house," if you will. She was the ruler of the domestic sphere, until her husband returned from work to find his steak and mashed potatoes on the table. She cooked and cleaned, shopped on a budget, raised children, and perhaps not much else. Who knows anymore? She was the apple of the eye of product developers and advertising agencies. More commercials and products were geared to this woman than to any single consumer today. Well, no. Children are the number one target today, and what does that say about who runs the household? But you take my point. We look at her full skirts and her plastic smile and listen to the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper" to understand all that was wrong with our perfect image of her. Of course, my generation doesn't really have an image of her that is separate from the criticism. She is not my grandmother, though they were contemporaries and share some of the same problems. And so I, also, reject this image, as I have been taught.
During (and perhaps immediately after) my younger child was born in the autumn of 2005, my dissertation adviser (and friend and confidant) had a running joke about me--that I was one of those "peasant women" who give birth in the field, then strap the baby to their backs and keep working. Strictly speaking, this is not true, though it was great for a chuckle. I emphatically did not want to, or, more accurately perhaps, feel that I should have to work in the months immediately after my baby was born. It turns out that I did not merely stay at home and bond with my baby, but that's another tale. . . I have colleagues who were in the classroom within weeks of giving birth. I freely admit that I could not have done this! Instead, I waited through October, November, and December, took on a less-demanding-than-teaching assistantship, and eased back into teaching in the summer and fall. I also took a class on professionalism in the fall.
I have heard and read many discussions recently about childcare, from a friend who is confused & vexed, a blogger whose husband became distressed after she recovered somewhat from first-time daycare blues, from a committed stay-at-home blogger mom lamenting "outsourced motherhood."
[An aside: my 15-month-old just dialed a play phone, help it to her ear, and said "bye bye" before the recorded voice!! Cute!!]
My own experience with childcare is limited. My husband & I did not put our son in any form of child care until he was 3; rather, we "swapped" child care duties literally between graduate classes. Until after kindergarten, which he attended part time, one of us was with him for most of the day. Last August I sincerely tried to place my baby in a church mother's-day-out program one day a week, but after two days of observation/trial, I simply could not. I just do not trust others with my baby--both for emotional and hygienic reasons. We both became very ill after that day of observation, which did nothing for my resolve or self-confidence.
[Just changed a diaper and had my daughter take 3 steps to me!]
Working-woman daycare culture is clearly not for me. However, while I have arranged the past 2 semesters so that I could stay with my daughter during the day and teach in the evenings, when she could be with Daddy, I can not identify myself as a "stay-at-home mom." I criticize both camps, perhaps too freely. That's not my purpose here, however.
It is ingrained in my consciousness that a mother needs to take care of herself while taking care of her children, insofar as it is possible to do both. In spite of extremely difficult situations, including a stretch as a single mother of me and a marriage that was even worse than the first, my mother managed to raise 6 children to believe that taking care of children is valuable, and that one can accomplish a great deal while doing so.
We have a rather unhealthy dichotomy in our contemporary conception of motherhood--a word that good feminists would avoid because it connotes an identity rather than an act--"working mother" is set in opposition to "stay-at-home mom." These terms are interesting in themselves, as "mother" lends more of an air of seriousness to the former situation than the less formal "mom." Hmmmm. . . Of course, working part-time in order to parent also connotes certain personal and financial sacrifices for family. I am aware of a married couple who divorced due to their conflict over whose career was more important. No children without compromise! For me, academia, perhaps grad school in particular! offers a reasonable compromise between these competing versions of motherhood. And dual academic careers are ideal.
But I wanted to think again about the 1940s housewife and the "peasant woman." We base our rejection of "traditional" motherhood on the former, but include the latter in our conceptualization of oppressed women of previous generations who had no choice but to bear children, etc. We differ because we have autonomy, can choose careers, can choose to mother, the possibilities are endless! But are our choices presented fairly? Are we always sacrificing something that the other choice offers? Two roads diverged, and all that. . . I choose to multitask--to work with a baby at my feet (not on my back!). I take care of her; she is mine; I am mine.
Consider this. . . The woman of the 40's and 50's was an updated "angel of the house," if you will. She was the ruler of the domestic sphere, until her husband returned from work to find his steak and mashed potatoes on the table. She cooked and cleaned, shopped on a budget, raised children, and perhaps not much else. Who knows anymore? She was the apple of the eye of product developers and advertising agencies. More commercials and products were geared to this woman than to any single consumer today. Well, no. Children are the number one target today, and what does that say about who runs the household? But you take my point. We look at her full skirts and her plastic smile and listen to the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper" to understand all that was wrong with our perfect image of her. Of course, my generation doesn't really have an image of her that is separate from the criticism. She is not my grandmother, though they were contemporaries and share some of the same problems. And so I, also, reject this image, as I have been taught.
During (and perhaps immediately after) my younger child was born in the autumn of 2005, my dissertation adviser (and friend and confidant) had a running joke about me--that I was one of those "peasant women" who give birth in the field, then strap the baby to their backs and keep working. Strictly speaking, this is not true, though it was great for a chuckle. I emphatically did not want to, or, more accurately perhaps, feel that I should have to work in the months immediately after my baby was born. It turns out that I did not merely stay at home and bond with my baby, but that's another tale. . . I have colleagues who were in the classroom within weeks of giving birth. I freely admit that I could not have done this! Instead, I waited through October, November, and December, took on a less-demanding-than-teaching assistantship, and eased back into teaching in the summer and fall. I also took a class on professionalism in the fall.
I have heard and read many discussions recently about childcare, from a friend who is confused & vexed, a blogger whose husband became distressed after she recovered somewhat from first-time daycare blues, from a committed stay-at-home blogger mom lamenting "outsourced motherhood."
[An aside: my 15-month-old just dialed a play phone, help it to her ear, and said "bye bye" before the recorded voice!! Cute!!]
My own experience with childcare is limited. My husband & I did not put our son in any form of child care until he was 3; rather, we "swapped" child care duties literally between graduate classes. Until after kindergarten, which he attended part time, one of us was with him for most of the day. Last August I sincerely tried to place my baby in a church mother's-day-out program one day a week, but after two days of observation/trial, I simply could not. I just do not trust others with my baby--both for emotional and hygienic reasons. We both became very ill after that day of observation, which did nothing for my resolve or self-confidence.
[Just changed a diaper and had my daughter take 3 steps to me!]
Working-woman daycare culture is clearly not for me. However, while I have arranged the past 2 semesters so that I could stay with my daughter during the day and teach in the evenings, when she could be with Daddy, I can not identify myself as a "stay-at-home mom." I criticize both camps, perhaps too freely. That's not my purpose here, however.
It is ingrained in my consciousness that a mother needs to take care of herself while taking care of her children, insofar as it is possible to do both. In spite of extremely difficult situations, including a stretch as a single mother of me and a marriage that was even worse than the first, my mother managed to raise 6 children to believe that taking care of children is valuable, and that one can accomplish a great deal while doing so.
We have a rather unhealthy dichotomy in our contemporary conception of motherhood--a word that good feminists would avoid because it connotes an identity rather than an act--"working mother" is set in opposition to "stay-at-home mom." These terms are interesting in themselves, as "mother" lends more of an air of seriousness to the former situation than the less formal "mom." Hmmmm. . . Of course, working part-time in order to parent also connotes certain personal and financial sacrifices for family. I am aware of a married couple who divorced due to their conflict over whose career was more important. No children without compromise! For me, academia, perhaps grad school in particular! offers a reasonable compromise between these competing versions of motherhood. And dual academic careers are ideal.
But I wanted to think again about the 1940s housewife and the "peasant woman." We base our rejection of "traditional" motherhood on the former, but include the latter in our conceptualization of oppressed women of previous generations who had no choice but to bear children, etc. We differ because we have autonomy, can choose careers, can choose to mother, the possibilities are endless! But are our choices presented fairly? Are we always sacrificing something that the other choice offers? Two roads diverged, and all that. . . I choose to multitask--to work with a baby at my feet (not on my back!). I take care of her; she is mine; I am mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)