What is it about 10-year-olds?

Perhaps the most daunting parenting challenge I am facing, will continue to face, and making me wonder how I will cope with 3 children is the behavior of my 10-year-old. I have always thought that he was pretty well-behaved. He does reasonably well in school, though not without a heavy dose of laziness, frustration, and know-it-all behavior. He is generally polite to others. He is definitely opinionated and expresses opinions loudly and obnoxiously. He certainly thinks he is an adult--or as good as. This is very troubling sometimes--and a matter of pride others, I'm ashamed to admit. But increasingly, he is very disrespectful in subtle ways. He pretends not to know what I mean when I ask him to clean up. "I want you to tidy up the nurs. . . (attempt at humor--Mary Poppins reference) . . . I mean, living room!!" "What? we don't have a nursery! Living room? We don't have a living room!' My patience sorely tested--"Are you really too stupid to know what I mean by 'living room'?" Yes, I know, likely the wrong tactic. Eventually, he pretends to catch my meaning, after I ask if he would like to clean up the living room and then proceed to his room for the rest of the day. These things are daily occurrences. Sometimes they are executed more like jokes on his part, which makes them more bearable, but no less irritating. Told to stop whatever irritating thing he is doing--some repetitive noise, like violently squeaking a toy--he continues for several more times before finally stopping, usually prompted by a glare. Or if I shoot one of those Mommy-glares "You know what you're doing is wrong" in his direction, he responds with a mock-scared, high-pitched squeal and convulsions, which I have told him repeatedly infuriate me more than whatever he was doing int he first place. However, ignoring the offending behavior does not seem to work, either. And so I have to deal with this on top of the toddler, and the pregnancy, and I can only imagine it continuing after the birth of the new baby.

And then, there is the brother-sister dynamic. Now, he clearly loves his little sister. He is clearly thankful to have her. And he has been looking forward to the new one steadily since I told him--proudly noticing when I'm getting rounder, etc. His enthusiasm has been slightly dampened by not having anyone to tell who will get excited, but only slightly dampened. (Actually, I have been very disappointed by my extended family's reaction--my aunt, whom my mother has told repeatedly that I am pregnant, will only respond with a "Yes, you told me." Hmph.) But the attitude he adopts towards the toddler is that of an overzealous prison-warden. Or he treats her like an animal or a toy, manhandling her at will in the name of "play." He will correct her under my nose as if I can't see what she's doing, or as if he is more capable. Now I do remember my mother correcting us for these same errors, I just don't remember it being so bad. I am on the verge of declaring it a hot-sauce punishable offense if the words "No" or the baby's name escape his lips with certain derogatory emphasis!!

I don't want to punish this repetitive mockery, etc., severely. It is the cumulative effect rather than the individual acts that are problematic, and yet, some days it reduces me to tears. In part because I do not want to yell, scream, punish. I do not want to feel frustrated, out of control, violent. I do not, in short, want to turn into my mother, or for my family's dynamic to be that of my family when we were growing up--you know, what I've mentioned fearing about having a big family?? I don't want to constantly be breaking up fights, stupidly dangerous play, wrestling, to deal with the baby's protests when she clearly doesn't want him to do what he's doing--some of the same things that I have to do when my son interacts with my youngest brother (but better not to go there. . .). I can't even handle two, how will I handle three? How will I handle three, especially, with patience and love? I just don't see it. Perhaps having two closer together, they will interact better with each other. I don't know.

The pressing problem right now is with the oldest, but it makes the prospect of 3 fearful. He is taking on little tiny dribbles of responsibility intermittently, but causing more problems than ever in the grand scheme of things. When the damage is done and I am distraught and on the verge of tears for no reason that he can possibly imagine (and I don't want him to feel guilty, since part of the problem is my own perceived inadequacy), he becomes quite compassionate. This, of course, doesn't really help. I've always been told how well-behaved he is, and mostly I've been inclined to agree. But lately. . . I just don't know. His harassing of the toddler, alternated with policing her, or complaining about her movements, location, sounds and smells (a dirty diaper apparently induced convulsions this afternoon, before he indicated a desire to attempt to change said diaper!), wears me thin. Is it age? A pre-preteen thing? Jealousy? Not knowing quite how to position himself between adults and a baby? When I was 10, I had 3 sisters. Very different.

I know, not my most cerebral post. And so I'm not misunderstood, I do basically think he's a very good, smart child. Just increasingly obnoxious. :( I find myself longing uncharacteristically for the start of school without believing that it will remedy the situation.

Breastfeeding Virgin - Madonna Lactans - Francisco de Zurbarán

I admit to being, actually, a little short on inspiration for my series of Mary-posts. I am unsure of everything from how to title the posts to how to begin them! But I decided, nevertheless, to start with an artist whom I discovered when I was breastfeeding my daughter and came across the Our Lady of La Leche shrine mentioned in an article. I forget now where the article was posted or published, but it was written by Marion Amberg about couples who, hoping for an end to their fertility problems, took pilgrimages to the shrine. After learning about this particular representation of Our Lady, I traced it on the internet and learned of the Grotto of the Milk in Bethlehem with its interesting devotion. Then, I sought representations of the Virgin breastfeeding from throughout art history. I have a few favorites, among them this painting titled Holy Family by Francisco de Zurbarán. I believe I found it on a site that sells posters, and since I was only intending it for personal use, I didn't think about recording the original site. But as long as nobody tells my composition students, it'll juts be between us!

I find this a particularly touching image. I like the portrayal of the affection that exists between the three members of the Holy Family. I also think that the involvement of Joseph in this intimate moment of feeding between Mother and Child is rather profound. It seems that the painted must have had an intimate knowledge of breastfeeding, as this is a very tender moment, not portrayed in a static manner at all. The naturalism of the scene is quite striking. Another interesting feature of the painting is that the figures seem to be clad in rather realistic and appropriate garments. I did find that this particular painter is from Extremadura--a rather arid and impoverished region of Spain, and the house and landscape does not appear too unlike the scenery in contemporary films set in Extremadura. Nevertheless, this is believable as a first century scene from the Middle East or northern Africa.

On a site called Olga's Gallery, I discovered some biographical information on Francisco de Zurbarán (there are some popups on the original site):

A highly original Spanish artist, Francisco de Zurbarán, until recently was not known beyond Spain. His works are rarely met in European museums and are highly appreciated by collectors.
He was born in Fuente de Cantos (Estremadura) into the family of a petty merchant. His professional training he received in Seville in 1616/17 in the workshop of Pedro Diaz da Villanueva. Then he settled near his birthplace to paint a large number of religious pictures for the monasteries and churches.
In Seville, where he settled in 1629, he became the leading artist. There he produced many altarpieces and decorated a number of monasteries with extensive fresco style cycles. In 1630-1645, Zurbarán executed a lot of paintings of different saints; they are evidence of his talent as a portraitist. They are usually separate figures in full height, with a dark or neutral background. These paintings were used for decoration of the churches and were hung on both sides of a central painting or altar. Zurbarán executed a series of such paintings for churches and also for the Hospital de la Sangre in Seville.
His style, with massively simple figures and objects, clear, sober colors and deep solemnity of feeling expressed in thickly applied paint, made him the ideal painter of the austere religion of Spain.
His fortunes fell with Murillo's rise. In 1658 he moved to Madrid, where he entered the Santiago Order. In order to support himself he had to become an art dealer, though he was not successful in business either. He died in Madrid in 1664 in poverty.

The site also includes a number of de Zurbarán's other paintings, including two of the Immaculate Conception. Most of those included on this gallery page are religious-themed paintings, with several depicting the Virgin Mary. An additional painting titled The Virgin with Infant Christ also depicts Mother and Child breastfeeding. Again, there is a tenderness between mother and child that is very natural. The Infant reaches to caress the Mother's other breast while being held tight against His Mother. She glances down at him in utter absorbtion. Again, the dress of the figures suggests an idealized past rather than the artist's present. The figures are alone against a shadowy background with a nonspecific light source illuminating the upper left hand corner--enough to suggest the Light brought into the world by this woman who now nourishes Him at her breast. I may be wrong, but it appears that Mary even has a snack at her side to nourish her body in order to nourish her Child--a nice touch, if I am reading it correctly. Whether he is working with a model (as is likely) or from an ideal in his head, both Mother and Child remain consistent (to my eye) between the two paintings by de Zurbarán.

Bending low and cradling Him near,
Feeling his warmth and smelling his milky breath,
Mother of God, she feeds Him of herself;
And glancing into Joseph's tender eyes
She reaches him amid the baby's sighs.

Of Herbs and. . . Religious Art?

Well, thanks to Melanie and "C," I have a new project of sorts on my hands. Who would have thought that my child- and motherhood musings would come to this? But in a previous post, the question of representations of the Blessed Virgin Mary mothering was raised, and led me to think of some of the images of Mary breastfeeding that I discovered when I was nursing my now-weaned (at around 18 months) toddler. So I am on a quest. My thought is that images of Mary mothering may not be entirely domestic in nature. We have to consider the subject, and realize that all but the representations that strive to be heretical and blasphemous will be idealized representations of the subject. Hence, no images of Mary changing diapers (sorry, C!). ;) But the mothering images will present the Blessed Mother engaging with the child Jesus, who will usually be portrayed as a child. I will strive to find and post pictures that avoid the formalized, static poses, unless there is something particularly "motherly" being portrayed in a stylistic manner, as in early representations of the Madonna Lactans--the breastfeeding Virgin. While I am very fond of devotional art of all types and periods, I will be restricting this "quest" to fine art portrayals--more or less "canonical" artists, the standard "periods" of art history.

I have found three categories of Virgin Mary portraits that interest me: first, the Madonna Lactans--Mary as Nursing Mother, whom I first discovered after reading about the shrine to Our Lady of La Leche in St. Augustine, FL, which I would like to visit one day. I am also interested in more generic, "motherly" images of Mary--portrayals that emphasize human motherhood. Third, I will be looking for those images that I think best represent Mary in her role as Patroness of Graduate Student Mothers--or didn't you know about that one? I call these portrayals "Our Lady of the Dissertation." You can quote me on that. Here is an example by Botticelli (Also known as Madonna of the Magnificat):

To me, this will signify the effort to produce a great (meaning substantial, not superior) intellectual work while undertaking the great work of parenting.

While searching for images, I came across this one, which I thought might be of interest:
From this site, which specializes in unusual medicinal plant seeds, this is the St. Mary's Milk Thistle:

Silybum marianum
The boiled flower heads of this plant are said to increase milk supply in nursing mothers.

Of course we assume that Mary's milk was abundant, and this herb is akin, apparently, to her blessing on nursing mothers. For those interested, they can't ship these particular seeds to Arkansas, Oregon, or Washington State.

More inspiration soon!

Loaves and . . . Fruit Snacks? and 4 O'clocks

Not to distract from the seriousness of the previous week's posts, but. . .

We were in Mass yesterday, and as my toddler has rejected the prospect of staying in the nursery during Mass, even when a nursery is available, we have adopted the habit of bringing several items for her amusement including, I am ashamed to say, a few small but fragrant snack items--Gerber fruit snacks, fruit strips, and breakfast bars (which are crummy, and so only for emergencies). This started because she would sometimes be ready to eat before the end of Mass, and a little something was necessary to keep her quiet. Once she has reached an age of understanding "we don't really eat in . . . X," we will remove the snacks from our routine.

These fruit snacks are softer versions of the ones available to be packed in school lunches--they come in a little pouch and she just loves fishing them out with her little hands until they are all gone, at which point she crumples the bag and we have to do a little minimal noise control. So yesterday, she had eaten her fruit strp and rooted through her little activity bag to find the fruit snacks, which I opened for her and she promptly gobbled up. Several minutes passed, and she made a little noise and, with surprise & triumph, showed me two more fruit snacks rescued from the pew! Now I thought for sure that I had monitored fruit snack consumption so that none escaped. But she ate the two fruit snacks and I returned to trying to listen to--oh, probably the homily at this point. The baby fidgeted a little, walked back and forth on the kneeler in her bare feet, having taken off her shoes during the readings, presumably to sample the texture of the floor and kneeler with her toes. She settled down again, this time between Daddy and Momma instead of between Momma and Brother. And what do you think she found? A yellow, pineapple shaped fruit snack! She again regarded it with pleasure and surprise, promptly dropped it in the pew, recovered it with my help, and ate it happily. So I'm starting to become amused and a little embarassed. I know I monitored the initial consumption of fruit snacks better than that! But these things were multiplying like. . . you guessed it--"loaves and fruit snacks." After all, "fruit snacks" started with the same letter and has the same umber of syllables and the same stress pattern as "fishes." So I had just finished this thought--of questionable taste (unless you ask the daughter, who would have found it delicious, no doubt), when it was time to stand for the Profession of Faith. Guess what? I caught site of yet another fruit snack--on the floor in front of my husband's feet! So amid my amusement, I try to keep my daughter occupied so that she doesn't try to rescue the dead fruit snack from off the floor. Finally, as we sat again, I motioned to my husband, who retrieved the offending object.

I imagined the older woman behind me, who at various points seemed amused by the toddler's antics and perhaps pleased that she wasn't making more of a disturbance, wondering how on earth we focused on the Mass. Well, I think I've realized that the experience of a Mass with family sometimes involves being thankful for the sweet little person who causes such distraction! (And catching what glorious moments we can in between!) At least, that's my answer for yesterday!

* * * * *

On a different subject, Entropy reminded me in her post of the wonders of 4 o'clocks--small flowers that bloom promptly at 4 o'clock (daylight savings time notwithstanding)--that are impossible to kill and have the most wonderful fragrance! She posts a picture. I remember that we had them in the greatest varieties! Yellow & light pink, fuschia, striped. . . My grandmother would always try to cross-pollinate to get new varieties. She would tie little strings around the branches of the ones she pollinated with other colors so that she would remember where the seed would be. Meanwhile, my cousins & sisters would collect the seeds in little piles--they called the not-quite-ripe ones "stripeys" because they were black striped with green.

I haven't had any luck getting them to grow in Texas. I'm not sure if the ground is too hard, or if it's too dry, or what. In New Orleans, you just drop them on the ground and they sprout almost instantly. Here, when I tried to grow some, nothing ever happened. Anyway, it was nice to be reminded of these pretty little flowers.

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

• 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)

She ends her post by asking what other mothers do to help them achieve these things without working. Now while I don't particularly want to live in a community composed of my aunts, mother, and mother-in-law, and the play-date with other moms who are there only for the benefit of adult social interaction seems a bit contrived and artificial (and makes me, an introvert, as uncomfortable as a gathering of professors) the list of things that women seek in careers outside the home seems pretty accurate in my experience! And, well, I don't have too much else to say on that, because really I'm pretty happy with where I am right now. I've even written a few dissertation paragraphs in the past few days! Guess the exhaustion (mental & physical) is taking a break right now. Or the vitamins and iron have kicked in, rain has replaced scorching heat, and the semester has ended! (Ooops, did that sound like I didn't want to work?) ;)

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!)

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.

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.

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.

Children in Academia

• 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.

The Presence of Children

• 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.

Rhetoric

• 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. . ."?

It should come as no surprise. . .

Really. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I feel the way I do about children and daycare. Because it's tough to juggle schedules. It's tougher some days than others, but there are definite challenges involved with bringing children places--especially places that are not child-friendly. Academic departments, for example. It would be infinitely simpler to relegate them to the care of others--sure! So there has to be a reason that I do what I do, no? A reason that I have not seen affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia. So I might as well write about my ideals before I have to compromise them at some point down the line. I dread the semester when I can't make it work. So far, admittedly, I've been lucky. But then, I've had only one baby at a time. Still, I will avoid it for as long as I can, and I will keep them in child care for as few hours a week as I can manage (which academia does allow), when and if the time comes. It's a conscious choice, and like most conscious choices, it does involve judgment of the alternative options (as the homeschooling parents out there know, right? ;) ).

Let's Talk About Children. . .

. . . Since we've talked about feminism and motherhood. The original posts that got me thinking about the ways feminists talk about motherhood were about the prohibition of children from certain spaces and the relegation of children to private spaces based on an inferiority of children. One commenter actually said that she considered herself to be raising her children to become human. This is an interesting extension of the argument that says a fetus isn't human--in her construct, she could easily justify the infanticide of ancient Greece and Rome--or of that girl who gave birth in the bathroom during prom. Clearly, she was exaggerating (I hope). Just as clearly, many, many of these women have some psychological problem that makes them resent and lash out against the smallest, least protected, most powerless members of our society who are still acknowledged as such. So we'll suggest that this is a personal problem shared by this substantial group of individuals who also happen to gather together under the label of "feminist." We will further concede that this group is perhaps a bit extreme in their not wanting to be disturbed by children--or by women talking to their children--in the grocery stores. Having made a great number of concessions, I have a few observations to make.

Academia is a very flexible career choice. If one wants to be in a 40+ hour a week desk job, one has the option of administration. However, many academic administrators work considerably less than that. If one wants to split one's time between editorial duties with a journal and teach a class or two, that is an option also. If one has what is considered a "good" teaching load as a tenure-track professor, one likely teaches 2-3 courses a semester. Once tenured, this might decrease further. If one has taught the same class multiple times, one is usually able to teach without much time spent preparing. Then, there is the research requirement, which can be accomplished anywhere. Conferences are like mini-vacations for those who can afford them and are accustomed to them, though for a beginner and one with a modest income, they can afford considerable stress.

Enter children. Or, consider children if they happen to exist already. Clearly, an administrative job would provide challenges for someone who wanted to spend a significant amount of time parenting. If one has a teaching job, however, it is possible for the number of hours actually spent away from the home to resemble a part-time rather than a full-time job. It is even possible, with departmental cooperation, to make one's schedule family friendly by working only 2 or 3 days a week, or by working mornings or evenings only (perhaps alternating with a spouse) and spending the remaining time with one's children. Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, meetings with students, less important departmental meetings, film showings, lectures or other after-hours activities (this would of course depend on the age and behavior of th child(ren) involved). This is challenging, but has its rewards. Research can be done in the presence of children just as easily as housework was traditionally--not that I'm saying that this was/is always easy. Clearly there are good hours and bad hours, and good days and bad days. But you know what? That article or whatever can be written with the kids--at least, if you don't procrastinate like me!!--and if you don't blame the kids for taking up too much of your time, and if you're not afraid to let them entertain themselves, or to stop when they need your attention. It can be done--just as easily as blogging with kids. The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity. Conferences are rare, but can be turned into family vacations, with the other spouse filling in time gaps while the attendee is in sessions. Or if not, what's a weekend away once a year? Not too traumatic. (But don't--for God's sake DON'T--breastfeed in an MLA session!! I can't remember the name of the audacious academic who pulled that "stunt," but I have it on good authority--good feminist authority--that one simply can not do that!!--The horrors!!)

I have been asked point-blank if my children are in day-care. I have said no. And I have been asked how I get any work done. I have been told about the impossibilities of working on anything with (a) child(ren) around--all by other women. All by my peers. And I have been doing this for 10 years. Well, unless you count all that time when I was living at home with 5 siblings helping my mom go to school while I was an undergraduate. In that case, I've been doing it much longer. I have not asked how they afford 40-hour child care. I don't want to know. I can't, and I really don't want to try. But I am a fairly lone figure pushing my stroller on a regular basis through the halls of the department. My children are well known by all who see them--and this has been my modus operandi since I stepped into the building almost (God help me!) 8 years ago. Others have their children with them sometimes, but only occasionally, whether to show off, or because of a school/daycare holiday, or illness. But I maintain that it doesn't really have to be like this. Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere. Truly--I believe it is a matter of perception. And that's where I think feminism has some part to play. Unless one wants to say that it could have a pro-child part to play but doesn't. But the idea that children, who once were the responsibility of women but need not be, should be relegated to other spaces to make room for women's own goals, needs, desires, whatever, certainly is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.

Women in academia are supposed to be feminist. No one will dispute that. It's one of those "well, she's intelligent, so she must agree with this. . ." These assumptions run rampant through academia. The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace. While some may disagree, this is rare. I have known professors to keep their children in after-care daily rather than have them at home with the parents (both academics) when the parents' schedules ended earlier than a 5 P.M. day. I have seen children kept in child care situations "just in case" meetings or other activities should come up. On the other hand, I have met two academics--a single father and a mother (possibly separated--I'm not sure) who, in their early days of tenure-track, brought their children with them to class, office hours, after hours situations. These are the professors I admire, as they balanced their career goals and their family goals, standing up for their children's rights to exist, to exist in public, and to be with their parents. What may have been borne of difficult situations turned into triumph for all involved. And we just need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph. But does feminism teach this, really?

When Feminists Talk about Motherhood. . .

This is an interesting post from Anastasia, an academic mom whose blog I read (see sidebar) and who has a few things to say about how feminists discuss motherhood when nobody's looking (or nobody important, or nobody who is expected to disagree). What interests me about this is that it represents one of the major reasons that I have never been able to call myself a feminist, even when I was more friendly to feminism than I am today, and why I actively wrote papers in grad school that worked against the anti-mother rhetoric of feminist theory. What further interests me is that Anastasia seems like someone who would consider herself much more of a feminist than I do! Beware the language (which I'm not necessarily going to say is inappropriate), and let me know what you think when you come back! The comments, you will notice, are very anti-child, a backlash against Anastasia's reasoning that children need to be considered and included, and mainly focus on the type of parent who doesn't do much parenting and, let's face it, probably wasn't equipped to have children in the first place. This rather reminds me of Darwin's post about a playground incident in which he was called down for correcting a child who was terrorizing his much younger daughter. If people didn't hate kids in private and "respect their rights and privacy" in public, instead of, you know, saying "Excuse me, but your child is being incredibly rude and needs to be disciplined before s/he hurts someone" and accepting that some children are indeed well-disciplined, maybe this rhetoric of intolerance wouldn't persist in so-called "intellectual" circles. When everyone agreed on how children should behave, only the crotchety "Mr. Wilson" types from Dennis the Menace were expected to hate children. (Granted that some old-style "discipline" is now recognized as abuse, but many go too far in the opposite direction.) In some circles, cities, stores, it has become the norm.

For a related sentiment, a more subtle child-hatred, see Pro Ecclesia and the source, The Cause of Our Joy, on "The Town Without Children," which is, of course, the logical consequence of child-hatred and child-exclusion.

One more thing: It occurs to me after reading a HUGE number of the comments on the original post (don't go there, just don't; I can't be responsible for the consequences, and I don't want them following you back here--I put the link purely out of a sense of obligation), that no one considers for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life. WOW!

Baby Burnout??

After Mass on Sunday, as I was trying to keep track of all of my family members in the throng of people leaving church, dodging those who suddenly stopped to visit, I noticed my son weaving through the crown in front of me, going to visit with a friend of his from his former Montessori school. She is a year younger than he is, and was one of the only other Catholics at that school, so he & she would sometimes talk religion in the schoolyard. (To be a fly on the wall for those conversations!) Her mother was pregnant at the same time as I was with my daughter, and though she was due first, mine was born first (first of a group of 3 or 4 classroom babies, of which mine was supposed to come last!). Now, this particular girl is the daughter of a former NFP instructor and avid breastfeeding mom, and the oldest of 5 siblings, the youngest of whom was born in February, when her youngest brother was only 16 months old. So my son, happy to finally see a friend who would be interested in the news that he will be having a new sibling (sister), approaches and greets his friend. He then, casually, says that he will be having a new sister. She, clearly distracted, says, "Yes, she was born in February" (referring to her own, likely tired of having to give this information). My son corrects her, saying again, with more emphasis, that he would be having another sibling. She looks surprised and says, incredulously, "Another one?" (!!!??!)

A Bath and a Glass of Wine

The latter, of course, is a much more guilty pleasure than the first. To be precise, it was more like half a glass of wine. Really, it could have been a better glass of wine. It is one of the Spanish reds that we return to occasionally--Sangre de Torro, a granacha-carineña blend from Catalonia. Vintage is 2004. But I found it uncharacteristically sweet, and the "bite" that I like in a good red was delayed, and further back in the throat than I expected. I like the "bite" to hit more on the tongue. Oddly, it almost tasted like it wanted to become a dessert wine, but hadn't been given the opportunity to do so. I like the granacha (or grenache), but my favorite red is a tempranillo. And my favorite tempranillo right now is Borsao (tempranillo-granacha, actually), which has displaced the Marques de Caceres in our preference (possibly because the vitange we enjoyed is now a reserve!--which happens, I guess, in time. . .). Nevertheless, the effect was a nice one--very calming. Clearly, I don't believe that a small amount of alcohol while pregnant is dangerous. And I so rarely drink wine, don't like beer that much (although I have had a few sips throughout the pregnancy), and drink harder things fewer than once a year, that there is no danger of overindulgence.

I believe wholeheartedly in the wonders of baths, quite separate from mere cleanliness, as I believe I have mentioned at the end of a previous post, as well as in a comment on DarwinCatholic. I am particularly of bubble baths, though I find that adults are supposed to indulge, instead, in fragranced bath "soaks," moisturizing bath "oils," and all manner of other non-foamy perfumed bath experiences that are inferior at best. I have the additional problem that, while I love all manner of bath products, I live in a household with allergy sufferers, and increasingly, with pregnancy especially, highly perfumed bath products irritate my nose also (I attribute this to an increase in the perfume content of the products). When my husband & I were dating, we frequented Bath & Body Works; he is unable to set foot in the place now for fear of an assault on his sinuses. :( I entered alone yesterday however (and he eventually joined me), unable to resist their semi-annual sale. I was able to pick up some more natural products from Couvent des Minimes and C. O. Bigelow, as well as (my personal favorite of yesterday's purchases) a wonderful fragrance that I discovered in their aromatherapy line--Sandalwood Rose. It is a gentle sandalwood that actually reminds me of a certain blend of incense that our former pastor favored for feast days, and it creates a wonderful sense of calm. I found not only a shower gel, but that rare item--a "foaming bath"! I will relish this discovery, and I will sleep well tonight.

Worried about the Daughter

Not physically, don't worry. . . But I worry constantly, as I have from the beginning, that for her to have an additional sibling so young will be damaging to her emotionally. I imagine her feeling brushed aside, resenting the new baby, wanting my attention all the more when the new one arrives. She will be a month over 2 yrs, mas o menos.

The anxiety has waxed and waned over the past 5 1/2 months or so, but is peaking. She has become extremely clingy--wanting me and only me when we are home--especially over the past few weeks. Now, we have moved recently. I don't know if that has anything to do with it. Also, rather than teaching only twice a week like I did in the spring and fall, I am teaching every day--delayed separation anxiety?? She has never been so clingy. She sometimes grabs my legs and repeats "momma, momma" or the more recent "mommy, mommy" and won't let me move. She frequently shoos my husband away when he tries to rock her to sleep--a very recent development!!--or even when he tries holding her! This is, of course, worse when she is cranky. Tonight, she made herself gag and choke--very, very scary--from crying when my husband took her off of my lap (under protest) to rock her to sleep! (They didn't get very far, and even when I took her, she had a difficult time regaining her composure.) Granted, she was crankier than usual around nap and meal times, but this is very disturbing behavior. I am seriously concerned about the trauma that a 2-3 day (depending on the length of labor) will cause her in October/November. Especially since we may not have any relatives left in town by then to watch her! Just one more thing to worry about. I think I had just read about a woman who had an extended hospital stay because of postpartum psychosis and the affect it had on her older daughter when I had the "fatal bee sting" dream I mentioned earlier. I guess it's good that I have 3 1/2 or so months to deal with this because I just can't handle it right now.

An interesting thing is that, though she has been weaned completely for 3 months or so, she still seems to remember nursing, and in recent--well, days, actually--she has been increasing nuzzling, lifting my shirt, and other behavior that suggests a desire to nurse. Not that she really remembers what to do, mind you. . . I dread seeing how she will react when the new baby nurses. It can only be a sticky situation that I certainly won't want to face as I'm facing the already-difficult first weeks of nursing a newborn!! But I can't possibly not nurse the new one. Such an omission would be a clear act of neglect as compared to the previous 2. I already fear not being as attentive to #3 as I was/have been to #1 and #2.

My daughter has a beautiful personality, but is becoming increasingly willful and throws increasingly violent tantrums. Could she possibly tell that something's up? We have talked about a new baby, could she be anxious? Is she picking up on my anxiety? She has been the center of my anxieties since she was conceived--perhaps because she was the one we really "tried" for. It's odd. . . It's as if I've got more emotionally invested in her, though when I think back to how I felt about my first, that's not really true, of course. The difference is not quantitative--it's not a question of feeling more, but of feeling different(ly). And yet I somehow fear that I do--and will--feel less for the new one. But I tell myself that it can't be, because she (?), too, (the new one) will be my baby.

Perhaps I should stop thinking about it and go read some more horrible news stories. Or write a dissertation. Or grade papers. Or put the daughter in her bed, as she's been sleeping on my lap since a few minutes after the gagging on saliva incident. . .

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. . .

With apologies to Francisco Goya. . .

I have mentioned subtly, in recent posts, the presently absent dissertation director, his vacation, and the his expectation that I will have something brilliant to produce for him upon his return in the second or so week of July (at which point I will show him the ultrasound picture and inform him that it was all the brilliance I had energy for this month!). The course doesn't count because it is the unpaid work that is regarded as the true work--and no, I'm not talking about motherhood, here! I actually had my M.A. thesis adviser tell my one summer that I should just "tighten my belt" and complete the thesis without working. Luckily, the dissertation director is more practical and understanding to a degree, though I did learn, quite by accident, that around the same week he found out that I was pregnant, he told another grad student, by her account, "just don't get pregnant. Don't get married and don't get pregnant." Great.

I suppose the emphasis on the work of research over "paid" work is to prepare us for the tenure-track position--when and if that ever happens. But I won't dwell on that possibility--or lack thereof. I find it even more paralyzing an anxiety than the "how am I going to handle 3 children at the same time without losing my sanity and get anything else accomplished" anxiety. And let's not even mention the "how am I going to teach as a post-doc or lecturer on that limited salary and afford to pay student loans and pay for childcare for 2 children so that I can actually have the time to teach" anxiety. But evidently the "what happens when the dissertation director returns" anxiety has festered in the subconscious and is making its presence known through dreams:

I dreamt that my dissertation director, whom I really like--don't get me wrong!--and who is an avid and accomplished guitar player (from whom I have had a few lessons--he even played at our Convalidation!!), not only had surgery on one of his hands, but also received a horrible, deep injury--a slash several inches log that "grazed the bone," in the language of the dream--on the opposite forearm. When I encountered him (in the context of the dream), he was rehabilitating the hand and arm by practicing the guitar, at which time I also learned that he was in danger of being stung by deadly bees, and the local hospitals were out of the anti-venom (bee anti-venom???). This is not your typical pregnant-mother-dream, but is disturbing in its agression. Is this what guilt does to us??

The bee motif is interesting, since I dreamt two or so nights ago that my daughter had received a fatal bee sting for which there was no antidote. :( I returned to sleep and had a similarly bad dream involving my husband. Those felt more like pregnancy dreams--anxiety about family.

Perhaps writing about it will get it out of my system--though I suspect that finding time to write the dissertation would be more therapeutic!

Liars, Liars

Sometimes it really sucks to be the teacher. And these are the times when it's nice to have technology that you can rely on.

It's the last week of class, and I have a fairly good rapport with most of my 10 students. We have just finished a productive discussion of Invisible Cities, which, I believe, has caused them to exercise their brais more than is usual in a 200-level literature course. Yay for me.

As one part of their overall grades--15%, I think--I have them writing weekly journals on the work or works that we will be discussing during the upcoming week. These are to be submitted to our course management system--Moodle--as online writings before the Monday of each week, unless otherwise specified. There are 5 weeks of class and 4 Mondays, so there have been 4 journal assignments--each worth 25 points, or 1/4 of 15% of their final grades. This can literally determine a letter-grade and a half. So today I walk into class a bit late to the news that the class's journal assignments are, to quote a student, "floating around cyberspace," having been mysteriously "lost" after submission. There were a couple of other interesting claims, like "there was no submit button" (duh--there wouldn't be after the assignment deadline has passed!) and a couple of wide-eyed stares and random nods. Now, the only reason I entertained this story at all is that last semester, Moodle would sometimes log people out as they tried to submit their journal entries, causing data to be lost.

So this evening I received an email reminder of an appointment with one of the students that clued me in to the discussion that preceded my entry into the classroom, in which most of those present admitted that they didn't know when this week's journal was due (duh--see the syllabus). Can I give extra credit for honesty?

When I logged in to Moodle tonight, after seeing that 3 students had, indeed, submitted their journals successfully, I remembered that as the teacher, I could actually track student activity on Moodle--not just login, but which activities had been viewed and/or completed by each student. Guess what? The only students who had viewed the journal assignment after it was posted by me were those who had successfully submitted the assignment. And I told them so.

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. . .)

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?"

The Stupidity of Women

This post is, in a way, a follow-up to my "horrible news" post. It seems that the missing pregnant woman whose young son gave cryptic and disturbing remarks about her disappearance, has been found. Her "boyfriend" has been charged with two counts of murder. One report suggests that a new girlfriend of the suspect--a suspect who had a wife with a child, had a previous girlfriend who also had his child, this now-dead woman with two of his children--wanted the woman out of the way, and assisted in some way with the events that resulted in her death.

When I was in high school, I had a teacher who was very opinionated about social issues. All we had to do was think of a subject in advance and she would talk about it for the entire hour so that we could get away with not reading. (Never trust an honors class!!) We prolonged Huck Finn for an entire 9-weeks using this strategy. During one of these digressions, she remarked that she couldn't understand women who take up with a married man, assuming that he would faithful to her when he wasn't faithful to his wife. What makes her so darned special? Why does any woman think that any given unfaithful man will be faithful to her rather than another woman? Clearly, this is logic that has always remained with me. In this case, in addition, if he would commit violent acts against another former girlfriend, why should this new woman think that he would not, eventually, turn on her?

This is, on a level, an anti-feminist statement in a way, I guess. For once, I'm not really sure where feminist theory would fall in relation to this kind of situation. I mean, even if she had aborted one or both of the children (which seems like one possible feminist answer), this may have been what the father wanted, in which case, would it have been acting like a strong feminist woman to preserve one's autonomy by aborting a child (or children) that she wanted to keep but whom the father wanted to kill? It does seem that the situation of the dead, pregnant girl should be viewed with sympathy by feminists, who would see her as a victim of society that views her worth in terms of men. On the other hand, one might note (not necessarily from a feminist perspective) that in a society in which women's sexuality was viewed more restrictively and regulated more closely, she would not have been living openly with one--perhaps two--children of an married man, and so, in a sense, she would have been protected--by shame--from this horrible situation. Would social ostracism have been worse than what actually happened to her? By being sexually liberated, able to choose her own sexual partners freely without reference to social convention, she is placed in a position that has led to her death and the death of her child. On the other hand, a feminist might note that, though she seems to have been fairly independent, by returning to a man who had betrayed other women, and allowing herself to become pregnant twice (or perhaps becoming pregnant on purpose?), she was acting foolishly herself, sacrificing herself for the sake of a man. I'm not actually sure a feminist would hold that last opinion. I think she would likely be regarded as a victim of patriarchy. But haven't we moved beyond that tired argument yet?If women haven't come far enough yet (baby--Virginia Slims) that "patriarchal society" (instead of a deranged man) has to be blamed for tragedy, then what exactly has feminism accomplished? Okay, enough with the rhetorical questions, already.

A number of things disturb me about the way this case is being reported. First, that while the new baby was initially said to have been fathered by the same man as her first child (by the "suspect," that is), in subsequent reports, the baby was "perhaps" fathered by the same man--"may have been" fathered by the suspect, etc. And this was when he wasn't even a suspect! So while he had a history of impregnating various women, he was somehow entitled to his reputation. Meanwhile, the woman was missing, likely dead, and she was being represented as someone who slept around. So much for sexual liberation there! The implication was pretty clear--he may not have been involved, and she, as an unwed mother, might as well have had a different father for each child. Where were the media feminists? They weren't upholding either her reputation or her right to act as a sexually liberated woman and a strong independent mother.

Another question I had was why the 2-year-old son's references to his mother did not include references to his "father," with whom he presumably had a relationship.

Finally, the girl's family is being portrayed in a respectfully positive light, which is appropriate. But I do wonder what their true feelings were about this situation--here is their daughter, sister, whatever, pregnant for the second time with the child of a man who has a wife and two other children by two different women. Did they feel constrained by the "new" social convention that dictates that a woman choose her own expression of her sexuality when she becomes an adult (or even sooner)? Did they find nothing amiss in this relationship? Or did they express their disapproval?

The appearance of the possible accomplice, the "new girlfriend" leads to the title of the post. How can women be so stupid--for obviously worthless men? For sex? But at the same historical moment when women were told that it’s okay to make these choices, they were deprived of the frameworks that allowed them to choose morally and, in the end, to choose wisely and make choices that preserved their dignity.

An Exercise on Invisible Cities

I asked my students, who are currently reading Invisible Cities by Calvino, to work in groups to answer a few questions--challenges might be a better word--in order to approach a better understanding of this intriguing exercise in postmodernism. Invisible Cities is a book that requires readers to find their own conclusions--or not. The "point" of the book, which I was asked to give as if there were a single easy answer, is really the process of reading and thinking about its content with a mind that is willing to engage in the exercises of thought that the book requires. Am I crazy, you might ask, for teaching this in a sophomore-level course? Perhaps not.

The book is framed within the context of Marco Polo describing to Kublai Khan the cities in the Khan's empire. The relationship between the two is one aspect of the text, but the cities are infinite and fascinating. They are categorized as "Cities and Desire," "Cities and Memory," "Cities and the Dead," "Trading Cities," "Cities and the Sky," "Hidden Cities," and "Cities and Signs," to name a few. Within these categories are cities with names that repeat, but not within a single category, and each category is composed of 5 cities.

For one of their questions--or challenges--I asked the pairs of students (I have a small class) to do the following:

Pick 2 of the “categories” of cities (“Continuous Cities,” etc.) and explain what that category means according to the cities within the category. I will ask the groups to pick one at a time so that no 2 groups will have the same category. HINT: This must be a bit more complex than “Cities that go on forever.” You’re not just defining, you’re explaining.

They will post their explanations on the course web site, which is contained within a wonderful interface called Moodle. There are 5 groups, and 11 categories, so to make certain that all categories were represented, and to provide an example of sorts, I posted the following on our course "glossary":

Continuous Cities

The "Continuous Cities" of Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino may be found in chapters 7, 8 and 9, and occur on pages 114, 128, 146, 152, and 156 of the text. They have the names Leonia, Trude, Procopia, Cecilia, and Penthesilea.

The city of Leonia renews itself daily by discarding and replacing all of its possessions from the day before, while the possessions themselves accumulate beyond the boundary of the city and threaten to crush the city. The neighboring cities, meanwhile, await the destruction of Leonia in order to expand into their territory.

The city of Trude resembles all other cities, which are also Trude. From the suburbs, to the downtown, to the languages and goods, Trude is like all other cities, and all other cities are like it, perhaps because it IS all other cities, and all other cities are it, and they all combine to make one Trude, which has nothing unique.

The city of Procopia is one that Marco Polo has visited on numerous occasions, watching year after year as the once bare and agrarian landscape became filled with identical people who displace the features of the landscape itself and eventually fill the landcape, the window out of which Polo looks, and even the room in which he lodges.

In the city of Cecilia, Polo encounters a goatherd who does not recognize the city, but recognizes the green places in between, while Polo himself knows only the cities and not the lands that connect them. In long intervening years, Polo travels other cities and continent, but happens upon the same goatherd, who has never been able to leave Cecilia, and realizes that he, too, has remained within the city, going deeper and deeper, because Cecilia has mingled with all other places and is now everywhere.

The city of Penthesilea is contrasted with cities that have definite borders through which you pass and realize that you are now inside and no longer outside of the city. It is a city into which you continue, always on the outskirts, until you are heading out of the city through its outskirts. Neither the traveler nor those who work there know where the city is, other than that it is not where they are, and is perhaps further on. You wonder "whether Penthesilea is only outskirts of itself, " whether "outside of Penthesilea . . . an outside exist(s)," whether the entire world, like Penthesilea, is a limbo that you are constantly trying to pass through in order to get in or out.

The "Continuous Cities" call into question the nature of cities, asking specifically whether any given city or cities has/have a beginning, a middle, and an end, whether they are not all the same either because of expansion of the city, its people, its rubbish, its boundaries, or because every city is like every other city in its endless monotony. The continuity among cities is stressed, and makes individual cities as indistinguishable from each other (because all are one) as they are from their own rubbish, monotony, inhabitants, surroundings, or outskirts.