I've been wanting to add one of the "expecting a baby" tickers for a while, but couldn't find them. Then, when I did, I found the ones for older children, too, and couldn't resist!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Kids' Tickers!
I've been wanting to add one of the "expecting a baby" tickers for a while, but couldn't find them. Then, when I did, I found the ones for older children, too, and couldn't resist!
Monday, May 14, 2007
A Rare Pro-life Post: Two Poems, a Lamentation, and a Conclusion
the mother
by Gwendolyn Brooks
Abortions will not let you forget.
You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers who never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.
I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches, and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.
Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.
This is one of two poems that I read as an undergraduate that broach the subject of abortion--both of which I find haunting. The second is written by a male poet, Richard Katrovas, a former teacher of mine, who nevertheless attempts in some way to account for the feelings of the woman who has been betrayed by her former lover (or who feels betrayed; it is not quite clear to me whether he has betrayed her or if she feels betrayed because she is estranged from him and yet pregnant--betrayed by her own body, if you will). In this case, the reader's sympathy falls squarely with the male character in this contemporary "dithyramb"; perhaps this is because he (in spite of the refrain, "Yippi-yi-yay, another roll in the hay!") is portrayed less stereotypically than the woman, who fears loss of control and the relegation of her body to the status of mere "meat."
from "Eat What You Kill" by Richard Katrovas
Male Chorus Leader:
Vaguely repentant, even ashamed, I lunged
from one false enthrallment to another,
my affection like a blight of locusts,
though more voracious, quiet, and complete.
Yet when she starved herself to kill the child,
then reported the deed as liberation,
I did not know who or what was free of what
or whom, and cried alone in voiceless dread.
A page or two later, the Male Chorus intones, in an echo of Dionysus's "rescue" by Zeus from the pride of his mother, who wanted to see the true divine face of Zeus:
And the brutal father tore half-formed flesh
from the new charred corpse of its foolish mother,
then stashed the thing inside.
(As, of course, the Male Chorus Leader could not choose to do.) This poem is poignant, but perhaps doomed to obscurity because of its unpopular representation of male opinion in the matter. (I would be naive if I suggested that I did not know that there are many cases in which male opinion in the matter facilitates--even forces--rather than prevents abortion. . . I have known of women whose partners or husbands tried to coerce them into committing the act, and I have also read my Adrienne Rich.) The poet in question would have been fully aware of the danger of representing male opinion as more valuable than female opinion in the matter, and yet he has done so. He further would have known of the danger of representing a female perspective on the subject, yet this he has done as well. . .
Female Chorus Leader:
I am innocent, yet wholly culpable,
and offer no apology or excuse
for self-denial that siphoned another life.
It was my legal right to purge myself.
The termination was not violent,
was not achieved by artificial means.
The thing began as passionate affection;
an assumption of good faith marshaled it
from that crowded zone of nothingness and bliss.
But tenderness recalled became a hell,
and I, alone yet not alone, contained
the literal essence of a bloody lie.
. . . . .
I feel sympathy for mothers who have actually experienced abortion, though I harbor no such emotions (or kind regard) for those individuals in any kind of authority--even the authority of a role model--who promote the process as necessary. I don't believe that anyone (myself included) who has not been in the situation and made and carried out the decision to abort a child can truly understand the mindset of the mother who has taken this action toward her child, any more than one can understand the thoughts of an individual who has just committed suicide. Either action represents a psychological revolt against the innate will to survive. I like the line in Gwendolyn Brooks' poem, "even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate." I can only imagine with difficulty the feelings of desperation that must accompany such an act--though I do not doubt that other feelings may be present also, and that other feelings must for some be present for the individual to cope with such an act. What saddens me, however, is the way that the act is seen as a legitimate "way out" of a difficult situation, and the way that even intelligent, rational women overlook the fact that while this action--the act of carrying and bearing a child, or the act of aborting that same child--impacts their bodies, it impacts the body of someone else as well. But I stand by my thought, above, that to commit the act is the very essence of despair--it is the failure to see hope. And in Catholic thought at least, despair--the failure to see hope--is a denial of God.
I also stand by my belief that where there is life, there is hope. Hence, I must promote life.
by Gwendolyn Brooks
Abortions will not let you forget.
You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers who never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.
I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches, and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.
Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.
This is one of two poems that I read as an undergraduate that broach the subject of abortion--both of which I find haunting. The second is written by a male poet, Richard Katrovas, a former teacher of mine, who nevertheless attempts in some way to account for the feelings of the woman who has been betrayed by her former lover (or who feels betrayed; it is not quite clear to me whether he has betrayed her or if she feels betrayed because she is estranged from him and yet pregnant--betrayed by her own body, if you will). In this case, the reader's sympathy falls squarely with the male character in this contemporary "dithyramb"; perhaps this is because he (in spite of the refrain, "Yippi-yi-yay, another roll in the hay!") is portrayed less stereotypically than the woman, who fears loss of control and the relegation of her body to the status of mere "meat."
from "Eat What You Kill" by Richard Katrovas
Male Chorus Leader:
Vaguely repentant, even ashamed, I lunged
from one false enthrallment to another,
my affection like a blight of locusts,
though more voracious, quiet, and complete.
Yet when she starved herself to kill the child,
then reported the deed as liberation,
I did not know who or what was free of what
or whom, and cried alone in voiceless dread.
A page or two later, the Male Chorus intones, in an echo of Dionysus's "rescue" by Zeus from the pride of his mother, who wanted to see the true divine face of Zeus:
And the brutal father tore half-formed flesh
from the new charred corpse of its foolish mother,
then stashed the thing inside.
(As, of course, the Male Chorus Leader could not choose to do.) This poem is poignant, but perhaps doomed to obscurity because of its unpopular representation of male opinion in the matter. (I would be naive if I suggested that I did not know that there are many cases in which male opinion in the matter facilitates--even forces--rather than prevents abortion. . . I have known of women whose partners or husbands tried to coerce them into committing the act, and I have also read my Adrienne Rich.) The poet in question would have been fully aware of the danger of representing male opinion as more valuable than female opinion in the matter, and yet he has done so. He further would have known of the danger of representing a female perspective on the subject, yet this he has done as well. . .
Female Chorus Leader:
I am innocent, yet wholly culpable,
and offer no apology or excuse
for self-denial that siphoned another life.
It was my legal right to purge myself.
The termination was not violent,
was not achieved by artificial means.
The thing began as passionate affection;
an assumption of good faith marshaled it
from that crowded zone of nothingness and bliss.
But tenderness recalled became a hell,
and I, alone yet not alone, contained
the literal essence of a bloody lie.
. . . . .
I feel sympathy for mothers who have actually experienced abortion, though I harbor no such emotions (or kind regard) for those individuals in any kind of authority--even the authority of a role model--who promote the process as necessary. I don't believe that anyone (myself included) who has not been in the situation and made and carried out the decision to abort a child can truly understand the mindset of the mother who has taken this action toward her child, any more than one can understand the thoughts of an individual who has just committed suicide. Either action represents a psychological revolt against the innate will to survive. I like the line in Gwendolyn Brooks' poem, "even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate." I can only imagine with difficulty the feelings of desperation that must accompany such an act--though I do not doubt that other feelings may be present also, and that other feelings must for some be present for the individual to cope with such an act. What saddens me, however, is the way that the act is seen as a legitimate "way out" of a difficult situation, and the way that even intelligent, rational women overlook the fact that while this action--the act of carrying and bearing a child, or the act of aborting that same child--impacts their bodies, it impacts the body of someone else as well. But I stand by my thought, above, that to commit the act is the very essence of despair--it is the failure to see hope. And in Catholic thought at least, despair--the failure to see hope--is a denial of God.
I also stand by my belief that where there is life, there is hope. Hence, I must promote life.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Mother's Day
Well, today is Mother's Day. For me, it ranks right up there with Valentines Day and all other slightly artificial holidays that are intended to boost the sales of cards, flowers, and candy and induce people to eat at restaurants. It's nice to be appreciated, but I feel appreciated anyway, and when I say I don't need a present, I really mean it. Now, maybe when my kids are grown & have good jobs and can buy me a bigger, better iPod. . . Just kidding! ;)
Another thing about these artificial holidays is that they make everyone involved feel compelled to do "something special"--whatever that something special might be, and we become (collectively) slightly disappointed, disgruntled, or even angry when those things don't quite work out the way we plan, or if we accidently wait until the last minute to do what we had planned--like buy the cards or overpriced flowers, for example.
One thing I've realized is that Mother's Day is really about the children. At least, while they're young. It's about making them feel good about the thing they've done or purchased or whatever, and then we get to feel good about having them feel good about doing something for us--and everything's great. Except when it doesn't work out that way. So keep that in mind, those of you with husbands who want everything to be perfect and children who are too young, yet, to do anything. . . It gets more complex as they get older. But in the end, having a nice day is what you make it.
Happy Mother's Day to all mothers!!
Another thing about these artificial holidays is that they make everyone involved feel compelled to do "something special"--whatever that something special might be, and we become (collectively) slightly disappointed, disgruntled, or even angry when those things don't quite work out the way we plan, or if we accidently wait until the last minute to do what we had planned--like buy the cards or overpriced flowers, for example.
One thing I've realized is that Mother's Day is really about the children. At least, while they're young. It's about making them feel good about the thing they've done or purchased or whatever, and then we get to feel good about having them feel good about doing something for us--and everything's great. Except when it doesn't work out that way. So keep that in mind, those of you with husbands who want everything to be perfect and children who are too young, yet, to do anything. . . It gets more complex as they get older. But in the end, having a nice day is what you make it.
Happy Mother's Day to all mothers!!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
10th Anniversary!!
Yup, I've been married 10 years. It's kind of an amazing thing to be so young and to have been married 10 years--fully 1/3 of my life. What a wonderful thing!
Well, a few nights ago in the midst of feeling pretty awful, I came up with my ideal anniversary treat--a day & night at one of those spa hotels (of course, I couldn't afford any such thing, even if there were one around here), but since this weekend is college graduation, high school prom, and Mother's Day weekend, I didn't even think we'd be able to see the inside of a restaurant.
The day started mundanely enough. . . We packed for the upcoming move for hours on end--until our son went to my mother's to play and we reached the "no idea what to do next" stage. I did have a brainstorm later in the day--our favorite Chinese food restaurant would be empty!! (Chinese food is not typically considered "elegant" fare. . . though there are exceptions.) So my mom stayed with the kids (a rare treat!!) and we had Chinese food and brought some back for her. Then we had a weird picking-up-the-sister, not-picking-up-the-sister thing, but in the meantime, found ourselves at a gallery-wine bar-coffee shop for dessert. It was wonderful!! I haven't been anywhere like that in so long!! We had some very delicious and decadent coffees and desserts (which I will regret for the rest of the night--bleh), and finally came home after a very, very nice evening.
It doesn't take much to please me; I don't mind not having a big date night for the anniversary. Most years, we have had our son with us. But I must say that this was a very nice night--probably one of our nicest anniversary celebrations yet. Here's to many, many more!
Well, a few nights ago in the midst of feeling pretty awful, I came up with my ideal anniversary treat--a day & night at one of those spa hotels (of course, I couldn't afford any such thing, even if there were one around here), but since this weekend is college graduation, high school prom, and Mother's Day weekend, I didn't even think we'd be able to see the inside of a restaurant.
The day started mundanely enough. . . We packed for the upcoming move for hours on end--until our son went to my mother's to play and we reached the "no idea what to do next" stage. I did have a brainstorm later in the day--our favorite Chinese food restaurant would be empty!! (Chinese food is not typically considered "elegant" fare. . . though there are exceptions.) So my mom stayed with the kids (a rare treat!!) and we had Chinese food and brought some back for her. Then we had a weird picking-up-the-sister, not-picking-up-the-sister thing, but in the meantime, found ourselves at a gallery-wine bar-coffee shop for dessert. It was wonderful!! I haven't been anywhere like that in so long!! We had some very delicious and decadent coffees and desserts (which I will regret for the rest of the night--bleh), and finally came home after a very, very nice evening.
It doesn't take much to please me; I don't mind not having a big date night for the anniversary. Most years, we have had our son with us. But I must say that this was a very nice night--probably one of our nicest anniversary celebrations yet. Here's to many, many more!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Hormones, hormones
I've had a pretty miserable few days. I'm hoping that things will improve from here. But basically, on top of the usual day-to-day stresses, and on top of the extraordinary teaching assignment stress, and the stress of knowing that I've got an upcoming move, and normal pregnancy worries (or slightly obsessive pregnancy worries), my hormones are doing horrible, horrible things to me. I recognize that hormones are to blame because at any given point during the day, I can feel like I'm on the verge of tears. And the interesting thing about these hormonal emotional bouts is that they leave me absolutely exhausted. And for some inexplicable reason, I don't particularly want to eat during the day. Not that I'm feeling too sick to eat--I just don't want to. I want a meal when I wake up, but I usually have to force myself to eat what's available because I just don't want to eat what's here, and then I want a meal in the evening, but usually not until I'm feeling weak and a little sick. Sometimes those meals are punctuated by hands-full of SAM'S Choice trail mix. So the hormones leave me exhausted, and my energy level is weird anyway because of my aversion to, um, meals. But if I can get through tomorrow without crying, I'll be happy. At least I know that if my body were not doing baby-making stuff, the hormones would not be tormenting me so. So I guess I can take comfort in that!
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Go Ahead. Laugh. I don't care.
You may recognize these lines as the ones Mowgli utters in the Disney version of Jungle Book when he finds himself lost among the vultures. That's about how I feel right now. The whole "academic motherhood optimism" seems ill-placed. I know that I can do it, but I do need some cooperation from others, and it's not happening.
I was assigned to teach freshman comp. No problems there. I long ago gave up playing the "I deserve to teach lit more than (insert name or category of grad student)" game. I know I have seniority; I don't need it proven to me. It's a silly game and I'm not going to play it. If I ask for freshman comp, guess what? I get freshman comp. No surprises. And I've taught it a bunch, so the prep is easier--as long as I don't change textbooks every semester. But then, I became pregnant. Aha! The plot thickens.
So it seems that the powers-that-be declare that freshman comp (at this university, anyway) can not ever be taught in a way that resembles a distance course, even for a limited amount of time while the instructor is delivering and caring for a newborn. First mistake--asking permission. But the powers-that-be include the dissertation director, so I would have been found out eventually. At least, I think he would have noticed. And he offered helpful solutions--teach advanced comp, which is taught as a hybrid course (in-class and online). I would only have had to report one day a week. However, they who give the assignments did not comply--or even answer his request, and I believe he has been too busy to follow-up, or has had nothing to report. Meanwhile, I could not submit a request for a specific days/time because the times/days for advanced comp are very different from the times/days for freshman comp, so if I gave preferences for one course, they would be irrelevant to the other course, should I be switched. Of course, when I received my schedule, it is the worst possible schedule in addition to the course I am not allowed to teach.
So I am supposed to teach freshman comp from 3-3:50 MWF. First, I can't afford 3-day child care. I can't really afford child care at all, especially when I'd rather have my child with me. But a 2-year-old would at least be able to play, unlike a younger baby (but I'm being told that because she doesn't turn 2 before Sept. 1, she would be in the 18-24 month class, which is a whole different frustration!). Second, part-time child care (and I refuse to do full-time, even if I could afford it!) ends at 2:30. Third, there's that other child of mine who gets off of school in the 3-3:50 window. And then there's that whole taking off the last month of the semester thing. Even if I deliver on time or late, I would need an extraordinary number of substitutes to cover 12 classes!!
In past regimes, the grad student with the schedule conflict would inform the professor who makes the schedules. If the concern was pressing, it was remedied; if not, the grad student had to cope with the difficulty of life for a semester and, basically, get over it. But whining has become increasingly tolerated, and everyone thinks his/her situation is more important than everyone else's. There used to be an acknowledgment, among grad students and faculty, that some people's scheduling needs were more pressing than others. First, class schedules were considered for those who were still taking courses. Second, families or those who had long commutes. Other concerns--like whims, not wanting to work 3 days, or that "other" job that we're not supposed to have--were considered afterwards, if at all. And generally, if one wanted consideration for family concerns, etc., one had to be up front with them early in the request process. I rarely had 8 A.M. sections, for example, because I had to drop my son off in the mornings. The responsible faculty member also took responsibility for rearranging assignments as necessary. Now, we are left to seek the mercy of our peers, which works in some cases, but not all. After all, who really wants a 3-day a week freshman comp? When I first started, we didn't have a choice--pretty much everyone taught freshman comp. And while there was a little grumbling about unfair favoritism, everyone knew that you paid your composition dues before teaching lit. Not so now. And it complicates matters.
I have had a babysitting offer, and one offer to exchange an unknown day/time of freshman comp for my section, but neither offer, while appreciated, takes care of the postpartum dilemma.
Had a mini-breakdown last night. Let's call it hormones. I had two stressful days of making phonecalls and sending emails, finished a nursing top and made a nursing nightgown--neither of which came out as I expected. Found out that even though student loans are being paid, the Department of Education felt the need to confiscate the tax return for the second consecutive year. I'm worried about the baby because no measurements were taken last appointment and I haven't gained any weight (unusual for me). So I went to bed, I cried, then I nearly threw up because my nose was clogged. I cried because I don't want to buy new baby clothes if it's a boy. I cried because I sound like a really strong, self-assured person and all of my plans (which worked for the first 2 babies) are failing. And I cried because there are legions of people (faculty included) who would kill for the opportunity to gloat over a failure to make academic motherhood work.
I had a teacher in high school who used to say that we frequently "set ourselves up for disappointment." I suppose she might apply this phrase to me. I think the idea is that if you don't aim high, if you don't reach for impossible ideals, you will not fall so hard when, in fact, you do fall, as is inevitable. I think I thought her advice was sensible and pragmatic at the time. It seems defeatist to me now. I can't actually see this teacher saying, "Why believe in anything if you'll just be disappointed?" Perhaps she didn't realize the implications of her words. But I remembered her words yesterday.
I was assigned to teach freshman comp. No problems there. I long ago gave up playing the "I deserve to teach lit more than (insert name or category of grad student)" game. I know I have seniority; I don't need it proven to me. It's a silly game and I'm not going to play it. If I ask for freshman comp, guess what? I get freshman comp. No surprises. And I've taught it a bunch, so the prep is easier--as long as I don't change textbooks every semester. But then, I became pregnant. Aha! The plot thickens.
So it seems that the powers-that-be declare that freshman comp (at this university, anyway) can not ever be taught in a way that resembles a distance course, even for a limited amount of time while the instructor is delivering and caring for a newborn. First mistake--asking permission. But the powers-that-be include the dissertation director, so I would have been found out eventually. At least, I think he would have noticed. And he offered helpful solutions--teach advanced comp, which is taught as a hybrid course (in-class and online). I would only have had to report one day a week. However, they who give the assignments did not comply--or even answer his request, and I believe he has been too busy to follow-up, or has had nothing to report. Meanwhile, I could not submit a request for a specific days/time because the times/days for advanced comp are very different from the times/days for freshman comp, so if I gave preferences for one course, they would be irrelevant to the other course, should I be switched. Of course, when I received my schedule, it is the worst possible schedule in addition to the course I am not allowed to teach.
So I am supposed to teach freshman comp from 3-3:50 MWF. First, I can't afford 3-day child care. I can't really afford child care at all, especially when I'd rather have my child with me. But a 2-year-old would at least be able to play, unlike a younger baby (but I'm being told that because she doesn't turn 2 before Sept. 1, she would be in the 18-24 month class, which is a whole different frustration!). Second, part-time child care (and I refuse to do full-time, even if I could afford it!) ends at 2:30. Third, there's that other child of mine who gets off of school in the 3-3:50 window. And then there's that whole taking off the last month of the semester thing. Even if I deliver on time or late, I would need an extraordinary number of substitutes to cover 12 classes!!
In past regimes, the grad student with the schedule conflict would inform the professor who makes the schedules. If the concern was pressing, it was remedied; if not, the grad student had to cope with the difficulty of life for a semester and, basically, get over it. But whining has become increasingly tolerated, and everyone thinks his/her situation is more important than everyone else's. There used to be an acknowledgment, among grad students and faculty, that some people's scheduling needs were more pressing than others. First, class schedules were considered for those who were still taking courses. Second, families or those who had long commutes. Other concerns--like whims, not wanting to work 3 days, or that "other" job that we're not supposed to have--were considered afterwards, if at all. And generally, if one wanted consideration for family concerns, etc., one had to be up front with them early in the request process. I rarely had 8 A.M. sections, for example, because I had to drop my son off in the mornings. The responsible faculty member also took responsibility for rearranging assignments as necessary. Now, we are left to seek the mercy of our peers, which works in some cases, but not all. After all, who really wants a 3-day a week freshman comp? When I first started, we didn't have a choice--pretty much everyone taught freshman comp. And while there was a little grumbling about unfair favoritism, everyone knew that you paid your composition dues before teaching lit. Not so now. And it complicates matters.
I have had a babysitting offer, and one offer to exchange an unknown day/time of freshman comp for my section, but neither offer, while appreciated, takes care of the postpartum dilemma.
Had a mini-breakdown last night. Let's call it hormones. I had two stressful days of making phonecalls and sending emails, finished a nursing top and made a nursing nightgown--neither of which came out as I expected. Found out that even though student loans are being paid, the Department of Education felt the need to confiscate the tax return for the second consecutive year. I'm worried about the baby because no measurements were taken last appointment and I haven't gained any weight (unusual for me). So I went to bed, I cried, then I nearly threw up because my nose was clogged. I cried because I don't want to buy new baby clothes if it's a boy. I cried because I sound like a really strong, self-assured person and all of my plans (which worked for the first 2 babies) are failing. And I cried because there are legions of people (faculty included) who would kill for the opportunity to gloat over a failure to make academic motherhood work.
I had a teacher in high school who used to say that we frequently "set ourselves up for disappointment." I suppose she might apply this phrase to me. I think the idea is that if you don't aim high, if you don't reach for impossible ideals, you will not fall so hard when, in fact, you do fall, as is inevitable. I think I thought her advice was sensible and pragmatic at the time. It seems defeatist to me now. I can't actually see this teacher saying, "Why believe in anything if you'll just be disappointed?" Perhaps she didn't realize the implications of her words. But I remembered her words yesterday.
Mother's Day Givaways!
Check these out! (But if you win the iPod, you have to give it to me!--Just kidding!)
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Veggie Proto-Eucharistic Tales
That title didn't get you, did it? ;)
So recently, the baby daughter has been interested in television--too interested in television, perhaps, except that her interest is really limited to music. She loves Sesame Street's musical skits--we don't actually watch the shows, as I have serious problems with the "new, improved" Sesame Street for the young generations. Instead, I have classic Sesame Street dvds (of the first few seasons) with "classic cuts"--that is, just the cool musical parts everyone loves. We also have Sesame Street videos from when my son was younger, before every dvd & video had to be Elmo-themed. Now we have the tyranny of Elmo!!
But I'm talking about Veggie Tales. When my son was younger, we collected the Veggie Tales videos. We first got hooked on the "Silly Songs," and expanded from there. We stopped about the time of "King George and the Ducky." For any who aren't familiar with Veggie Tales, they are animated vegetables who perform various moral tales, some biblical stories, all Bible-based. They are nondenominational Christian vegetables (though the creators chose to include only Old Testament stories, presumably to leave them open for all Judeo-Christian vieweres, though the Bible verse at the end is usually New Testament). The production value is good--rare for Christian children's productions--and the music is particularly stimulating. The silly songs are really the best--they provide a brief intermission in the tape, which usually included 2 episodes (I suspect the dvds are structured differently, but as the creators no longer have control, I refuse to upgrade to the dvds.)
There have always been some problems with the Veggie Tales versions of Bible stories--a misinterpretation of the stories, or the show's "fun" element rather took away from the story or promoted well, gluttony in the case I'm thinking of. In another case, there was a watering down of "mature themes" that wasn't appropriate for children's tapes, even in their watered-down form. In the case of 'King George and the Ducky," King George (read David) covets the *ahem* rubber ducky of one of his soldiers, and sends the soldier--a child vegetable character--to the front lines to be disposed of. The soldier does not die, but instead contracts a pie-induced version of shell-shock. To me, this was pretty much the last straw. They clearly went off the deep end in too many ways. Perhaps this was the beginning of their legal troubles. The earlier tales are much better.
Even among the "good" ones, though, I had some problems. Case in point (and the real subject of this post) is "Josh and the Big Wall." I remember singing songs in Protestant Sunday School about Joshua and the battle of Jericho. (I always liked the songs.) Even before becoming Catholic--in fact, dating back to my earliest introduction to Veggie Tales (through an Evangelical Protestant friend of my mom's), I had issues with this one. . . You see, the Veggies are reenacting the Isrealites' flight from Egypt. Moses has just died, and they are able to enter the Promised Land. The creators (of the show) took the phrase "a land flowing with milk & honey" and ran with it. The Isrealite Veggies are singing about all of the decadent things they will eat in the Promised Land--tacos, pintos 'n cheese, waffles; when they get to the city, slushies abound, and are the means of attack on the Isrealites by the people of Jericho.
When we reached a temporary Jim Henson saturation point the other day, I brought out the Silly Song sing-alongs, one of which includes the "Promised Land" song from "Josh and the Big Wall." We haven't really watched Veggie Tales since I became Catholic & we all started attending Mass regularly--except during my son's First Reconciliation "retreat" (or whatever), which featured "God Wants Me to Forgive Them?", slightly modified for church consumption. (It didn't really fit.) So my husband and I were groaning over the "Promised Land" song over the weekend, and it occurred to me that from a Catholic perspective, the following line is particularly grievous:
For years, we've eaten nothing but manna,
A dish that is filling, but bland...
So they put all that behind them in order to pig out in the Promised Land.
Well, the first thing I noticed as a convert, or as one who desired the Eucharist and was moving toward a conversion, were the Eucharistic and Proto-Eucharistic references throughout the Bible--Old Testament and New Testament--which go way beyond the account of the Last Supper. Manna, as God-given bread, is a striking example, and prepared for the Bread of Life: Christ's gift of Himself in the Eucharist. So beyond the fact that the video portrays a serious lack of gratitude for the fact that God has sustained the Isrealites through 40 years in the desert, there is the further disparagement of the heavenly bread that is a promise of the Gift of Christ (in) and the Eucharist.
Now, I am not going to go so far as to say that this was intentional (though if you look closely, the manna does look a bit like hosts). But it is a grave oversight on a couple of levels. Even non-Catholics should have a problem with the fact that the source of the humor is lack of gratitude and greed. Not exactly the values we want to promote. Some might take offense because of the caricature of the Isrealites. I think this is mostly innocent. And it will certainly not stop me from watching Veggie Tales--at least the good ones. But it is a caution to realize that non-denominational, even in the best possible sense, does not necessarily mean Catholic-sensitive. I mean, really--the Eucharist? Bland??
So recently, the baby daughter has been interested in television--too interested in television, perhaps, except that her interest is really limited to music. She loves Sesame Street's musical skits--we don't actually watch the shows, as I have serious problems with the "new, improved" Sesame Street for the young generations. Instead, I have classic Sesame Street dvds (of the first few seasons) with "classic cuts"--that is, just the cool musical parts everyone loves. We also have Sesame Street videos from when my son was younger, before every dvd & video had to be Elmo-themed. Now we have the tyranny of Elmo!!
But I'm talking about Veggie Tales. When my son was younger, we collected the Veggie Tales videos. We first got hooked on the "Silly Songs," and expanded from there. We stopped about the time of "King George and the Ducky." For any who aren't familiar with Veggie Tales, they are animated vegetables who perform various moral tales, some biblical stories, all Bible-based. They are nondenominational Christian vegetables (though the creators chose to include only Old Testament stories, presumably to leave them open for all Judeo-Christian vieweres, though the Bible verse at the end is usually New Testament). The production value is good--rare for Christian children's productions--and the music is particularly stimulating. The silly songs are really the best--they provide a brief intermission in the tape, which usually included 2 episodes (I suspect the dvds are structured differently, but as the creators no longer have control, I refuse to upgrade to the dvds.)
There have always been some problems with the Veggie Tales versions of Bible stories--a misinterpretation of the stories, or the show's "fun" element rather took away from the story or promoted well, gluttony in the case I'm thinking of. In another case, there was a watering down of "mature themes" that wasn't appropriate for children's tapes, even in their watered-down form. In the case of 'King George and the Ducky," King George (read David) covets the *ahem* rubber ducky of one of his soldiers, and sends the soldier--a child vegetable character--to the front lines to be disposed of. The soldier does not die, but instead contracts a pie-induced version of shell-shock. To me, this was pretty much the last straw. They clearly went off the deep end in too many ways. Perhaps this was the beginning of their legal troubles. The earlier tales are much better.
Even among the "good" ones, though, I had some problems. Case in point (and the real subject of this post) is "Josh and the Big Wall." I remember singing songs in Protestant Sunday School about Joshua and the battle of Jericho. (I always liked the songs.) Even before becoming Catholic--in fact, dating back to my earliest introduction to Veggie Tales (through an Evangelical Protestant friend of my mom's), I had issues with this one. . . You see, the Veggies are reenacting the Isrealites' flight from Egypt. Moses has just died, and they are able to enter the Promised Land. The creators (of the show) took the phrase "a land flowing with milk & honey" and ran with it. The Isrealite Veggies are singing about all of the decadent things they will eat in the Promised Land--tacos, pintos 'n cheese, waffles; when they get to the city, slushies abound, and are the means of attack on the Isrealites by the people of Jericho.
When we reached a temporary Jim Henson saturation point the other day, I brought out the Silly Song sing-alongs, one of which includes the "Promised Land" song from "Josh and the Big Wall." We haven't really watched Veggie Tales since I became Catholic & we all started attending Mass regularly--except during my son's First Reconciliation "retreat" (or whatever), which featured "God Wants Me to Forgive Them?", slightly modified for church consumption. (It didn't really fit.) So my husband and I were groaning over the "Promised Land" song over the weekend, and it occurred to me that from a Catholic perspective, the following line is particularly grievous:
For years, we've eaten nothing but manna,
A dish that is filling, but bland...
So they put all that behind them in order to pig out in the Promised Land.
Well, the first thing I noticed as a convert, or as one who desired the Eucharist and was moving toward a conversion, were the Eucharistic and Proto-Eucharistic references throughout the Bible--Old Testament and New Testament--which go way beyond the account of the Last Supper. Manna, as God-given bread, is a striking example, and prepared for the Bread of Life: Christ's gift of Himself in the Eucharist. So beyond the fact that the video portrays a serious lack of gratitude for the fact that God has sustained the Isrealites through 40 years in the desert, there is the further disparagement of the heavenly bread that is a promise of the Gift of Christ (in) and the Eucharist.
Now, I am not going to go so far as to say that this was intentional (though if you look closely, the manna does look a bit like hosts). But it is a grave oversight on a couple of levels. Even non-Catholics should have a problem with the fact that the source of the humor is lack of gratitude and greed. Not exactly the values we want to promote. Some might take offense because of the caricature of the Isrealites. I think this is mostly innocent. And it will certainly not stop me from watching Veggie Tales--at least the good ones. But it is a caution to realize that non-denominational, even in the best possible sense, does not necessarily mean Catholic-sensitive. I mean, really--the Eucharist? Bland??
Monday, May 7, 2007
What Kind of Catholic Am I?
O.K., so this isn't too surprising. Actually, it may be surprising to some who are more conservative and traditionalist than I am. But come on. . . You answer a couple of questions about liking Gregorian Chant and suddenly they're assuming that you challenge Vatican II? Clearly, the person who wrote this quiz has been reading too many blogs! ;)
| You scored as Traditional Catholic. You look at the great piety and holiness of the Church before the Second Vatican Council and the decay of belief and practice since then, and see that much of the decline is due to failed reforms based on the "Spirit of the Council". You regret the loss of vast numbers of Religious and Ordained clergy and the widely diverging celebrations of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which often don't even seem to be Catholic anymore. You are helping to rebuild this past culture in one of the many new Traditional Latin Mass communities or attend Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. You seek refuge from the world of pornography, recreational drugs, violence, and materialism. You are an articulate, confident, committed, and intelligent Catholic. But do you support legitimate reform of the Church, and are you willing to submit to the directives of the Second Vatican Council? Will you cooperate responsibly with others who are not part of the Traditional community? http://saint-louis.blogspot.com - Rome of the West
What is your style of American Catholicism? created with QuizFarm.com |
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Momma & Baby "Stuff"
The great thing about having recently had a baby is that I have most of the baby essentials pretty much covered (especially if this next one is a girl!) Now, there are things that will have to be replaced--I will need a stroller that can accommodate two babies, for example! And I will probably want a new carseat, since the one I have only holds a baby up to 20 lbs or so and is a bit smaller than some of the current models. I will want one of the carrier varieties that is a bit larger so that I don't have to worry about another carseat until the baby is actually a year old. Hopefully, big sister will be ready for a smaller, booster-style by then, and we won't have to attach big brother to the luggage rack! So to make up for the fact that I have most of the basics covered, there are a number of things that I found that I would have loved to have with the last one, that I will probably be buying in increments while I wait for number 3! So I'm listing these so that I won't forget, and so that other parents can see the cool stuff that is out there to make our lives easier! I confess--I love baby gadgets!
Baby Shopping List
Duo stroller
Infant seat that holds up to 30 lbs
Crib futon (for the toddler bed, actually)
Nurse-N-Glow Lighted Nursing Pillow -or- The Nursing Nest (anyone have a favorite?)
Electronic Nasal Aspirator!!!
And one of those thermometers that takes a reading off of the forehead.
Actually, that's the list right now. I will also be buying more babyproofing things for the apartment, since the toddler will be able to roam pretty freely. For example:
Baby gates for either side of the walk-through kitchen
Door knob protectors (thinking of Anastasia's post)
Knob covers for the stove (if the knobs are on the front)
Power strip safety covers
And of course, I have my own list:
Momma Shopping List
Nursing Patterns: dress pattern, nursing twinset pattern
Sling Pattern
All manner of Earth Mama Angel Baby Products!
And look at this cool alternative to a hospital gown! (I won't buy this one--kinda frivolous)
I have already bought a very cute batik print to make the sling--it's creamy with light hints of greeny-blues, and has a purplish vine-pattern on it. I'm excited about it! I also bought a pattern to make a cute purse that will coordinate, but it has enough pockets & flaps and compartments to accommodate diapers & wipes--just a small to-go bag. There are other baby carrier patterns that interest me, too. Here are a couple with directions online:
Beth's Man Tai (silly name)
Mae Mei Tai
And here's an article about someone who's had almost as much trouble with baby carriers as I have! Clearly, the second trimester is here and I'm getting into baby-mode. Now if only I didn't have to grade, write, and prepare for a class that starts May 29th. Oh! And move! Anyone got a truck? ;)
Baby Shopping List
Duo stroller
Infant seat that holds up to 30 lbs
Crib futon (for the toddler bed, actually)
Nurse-N-Glow Lighted Nursing Pillow -or- The Nursing Nest (anyone have a favorite?)
Electronic Nasal Aspirator!!!
And one of those thermometers that takes a reading off of the forehead.
Actually, that's the list right now. I will also be buying more babyproofing things for the apartment, since the toddler will be able to roam pretty freely. For example:
Baby gates for either side of the walk-through kitchen
Door knob protectors (thinking of Anastasia's post)
Knob covers for the stove (if the knobs are on the front)
Power strip safety covers
And of course, I have my own list:
Momma Shopping List
Nursing Patterns: dress pattern, nursing twinset pattern
Sling Pattern
All manner of Earth Mama Angel Baby Products!
And look at this cool alternative to a hospital gown! (I won't buy this one--kinda frivolous)
I have already bought a very cute batik print to make the sling--it's creamy with light hints of greeny-blues, and has a purplish vine-pattern on it. I'm excited about it! I also bought a pattern to make a cute purse that will coordinate, but it has enough pockets & flaps and compartments to accommodate diapers & wipes--just a small to-go bag. There are other baby carrier patterns that interest me, too. Here are a couple with directions online:
Beth's Man Tai (silly name)
Mae Mei Tai
And here's an article about someone who's had almost as much trouble with baby carriers as I have! Clearly, the second trimester is here and I'm getting into baby-mode. Now if only I didn't have to grade, write, and prepare for a class that starts May 29th. Oh! And move! Anyone got a truck? ;)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Words: Anatomical Euphemisms Considered
As a mother of a little girl, I am more interested in this question that I was in the case of my son. You see, the naming of anatomy is not nearly as sensitive an issue with males as it seems to be with females. I have heard this debate from many different angles--from Irigaray to the sex-positive internet message boards I belonged to in a former life. I am less acquainted with it from the child-rearing book perspective, as I haven't ever really delved into that genre. As the big sister of 5 siblings, I never saw much need for parenting self-help books and the like. I just wing it! But let's face it, there is a wide-ranging debate over what to call female genitalia, and it is not limited to babies and children. My personal feeling is that medical terms in the mouths of children sound ugly and inappropriate--I mean, would you want your son or daughter talking about his or her anus? I doubt it. So then why is "penis" more appropriate? I am reminded of that rather awful film starring the governor of California, Kindergarten Cop, in which the son of a gynecologist informs Arnold that "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina." The humor in this scene was in the gross impropriety of both timing of the declaration and the sound of the terms "from the mouths of babes," as it were.
Since I am really thinking about female anatomy, I will say that I have particular problems with the term "vagina." Not with the term "vaginal," but with the term "vagina." I take issues with the Vagina Monologues, for example, because it uses the term "vagina" to apply not just to what we actually recognize as the vagina, but also the surrounding area, so to speak. Irigaray's "two lips" (terminology that I rather like from a theoretical perspective, though it's not quite a practical term to teach a child) are included, as well as what I might as well, being pregnant, refer to as the "birth canal"--and I just won't go beyond that description. More accurately, the part of the anatomy that a young child would actually see and feel--and thus, of which the child would be aware any real sense, as the uses for these parts are quite specific and limited compared to those of a feminist theorist, for example--is called, in medical terms, the "vulva" rather than the "vagina." So for reasons of accuracy in addition to plain issues of delicacy of language, I will not teach my daughter the term "vagina" until we get to "that" talk (blissfully years and years in the future--for the son, not so distant. . .). I do not particularly prefer "vulva." The word has its instinctive appeal as a word--it has a round, full quality about it that actually makes a fitting signifier for the part signified (not meaning to shock any sensibilities, and not meaning to offend Saussure or Derrida or any of their devotees). But it does not seem any more appealing to say to a child, "Okay, let me wash your vulva now!" No, that's not going to happen.
On the aforementioned sex-happy somewhat feminist (in some sense of the word) discussion board, I remember (from years ago now) a discussion in which certain women felt somehow "cheated" by their mothers' and perhaps grandmothers' reluctance to call certain parts what they were. What they mentioned in particular was the substitution of bodily function words for the parts from which the fluids were excreted. I admit to allowing this with my son. It's not something I cultivated, it just happened naturally. Somehow, though, I think my husband and I felt the need, even in the naming of these parts (or maybe especially?), to distinguish between the genders. I will add that the term that my family used for female genitalia (in the bathtub setting) is not one I could spell. It's a little embarrassing for me to pronounce, even to myself, because I know that it is not an actual word in English. I say "in English" because I suspect that the word was a corruption of some French baby-talk or something, as my grandmother grew up speaking French (in "the country" in Louisiana, as we called it, quite a bit outside of Lafayette). So clearly that word is out.
What we have settled on instead is rather accurate in my view, clearly a euphemism, but kind of endearing also. We call them (and I use the plural, in a subconscious nod to Irigaray) "baby girl parts." I suppose someday they will be "little girl parts," and finally, "girl parts." This suits my son, also, who has not asked about "real" names, as he did for his own "parts" a while back. I feel like this is accurate because they are, indeed, "girl parts" in a couple of different senses--they are "parts of a girl," and they are also "the parts by which a girl is identified as a girl," at least at birth. I know this raises all kinds of feminist red (or essentialist) flags, but it doesn't particularly concern me. When my daughter was born, they told me, "it's a girl," not "she is anatomically female, but her gender has not yet been socially constructed." The same, I think, when the ultrasound tech tells the expectant parents that they have the go-ahead to buy the pink stuff. Most importantly, "let's wash the baby girl parts" works just fine for me!
Since I am really thinking about female anatomy, I will say that I have particular problems with the term "vagina." Not with the term "vaginal," but with the term "vagina." I take issues with the Vagina Monologues, for example, because it uses the term "vagina" to apply not just to what we actually recognize as the vagina, but also the surrounding area, so to speak. Irigaray's "two lips" (terminology that I rather like from a theoretical perspective, though it's not quite a practical term to teach a child) are included, as well as what I might as well, being pregnant, refer to as the "birth canal"--and I just won't go beyond that description. More accurately, the part of the anatomy that a young child would actually see and feel--and thus, of which the child would be aware any real sense, as the uses for these parts are quite specific and limited compared to those of a feminist theorist, for example--is called, in medical terms, the "vulva" rather than the "vagina." So for reasons of accuracy in addition to plain issues of delicacy of language, I will not teach my daughter the term "vagina" until we get to "that" talk (blissfully years and years in the future--for the son, not so distant. . .). I do not particularly prefer "vulva." The word has its instinctive appeal as a word--it has a round, full quality about it that actually makes a fitting signifier for the part signified (not meaning to shock any sensibilities, and not meaning to offend Saussure or Derrida or any of their devotees). But it does not seem any more appealing to say to a child, "Okay, let me wash your vulva now!" No, that's not going to happen.
On the aforementioned sex-happy somewhat feminist (in some sense of the word) discussion board, I remember (from years ago now) a discussion in which certain women felt somehow "cheated" by their mothers' and perhaps grandmothers' reluctance to call certain parts what they were. What they mentioned in particular was the substitution of bodily function words for the parts from which the fluids were excreted. I admit to allowing this with my son. It's not something I cultivated, it just happened naturally. Somehow, though, I think my husband and I felt the need, even in the naming of these parts (or maybe especially?), to distinguish between the genders. I will add that the term that my family used for female genitalia (in the bathtub setting) is not one I could spell. It's a little embarrassing for me to pronounce, even to myself, because I know that it is not an actual word in English. I say "in English" because I suspect that the word was a corruption of some French baby-talk or something, as my grandmother grew up speaking French (in "the country" in Louisiana, as we called it, quite a bit outside of Lafayette). So clearly that word is out.
What we have settled on instead is rather accurate in my view, clearly a euphemism, but kind of endearing also. We call them (and I use the plural, in a subconscious nod to Irigaray) "baby girl parts." I suppose someday they will be "little girl parts," and finally, "girl parts." This suits my son, also, who has not asked about "real" names, as he did for his own "parts" a while back. I feel like this is accurate because they are, indeed, "girl parts" in a couple of different senses--they are "parts of a girl," and they are also "the parts by which a girl is identified as a girl," at least at birth. I know this raises all kinds of feminist red (or essentialist) flags, but it doesn't particularly concern me. When my daughter was born, they told me, "it's a girl," not "she is anatomically female, but her gender has not yet been socially constructed." The same, I think, when the ultrasound tech tells the expectant parents that they have the go-ahead to buy the pink stuff. Most importantly, "let's wash the baby girl parts" works just fine for me!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
It's always nice. . .
. . .when, after a mostly disappointing semester, one of the best students in the class (not a perfect writer, but with a lot of native intelligence and a will to learn) sits down and takes the time to tell you that he feels like the class really helped his writing, and that certain types of assignments helped in particular with his tendency to procrastinate. He seems to have enjoyed the class well enough (for a required class)--overall he was very positive--and says he will come back by to visit. Considering the number of times I have second-guessed myself this semester, these were nice things to hear. I am not the most devoted of teachers, I fear. I will make a good slacker-professor someday. I tend to start off the semester with a measure of ambition and enthusiasm, which wanes just before midway in the semester. (See the Reasons I Don't Homeschool post!) Of course, it is better with some classes, and this class just had a weird dynamic--or rather, no dynamic. Anyway, it's over. And it's nice to have a measure of appreciation even during an "off" semester!
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Suddenly Pregnant!
O.K., you are all acquainted with the fact that I'm pregnant--13 weeks now, by the most reliable calculations. But suddenly and without warning, nothing fits! I am trying to remember how soon this happened with my daughter, but I think it was more gradual. And I was buying maternity clothes earlier because I didn't have any nice spring-summer clothes anyway, so I figured that I might as well buy maternity clothes (which I like) instead of buying larger sizes, etc. This time I have been making due with my drawstring linen pants, but they aren't really buttoning. I have taken out maternity t-shirts, which really don't look too different from the t-shirts I normally wear, but whatever t-shirts I wear, and whatever pants I wear, I look much more than 3 months pregnant! By this time last pregnancy, I was probably dying to look pregnant. And I have no pregnancy body-image problems; I like my body better pregnant than not! But this has been literally in the past 2-3 days! I haven't actually gained any weight. And the "transitional" pregnancy wear doesn't work for me because I don't like low-rise anything (if you've already got a pot-belly, low rise is not a nice effect). Anyway, it feels sudden. Probably the third-baby effect. And probably not helped by the fact that it really is fat and not really baby at this point. *sigh* But I'll probably make the best of it and go shopping after payday on Tuesday!
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Cat's out of the bag. . .
That was the subject of the email that I sent to my dissertation director after the graduate coordinator told him my news--before I did--for the second time!! That's what I get for being cautious! I wasn't intentionally not telling him that I was pregnant, but I wasn't telling anyone yet. I like to wait until close to the second trimester, just for my own peace of mind. I told the graduate coordinator--who has been less than supportive of late--mainly because I was worried about the implications for my fall teaching assignment. If I deliver in early November, I will have a month left of teaching--and probably 2 writing projects to collect. If the baby comes early, as my last did, I will have much more class time to try to fill either by distance or proxy.
While the grad coordinator has not been particularly supportive to others, she did not say anything to me. Of course, I told her via email, I used the "unexpectedly pregnant" phrase, and I did not really ask for much. Still, she seems to feel the need to inform every newly pregnant graduate student (myself excluded) of her own choices with regard to family and profession. What is interesting about that is that her choices were shaped not only by a different "wave" of feminism--and, consequently, by a different perception of the effect of motherhood on a woman's autonomy, but also by a different academic climate--arguably one that was less friendly toward women and families than the current academic climate, whatever statistics and surveys (which typically survey those who are of the same generation as the graduate coordinator in question) may say to the contrary. Of course, one's expectation for the intermingling of family life and academic career depend greatly on one's goals for placement. I have never aspired to the Research 1 university. I think I can publish just as much with less pressure at a second tier university. Madam Grad Coordinator hails from one of the top ranked R1 universities--at least an initial postdoc or non-tenure, and considered herself a pretty radical feminist at one point. These things leave a mark on one's consciousness, even if one ends up at a Texas public university with delusions of grandeur (the university, not the professor).
The climate among the graduate students is overwhelmingly supportive. It's true that the department "baby boom" is a bit amusing from a certain standpoint--I mean, from when I entered the program until the first baby in the recent sequence--a little over two years ago--only one graduate student became pregnant (and only one faculty member, but that was quite a different situation), and she came into the program married and had 2 children (and 10 years on me) by the time I met her. She was the anomaly--even beyond an "exception." Quite a different story now! It's wonderful to have the support of other grad student moms--even if it is only expressed indirectly, or by a brief acknowledgment of a common situation. However, I am finding it to be much more. Today at a baby shower, I had one grad student offer to take one or more of my class sessions in the fall after the baby comes. This was completely unexpected! I admit, I thought I would have to make arrangements for myself and wing it as best I could. In a way, I guess I thought that by figuring things out for myself, perhaps in consultation with Grad Coordinator (and, it turns out, dissertation-director-soon-to-be-department-head), I would be preparing myself for when I actually have a tenure-track job. The line of reasoning lies something like this: well, without artificial birth control, "oopses" happen; in academia, there is no such thing as "maternity leave" (unless one happens to be working on a book and eligible for a sabbatical, but then one has to produce a book and a baby); thus, when "oopses" happen, if one still wants a paycheck, one must teach and use available resources (in this case, electronic) to make it happen. I did not quite consider that colleagues are, indeed, resources!
The above rationale is a distinct departure from my attitude toward pregnancy-and-baby-number-two. Since I had actually, consciously decided to have a baby, I felt, somehow, that I should be able to take time off and devote time and effort to the pregnancy and the baby to the exclusion of all else. As it turned out, I was able to take a rather nice break from working, but family and natural disasters prevented this break from being as baby-focused as I had imagined. This time, I have a very "life goes on" attitude--which sounds harsh, but which doesn't exclude joy or appreciation of the new life beginning! It's merely a more practical and realistic (and hopefully productive) approach to the whole school-work- baby process. It's similar to the attitude I had when I was pregnant for my first, only with my first it was a very "in your face" "see what I can do and have a baby too?" kind of attitude. I was proving something that I believed in--that life did not cease in any sense with pregnancy. It's a firm belief of mine, and a recurring theme on the blog, I think. Call it a reaction against "The Awakening"--a text I have always despised. At any rate, I hope the "hurry up and finish before the baby comes" urge kicks in instead of the "sit back and wait for baby," because I really would like to graduate sometime this decade! (Things are looking good for a May 2008 graduation. Shhhh! Don't tell the student loan companies!)
So with the cat out of the bag to the faculty (or the two who matter most), the cat came further out of the bag last Sunday, when I told my oldest, who is 10. I had been waiting to tell him, because of the usual reasons, but also because I just didn't quite know how to tell him. Imagine being nervous about telling a 10-year-old about a pregnancy! I knew he would be excited, I just didn't quite know how to approach the subject. Well, we were having dinner with a friend of ours who is a deacon and baptized both our son and daughter, and who will baptize our new one, and he mentioned baptizing our new one, and how it will be the most children he has baptized from the same family. Our son perked up a bit at this, but remained quiet. At home, he started to ask, but dismissed it as something he didn't quite understand. Later that evening, we explained the remark, and told him that he would have a new sibling. He burst into tears!! He was so happy! (It also rather explained why I've been tired and nauseous--a real cause of concern to him--for several weeks!) He then told my youngest brother, who is 2 1/2 years older than my son, and is crazy about little babies.
At the baby shower today (a grad-student affair), there was baby talk all around, so a few new people learned the "secret." All good. Now for the 18-month-old. . . Hmmm. . .
While the grad coordinator has not been particularly supportive to others, she did not say anything to me. Of course, I told her via email, I used the "unexpectedly pregnant" phrase, and I did not really ask for much. Still, she seems to feel the need to inform every newly pregnant graduate student (myself excluded) of her own choices with regard to family and profession. What is interesting about that is that her choices were shaped not only by a different "wave" of feminism--and, consequently, by a different perception of the effect of motherhood on a woman's autonomy, but also by a different academic climate--arguably one that was less friendly toward women and families than the current academic climate, whatever statistics and surveys (which typically survey those who are of the same generation as the graduate coordinator in question) may say to the contrary. Of course, one's expectation for the intermingling of family life and academic career depend greatly on one's goals for placement. I have never aspired to the Research 1 university. I think I can publish just as much with less pressure at a second tier university. Madam Grad Coordinator hails from one of the top ranked R1 universities--at least an initial postdoc or non-tenure, and considered herself a pretty radical feminist at one point. These things leave a mark on one's consciousness, even if one ends up at a Texas public university with delusions of grandeur (the university, not the professor).
The climate among the graduate students is overwhelmingly supportive. It's true that the department "baby boom" is a bit amusing from a certain standpoint--I mean, from when I entered the program until the first baby in the recent sequence--a little over two years ago--only one graduate student became pregnant (and only one faculty member, but that was quite a different situation), and she came into the program married and had 2 children (and 10 years on me) by the time I met her. She was the anomaly--even beyond an "exception." Quite a different story now! It's wonderful to have the support of other grad student moms--even if it is only expressed indirectly, or by a brief acknowledgment of a common situation. However, I am finding it to be much more. Today at a baby shower, I had one grad student offer to take one or more of my class sessions in the fall after the baby comes. This was completely unexpected! I admit, I thought I would have to make arrangements for myself and wing it as best I could. In a way, I guess I thought that by figuring things out for myself, perhaps in consultation with Grad Coordinator (and, it turns out, dissertation-director-soon-to-be-department-head), I would be preparing myself for when I actually have a tenure-track job. The line of reasoning lies something like this: well, without artificial birth control, "oopses" happen; in academia, there is no such thing as "maternity leave" (unless one happens to be working on a book and eligible for a sabbatical, but then one has to produce a book and a baby); thus, when "oopses" happen, if one still wants a paycheck, one must teach and use available resources (in this case, electronic) to make it happen. I did not quite consider that colleagues are, indeed, resources!
The above rationale is a distinct departure from my attitude toward pregnancy-and-baby-number-two. Since I had actually, consciously decided to have a baby, I felt, somehow, that I should be able to take time off and devote time and effort to the pregnancy and the baby to the exclusion of all else. As it turned out, I was able to take a rather nice break from working, but family and natural disasters prevented this break from being as baby-focused as I had imagined. This time, I have a very "life goes on" attitude--which sounds harsh, but which doesn't exclude joy or appreciation of the new life beginning! It's merely a more practical and realistic (and hopefully productive) approach to the whole school-work- baby process. It's similar to the attitude I had when I was pregnant for my first, only with my first it was a very "in your face" "see what I can do and have a baby too?" kind of attitude. I was proving something that I believed in--that life did not cease in any sense with pregnancy. It's a firm belief of mine, and a recurring theme on the blog, I think. Call it a reaction against "The Awakening"--a text I have always despised. At any rate, I hope the "hurry up and finish before the baby comes" urge kicks in instead of the "sit back and wait for baby," because I really would like to graduate sometime this decade! (Things are looking good for a May 2008 graduation. Shhhh! Don't tell the student loan companies!)
So with the cat out of the bag to the faculty (or the two who matter most), the cat came further out of the bag last Sunday, when I told my oldest, who is 10. I had been waiting to tell him, because of the usual reasons, but also because I just didn't quite know how to tell him. Imagine being nervous about telling a 10-year-old about a pregnancy! I knew he would be excited, I just didn't quite know how to approach the subject. Well, we were having dinner with a friend of ours who is a deacon and baptized both our son and daughter, and who will baptize our new one, and he mentioned baptizing our new one, and how it will be the most children he has baptized from the same family. Our son perked up a bit at this, but remained quiet. At home, he started to ask, but dismissed it as something he didn't quite understand. Later that evening, we explained the remark, and told him that he would have a new sibling. He burst into tears!! He was so happy! (It also rather explained why I've been tired and nauseous--a real cause of concern to him--for several weeks!) He then told my youngest brother, who is 2 1/2 years older than my son, and is crazy about little babies.
At the baby shower today (a grad-student affair), there was baby talk all around, so a few new people learned the "secret." All good. Now for the 18-month-old. . . Hmmm. . .
Friday, April 20, 2007
Babies & Baptism
I have been knowing since I took a course on Dante in grad school in '98 that Limbo was not an official Catholic Doctrine. Presumably, some Catholics, the general public, and the Associated Press did not know that. Bound up with my reservations about the Church in general and Baptism in particular was a deep suspicion in a Church that believed that unbaptized babies were excluded from heaven--after all, how could a just & loving God condemn innocents? Especially if some of the more decadent Hebrew Patriarchs were to be retroactively released from Hell? When I did come to accept that Baptism was indeed a Sacrament, not just something you did to prove to your church that you were "Saved" (which was what I had learned from my experiences at the churches I attended as a child--not meaning to offend), the question persisted--what happened to those who remained unbaptized by no fault of their own? I knew what C. S. Lewis said (in The Last Battle), but he was not Catholic (emphatically not, at times). But gradually I saw that there had to be room in God's mercy for innocents and honest truth-seekers, and that the Church in no way contradicted that realization. While awaiting Baptism myself, I was comforted by the idea of "Baptism of Desire," uncertain though that might be (knowing whether I was covered by that provision seemed as vague as knowing whether I was "Saved"). I don't know when I first rationalized that unbaptized babies must be subject to God's mercy, but I am happy to find that I am supported by Pope Benedict XVI.
From Yahoo! News:
VATICAN CITY - . . . . .
"We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press.
. . . . .
Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians have long taught, however, that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. Pope John Paul II and Benedict had urged further study on limbo, in part because of "the pressing pastoral needs" sparked by the increase in abortion and the growing number of children who die without being baptized, the report said.
From Yahoo! News:
VATICAN CITY - . . . . .
"We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press.
. . . . .
Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians have long taught, however, that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. Pope John Paul II and Benedict had urged further study on limbo, in part because of "the pressing pastoral needs" sparked by the increase in abortion and the growing number of children who die without being baptized, the report said.
In the document, the commission said there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and brought into eternal happiness."
It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."
Ladaria said no one could know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter.
Catholic parents should still baptize their children, as that sacrament is the way salvation is revealed, the document said.
I like that final phrasing, that "that sacrament is the way salvation is revealed." I particularly like the fact that it does not imply that infant Baptism achieves or guarantees salvation in any way--rather, it establishes a firm foundation for the Christian life of the individual.Thursday, April 19, 2007
Because Terminology Matters
I stumbled across a phrase today that I like. Instead of having an "unplanned pregnancy," I find myself "unexpectedly pregnant." I like this distinction for a couple of reasons:
1. It avoids the politically-charged term "unplanned": If a pregnancy is "unplanned," than one should have gone to "Planned Parenthood," no?
2. The word "pregnancy" is a noun, a thing, something that one "has" that is distinctly separate from one's being. Therefore, there is a certain amount of theoretical distance implied. The pregnancy is, in fact, an "Other," a "not-self," and may be treated as such, to achieve distance until one is ready to "deal with" the emotional implications of the "thing." (Here, the "pregnancy" is the "thing," not the baby, which does not yet need to be considered in this linguistic construct.)
3. The word "pregnant," by contrast, is an adjective--it implies a state of being, in fact, a temporary state of being, something that will not last forever. Because it is a state of being, it is connected to the person who is being modified by the term, "pregnant": I am pregnant. You are pregnant. I was pregnant two years ago. I am pregnant for my third child. When I was pregnant for my first, I was 19. . .
4. The word "unplanned" is negative. It suggests negligence--literally, a "failure to plan."
5. By contrast, "unexpected" things can be good. Or interesting. Like "An Unexpected Party," for example. "Unexpected" things can yield an adventure.
Maybe we should use the term more often. Maybe it'll catch on.
1. It avoids the politically-charged term "unplanned": If a pregnancy is "unplanned," than one should have gone to "Planned Parenthood," no?
2. The word "pregnancy" is a noun, a thing, something that one "has" that is distinctly separate from one's being. Therefore, there is a certain amount of theoretical distance implied. The pregnancy is, in fact, an "Other," a "not-self," and may be treated as such, to achieve distance until one is ready to "deal with" the emotional implications of the "thing." (Here, the "pregnancy" is the "thing," not the baby, which does not yet need to be considered in this linguistic construct.)
3. The word "pregnant," by contrast, is an adjective--it implies a state of being, in fact, a temporary state of being, something that will not last forever. Because it is a state of being, it is connected to the person who is being modified by the term, "pregnant": I am pregnant. You are pregnant. I was pregnant two years ago. I am pregnant for my third child. When I was pregnant for my first, I was 19. . .
4. The word "unplanned" is negative. It suggests negligence--literally, a "failure to plan."
5. By contrast, "unexpected" things can be good. Or interesting. Like "An Unexpected Party," for example. "Unexpected" things can yield an adventure.
Maybe we should use the term more often. Maybe it'll catch on.
Defensible Space
The recent events at Virginia Tech have the effect of making me acutely aware of the number of windows and doors in the rooms in which I teach. Like 1 door, no windows. The proverbial "ducks in a barrel."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I'm calling it a Catholic Motherhood Meme
Well, I feel the need to post this now rather than tomorrow, as I had intended, because for some reason, the original post was removed! We had just finished a lively exchange over at Sphere of Influence that I linked to the other day. . .
The following questions were posted by Angela Messenger on the same day I posted my So What Do Good Catholic Women Do? post. She asks "What Makes a Woman a Good Catholic Mom?
1. Is it a woman who has 10 children? Or 8? Or 6? Or 2?
2. Is it a married woman who stays at home? Should she work? In a "career" or a "job."?
3. Does a good Catholic mom pursue her dreams of further education for herself while her children are still at home? Or should she put her own ambitions aside to raise her kids?
4. Does a good Catholic mom take her kids to weekday Mass as well as Sunday Mass? Does a good Catholic mom let the kids have one weekend "off" from Mass a month?
5. Does a good Catholic mom use any kind of birth control?
6. Does a good Catholic mom home-school or send the kids to parochial school or can/should they go to public school?
7. Does a good Catholic mom defer to her husband as the head of the house? Is she obedient to him?
8. If a Catholic mom is divorced and has received a decree of nullity should she be able to date?
9. Should Catholic moms volunteer in lay ministry, teaching catechism, leading adult bible study or a prayer group or should she be looking after her kids?
Just some points to ponder. I don't expect an answer to each question like this is a quiz. Just trying to put my finger on the pulse of Catholic motherhood.
The thing is, these can be answered according to opinion, or according to the catechism. But since I'm on kind of a roll today, here are my answers:
1. Family size is a very personal thing, even for a Catholic woman. It depends on what the married couple feels is advisable given their own set of circumstances. While the Church teaches that married couples should be "open to life," it does not prescribe what that means. It is possible that the needs of one child, or the ability of the parents to care for the child or children, might dictate the need to refrain from having a large number of children. The guidelines, as I understand it, are to determine family size according to generosity, but also to be sensible in what the family can support emotionally and financially.
2. Well, I think we all know pretty well what I have to say about motherhood excluding a career.
3. There is no reason that any mother--Catholic or not--should refrain from pursuing her own educational goals. A well-educated mother can only benefit her family and her children. In addition, it is counterproductive for any Catholic to suggest that a mother must refrain from educating herself for the benefit of her children, as this contributes to the "motherhood as self-defeating" and "motherhood as self-negating" principle (á la Kate Chopin) that feminists latch onto in order to justify such things as elective abortions. If motherhood prevents women from achieving self-realization through education and developing her intellect, then why should it be valued as a role for women? In order to combat that thinking, we need to combat what leads to that thinking. Had I stopped my education when I became pregnant with my son, I still would not have completed my B.A. Had I not continued my education, I would very likely not be Catholic now. So what kind of Catholic mother would I be?
4. If the family is able to attend daily Mass, that is wonderful. Some parishes' Mass schedules are a bit prohibitive, and I've already discussed squirmy toddler issues! But please--letting the kids have the weekend off from Mass? Yes, let's teach them to disrespect the seriousness of the Mass and the Church's requirement that every Baptized Catholic attend every Sunday, so that we can wonder why they stop going to Mass in high school or college!
5. See Humanae Vitae.
6. Educational choices depend so much on the schools available in the area where the family lives. I think that parochial schools should be considered, but if unacceptable for educational or religious reasons, there is no reason that a good public school can not be acceptable, as long as the correct religious education is also provided. (See a future posting for my ideas about homeschooling.)
7. A good Catholic family is composed of a husband and wife who have mutual respect for one another. I can't imagine any situation in which a wife should "obey" her husband against her better judgment, and if the two respect each others' intelligence and judgment, there should be no question of "deferment"; rather, both parents should be able to guide the family through mutual understanding.
8. I think that if an annulment is granted, whether or not to date is a personal decision. The children should not be permitted to manipulate the mother through guilt, but neither should the children be subjected to undue stress. Basically, the same cautions would apply to this case in terms of the children's well-being as are typically advised in a divorce situation. Otherwise, she should conduct herself as morally and discreetly as any Catholic single dating.
9. All Catholics, as I understand it, are called to volunteer their time to the Church insofar as they are able. Some family situations allow for this more than others, and I don't think that anyone would say that it should cause the mother or family undue inconvenience to volunteer. I have seen the argument that children can be involved in the volunteering and should be taught about volunteering, but that does depend on the number and ages of the children. If a mother has to enroll her children in daycare in order to volunteer, is that in the right spirit of Catholic volunteering or Catholic motherhood? Similarly, if she leaves as soon as her husband comes home in order to volunteer with her parish, is this in the best interest of her family as a whole? Again, this varies greatly depending on the dynamic within a family.
So essentially, my conclusions from my last post remain more or less unchanged, with some more specific provisions. We are called to discern, as Catholic women and Catholic mothers, how we can best care for our families and respond to God's will in our lives. As long as we do so faithfully, we are being "good Catholic mothers."
The following questions were posted by Angela Messenger on the same day I posted my So What Do Good Catholic Women Do? post. She asks "What Makes a Woman a Good Catholic Mom?
1. Is it a woman who has 10 children? Or 8? Or 6? Or 2?
2. Is it a married woman who stays at home? Should she work? In a "career" or a "job."?
3. Does a good Catholic mom pursue her dreams of further education for herself while her children are still at home? Or should she put her own ambitions aside to raise her kids?
4. Does a good Catholic mom take her kids to weekday Mass as well as Sunday Mass? Does a good Catholic mom let the kids have one weekend "off" from Mass a month?
5. Does a good Catholic mom use any kind of birth control?
6. Does a good Catholic mom home-school or send the kids to parochial school or can/should they go to public school?
7. Does a good Catholic mom defer to her husband as the head of the house? Is she obedient to him?
8. If a Catholic mom is divorced and has received a decree of nullity should she be able to date?
9. Should Catholic moms volunteer in lay ministry, teaching catechism, leading adult bible study or a prayer group or should she be looking after her kids?
Just some points to ponder. I don't expect an answer to each question like this is a quiz. Just trying to put my finger on the pulse of Catholic motherhood.
The thing is, these can be answered according to opinion, or according to the catechism. But since I'm on kind of a roll today, here are my answers:
1. Family size is a very personal thing, even for a Catholic woman. It depends on what the married couple feels is advisable given their own set of circumstances. While the Church teaches that married couples should be "open to life," it does not prescribe what that means. It is possible that the needs of one child, or the ability of the parents to care for the child or children, might dictate the need to refrain from having a large number of children. The guidelines, as I understand it, are to determine family size according to generosity, but also to be sensible in what the family can support emotionally and financially.
2. Well, I think we all know pretty well what I have to say about motherhood excluding a career.
3. There is no reason that any mother--Catholic or not--should refrain from pursuing her own educational goals. A well-educated mother can only benefit her family and her children. In addition, it is counterproductive for any Catholic to suggest that a mother must refrain from educating herself for the benefit of her children, as this contributes to the "motherhood as self-defeating" and "motherhood as self-negating" principle (á la Kate Chopin) that feminists latch onto in order to justify such things as elective abortions. If motherhood prevents women from achieving self-realization through education and developing her intellect, then why should it be valued as a role for women? In order to combat that thinking, we need to combat what leads to that thinking. Had I stopped my education when I became pregnant with my son, I still would not have completed my B.A. Had I not continued my education, I would very likely not be Catholic now. So what kind of Catholic mother would I be?
4. If the family is able to attend daily Mass, that is wonderful. Some parishes' Mass schedules are a bit prohibitive, and I've already discussed squirmy toddler issues! But please--letting the kids have the weekend off from Mass? Yes, let's teach them to disrespect the seriousness of the Mass and the Church's requirement that every Baptized Catholic attend every Sunday, so that we can wonder why they stop going to Mass in high school or college!
5. See Humanae Vitae.
6. Educational choices depend so much on the schools available in the area where the family lives. I think that parochial schools should be considered, but if unacceptable for educational or religious reasons, there is no reason that a good public school can not be acceptable, as long as the correct religious education is also provided. (See a future posting for my ideas about homeschooling.)
7. A good Catholic family is composed of a husband and wife who have mutual respect for one another. I can't imagine any situation in which a wife should "obey" her husband against her better judgment, and if the two respect each others' intelligence and judgment, there should be no question of "deferment"; rather, both parents should be able to guide the family through mutual understanding.
8. I think that if an annulment is granted, whether or not to date is a personal decision. The children should not be permitted to manipulate the mother through guilt, but neither should the children be subjected to undue stress. Basically, the same cautions would apply to this case in terms of the children's well-being as are typically advised in a divorce situation. Otherwise, she should conduct herself as morally and discreetly as any Catholic single dating.
9. All Catholics, as I understand it, are called to volunteer their time to the Church insofar as they are able. Some family situations allow for this more than others, and I don't think that anyone would say that it should cause the mother or family undue inconvenience to volunteer. I have seen the argument that children can be involved in the volunteering and should be taught about volunteering, but that does depend on the number and ages of the children. If a mother has to enroll her children in daycare in order to volunteer, is that in the right spirit of Catholic volunteering or Catholic motherhood? Similarly, if she leaves as soon as her husband comes home in order to volunteer with her parish, is this in the best interest of her family as a whole? Again, this varies greatly depending on the dynamic within a family.
So essentially, my conclusions from my last post remain more or less unchanged, with some more specific provisions. We are called to discern, as Catholic women and Catholic mothers, how we can best care for our families and respond to God's will in our lives. As long as we do so faithfully, we are being "good Catholic mothers."
So What Do Good Catholic Women Do?
Though I admit that I am piggybacking off of other blogs I've read, I have been honestly searching for the answer to this question. I get a lot of negatives:
I also get some tentatives (of which that last "don't" might be considered one):
Of course, these are rather bloggy answers, and likely don't reflect the opinions of the majority of Catholic women, for what that's worth. And even my bloggers probably don't agree with all of the negatives or all of the tentatives. Incidently, I am not contesting those of the above that are specific Church teachings, I'm just pointing out the phrasing which suggests a defining of femininity in the negative--that is, we're defined by what we're not (thank you, Irigaray).
I think we all agree that what one does on a day-to-day basis should reflect one's faith. At least, I've heard enough homilies on the subject to know that that's how it should work, ideally. But where we go from there is another question. I have been attacked on a blog for making the tongue-in-cheek comment that I was going to wear pants to Mass--and I do, most of the time. Nice pants, but pants. Now this doesn't mean that I want to be a man, or that I think gender is socially constructed (sorry to my fellow-academics, I just don't find Judith Butler all that convincing--fun to play with, but not convincing!). I'm pretty much a nature & nurture kind of gal. There are some aspects of gender that are tied to biology. However, there are many, many messages that we receive from family and society that condition us to think in terms of what the appropriate roles are for each gender. There is nothing inherently masculine about paying bills, yet men in the early part of the 20th Century took this upon themselves as part of being "breadwinners" (or making sure the wife didn't find out about the mistress or the booze money). There is nothing inherently feminine about doing housework, as my husband can tell you. But how many husbands acknowledge this? In how many households are cooking and cleaning duties shared equitably? I'd like to think an increasing number do share, but I'd need to see some statistical proof. My friend was told by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school that men are not suitable caregivers for their own children because of their sexual proclivities. I'm tempted to think that this is not particularly biological, and represents this person's own tendencies toward deviance. Scary.
And then there's the NFP literature, which tells me more about what women do and do not, should and should not do. It seems, for example, that women do not (or perhaps should not) really want sex. They tolerate it, perhaps even tolerate it willingly, but really they welcome the opportunity to abstain during fertile times so that they are not overwhelmed by their husbands' sex drive. (No, I'm not making this stuff up.) Now, biologically speaking, it is during the fertile time that the female sex drive is highest. That would be why the human species is able to perpetuate itself in spite of all logical objections, but this isn't the Catholic in me speaking, it's the skeptic, so moving right along. . . As for men, they are so lusty that the wife needs to be careful not to wear "that shorty nightgown" that turns him on when they have agreed to space pregnancies, because then she's being a tease. Now, do keep in mind that this stuff was written by a couple now in their 70s. It needs to be updated a bit!
There is a lot of self-sacrifice required of the Catholic woman, as far as I can tell. Much more than is required of the Catholic man. While both are doled equal shares of "talent" (I'm not sure about "time" and "treasure," since these vary greatly from person to person regardless of gender), how she uses hers is dependent to a degree on her fertility. I see this not as a mandate of the Church, but rather, as a cultural determination, depending on the social Catholicism around her. Theoretically, it is possible that if a woman is called to some kind of service, even if married, that this vocation could constitute a valid reason to limit family size. On the other hand, there are plenty of Catholic women who believe in women's ability to have a family and pursue a career, and others who feel that motherhood precludes returning to work. I was raised with the idea that a woman can be a mother and pursue other interests--even outside of the home--without her children suffering. In fact, it was always a matter of pride for me that my mother had the talents that she did. I hope that my children may feel the same about me.
J. R. R. Tolkien has been criticized because his wife had the talent to be a famous concert pianist, but married him and raised his children instead. I don't think he is to blame for this, though social conventions were. Had she had the choice to pursue both, would she have done so? Was it unfair on some level that she was not able to pursue her unique talent?
There is a tendency to restrict women to their single vocation to the exclusion of all else. A man who chooses to work is not restricted from being a father. The religious life is a special case for both sexes, because it is a specific, life-long devotion and dedication of self. But if a woman has talents that may have wider applications than child-rearing, must she channel all of herself into that role? Or should it be acknowledged that she has a lot to offer her children, and a lot to offer others as well?
Well, like all good rhetorical questions, mine imply their own answers. I was amused Easter Sunday by a woman who, when the priest commented that we have overcome the idea, common in Judaism at Jesus's time, that women are subservient, looked at the person next to her with wide-eyed indignation. Her expression was plain, as if to say, "Oh, have we?" Unfortunately, I can see where she may have gotten the impression that we haven't--not necessarily from the Church, but from fellow-Catholics. Or she may be harping on birth control and abortion, which is also possible. I will choose to assume that those issues did not motivate her expression.
So what do good Catholic women do? The same as good Catholic men, while of course, acknowledging their biological differences. I know all about men and women being created different for a reason. I am less clear about what exactly this means, and what the practical implications are. I believe that JPII addressed this at length in one of his works, though it is my understanding that his theorizing is not prescriptive, but allows for conscientious interpretation. Yet so frequently, I am met with the "God-given differences between men and women" in support of a prejudice against some thing that feminists say is O.K., whether it's working or wearing pants or whatever. As far as I can tell, we are called to act in accordance with the teachings of the Church and discern insofar as we are able what God's will is for our lives. For me right now, that means finishing the Ph.D., eventually looking for a job, and raising 3 children (not 2!) as faithfully as possibly!
Now what it means to be a Catholic academic, I haven't figured out yet. . .
- They don't use birth control
- They don't dress immodestly
- They are not priests (and maybe shouldn't be altar servers)
- They don't (or shouldn't) go back to work after having children
I also get some tentatives (of which that last "don't" might be considered one):
- They might (if they're very traditional) cover their heads in church
- They probably have more than one child (when possible)
- They might homeschool (or at least supplement the education their children receive with a hearty complement of orthodoxy)
- They should volunteer in the parish whenever possible, but not to the exclusion of men
Of course, these are rather bloggy answers, and likely don't reflect the opinions of the majority of Catholic women, for what that's worth. And even my bloggers probably don't agree with all of the negatives or all of the tentatives. Incidently, I am not contesting those of the above that are specific Church teachings, I'm just pointing out the phrasing which suggests a defining of femininity in the negative--that is, we're defined by what we're not (thank you, Irigaray).
I think we all agree that what one does on a day-to-day basis should reflect one's faith. At least, I've heard enough homilies on the subject to know that that's how it should work, ideally. But where we go from there is another question. I have been attacked on a blog for making the tongue-in-cheek comment that I was going to wear pants to Mass--and I do, most of the time. Nice pants, but pants. Now this doesn't mean that I want to be a man, or that I think gender is socially constructed (sorry to my fellow-academics, I just don't find Judith Butler all that convincing--fun to play with, but not convincing!). I'm pretty much a nature & nurture kind of gal. There are some aspects of gender that are tied to biology. However, there are many, many messages that we receive from family and society that condition us to think in terms of what the appropriate roles are for each gender. There is nothing inherently masculine about paying bills, yet men in the early part of the 20th Century took this upon themselves as part of being "breadwinners" (or making sure the wife didn't find out about the mistress or the booze money). There is nothing inherently feminine about doing housework, as my husband can tell you. But how many husbands acknowledge this? In how many households are cooking and cleaning duties shared equitably? I'd like to think an increasing number do share, but I'd need to see some statistical proof. My friend was told by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school that men are not suitable caregivers for their own children because of their sexual proclivities. I'm tempted to think that this is not particularly biological, and represents this person's own tendencies toward deviance. Scary.
And then there's the NFP literature, which tells me more about what women do and do not, should and should not do. It seems, for example, that women do not (or perhaps should not) really want sex. They tolerate it, perhaps even tolerate it willingly, but really they welcome the opportunity to abstain during fertile times so that they are not overwhelmed by their husbands' sex drive. (No, I'm not making this stuff up.) Now, biologically speaking, it is during the fertile time that the female sex drive is highest. That would be why the human species is able to perpetuate itself in spite of all logical objections, but this isn't the Catholic in me speaking, it's the skeptic, so moving right along. . . As for men, they are so lusty that the wife needs to be careful not to wear "that shorty nightgown" that turns him on when they have agreed to space pregnancies, because then she's being a tease. Now, do keep in mind that this stuff was written by a couple now in their 70s. It needs to be updated a bit!
There is a lot of self-sacrifice required of the Catholic woman, as far as I can tell. Much more than is required of the Catholic man. While both are doled equal shares of "talent" (I'm not sure about "time" and "treasure," since these vary greatly from person to person regardless of gender), how she uses hers is dependent to a degree on her fertility. I see this not as a mandate of the Church, but rather, as a cultural determination, depending on the social Catholicism around her. Theoretically, it is possible that if a woman is called to some kind of service, even if married, that this vocation could constitute a valid reason to limit family size. On the other hand, there are plenty of Catholic women who believe in women's ability to have a family and pursue a career, and others who feel that motherhood precludes returning to work. I was raised with the idea that a woman can be a mother and pursue other interests--even outside of the home--without her children suffering. In fact, it was always a matter of pride for me that my mother had the talents that she did. I hope that my children may feel the same about me.
J. R. R. Tolkien has been criticized because his wife had the talent to be a famous concert pianist, but married him and raised his children instead. I don't think he is to blame for this, though social conventions were. Had she had the choice to pursue both, would she have done so? Was it unfair on some level that she was not able to pursue her unique talent?
There is a tendency to restrict women to their single vocation to the exclusion of all else. A man who chooses to work is not restricted from being a father. The religious life is a special case for both sexes, because it is a specific, life-long devotion and dedication of self. But if a woman has talents that may have wider applications than child-rearing, must she channel all of herself into that role? Or should it be acknowledged that she has a lot to offer her children, and a lot to offer others as well?
Well, like all good rhetorical questions, mine imply their own answers. I was amused Easter Sunday by a woman who, when the priest commented that we have overcome the idea, common in Judaism at Jesus's time, that women are subservient, looked at the person next to her with wide-eyed indignation. Her expression was plain, as if to say, "Oh, have we?" Unfortunately, I can see where she may have gotten the impression that we haven't--not necessarily from the Church, but from fellow-Catholics. Or she may be harping on birth control and abortion, which is also possible. I will choose to assume that those issues did not motivate her expression.
So what do good Catholic women do? The same as good Catholic men, while of course, acknowledging their biological differences. I know all about men and women being created different for a reason. I am less clear about what exactly this means, and what the practical implications are. I believe that JPII addressed this at length in one of his works, though it is my understanding that his theorizing is not prescriptive, but allows for conscientious interpretation. Yet so frequently, I am met with the "God-given differences between men and women" in support of a prejudice against some thing that feminists say is O.K., whether it's working or wearing pants or whatever. As far as I can tell, we are called to act in accordance with the teachings of the Church and discern insofar as we are able what God's will is for our lives. For me right now, that means finishing the Ph.D., eventually looking for a job, and raising 3 children (not 2!) as faithfully as possibly!
Now what it means to be a Catholic academic, I haven't figured out yet. . .
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tagged for the First Time!
(Sounds naughty, doesn't it?) But here it is, and Mrs. Darwin tagged me:
Booked by 3 Meme
Name up to three characters . . .
1) . . . you wish were real so you could meet them.
3) . . . who scare you.
I tag:
Booked by 3 Meme
Name up to three characters . . .
1) . . . you wish were real so you could meet them.
- Treebeard (Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien)
- the Jesuit priest from "The Star" by Arthur C. Clarke
- Mustapha Mond (Huxley's Brave New World)
- Yavanna, wife of Aulë, creator of the trees Telperion and Laurelin (The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien)
- Elizabeth Dalloway, daughter of Clarissa Dalloway (Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway), but only temporarily. I mean, where was she that day? Besides riding on the top of an omnibus?
- the boy (from Forster's "Celestial Omnibus")
- Morgaine (from The Mists of Avalon by Marian Zimmer Bradley)
- Nicholas or Armand (from The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice)
- Dorian Grey (from Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey)
3) . . . who scare you.
- Duke Ferrara (from "My Last Duchess" by Robert Browning, though he might just be historical...)
- Lazarus Long (whom I'd like to meet, but only for conversation!)
- Stephen Daedalus (from Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man)
I tag:
- Chris from Stuff as Dreams are Made On
- Entropy from Sphere of Influence
- Sarah of Mommy, Ph.D. (whenever she gets a chance!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)