Friendship, More or Less Generally Speaking

This post grows out of my previous post on Catholic Friendship, and refers frequently to comments made by others on my post. Actually, it started as a comment, but grew out of control and asserted its need to have its own space. Also, I posted something about my son's school library experience, and didn't want that one to overshadow the friendship discussion, which I have been enjoying!

One thing that has occurred to me is that I posed this in terms of Catholicism in particular. This is because there is so much in scripture and hence, in the homilies, about interpersonal relations. But these references are generally not referring to friendships. Usually, the relations between people that are mentioned are between people who do not know each other. There is also the idea that all earthly relationships should be second to the relationship with God, stated most explicitly in the "leave your family and follow me" passage(s), which I have never heard explained adequately--that is, explained in a way that helped me to actually understand it--in a way that gave me that "aha!" moment. There is a separate theology and discourse of marriage within Catholicism, which lead me to the question of a Catholic theology of friendship.

Separately, I had been thinking about one of Kate's earlier posts, as I explained in my earlier post on friendship, which specifically mentioned forming friendships with Catholic couples specifically, and thinking of the Catholic friends I have or have had, which led also to the formation of this question in terms of Catholicism. I wasn't necessarily thinking only of the good of Catholics seeking friendships with other Catholics, however; I was also thinking of the difficulties. Entropy mentions that even though her husband is not Catholic, they share most if not all (not wanting to misrepresent her characterization!) of their deeply held beliefs about religion. By contrast, it is possible for two Catholics not to share any of their deeply help beliefs--or at any rate, not to be able to express them in a way that promotes mutual understanding. There might be such animosity over certain questions of faith, or such defensiveness, that even when the two agree it feels like disagreement. And yet, the friendship persists, where maybe it shouldn't.

Entropy mentioned how great it was to know so many Catholic bloggers, because it is nice to know that there are people with the same worldview and background. That has been wonderful for me, too! And that feeling, I think, is what we seek when we seek other Catholics (virtually or in "real life") as friends--that commonality of deeply help belief that Mrs. Darwin, Melanie, Kate, and Sarahndipity have all mentioned. I have never really know that before, being a convert whose friends were mostly not Catholic, and whose Catholic friends ranged anywhere from laissez-faire, to Sunday-only, to cafeteria, to sincerely struggling, to complete acceptance without struggling. . . and the descriptions could go on. It's surprising how many Catholics one gets to know even by accident! ;) The great thing, too, is when those virtual friendships come to feel more real than virtual, when those little off-blog exchanges happen, when we actually get to meet each other in person. It's another new experience for me, and I feel like I'm waxing poetic about it. I must be in a good mood. (The library email was somewhat cathartic, and I've been happy since my class last night, which reminded me that I actually do like teaching! I've also been strangely productive lately, probably because I've been blogging less. :( Oh well!) But I have been self-conscious about my post because it seemed to limit the nature of the friendships I was talking about to specifically Catholic, or specifically religious-based friendships. (My post--not the comments!!) I wanted to think about friendship from the perspective of myself as a Catholic first, then (possibly) in terms of Catholics being friends with other Catholics and whether it creates more tensions or more sympathies, but inevitably in terms of friendships more generally.

So I asked a non-blogging but heavy-emailing deacon friend of mine a shorter version of the question I posed initially--whether there is a Catholic theology of friendship. While he had not heard of such a thing, he suggested that the underlying principles should be prayer and forgiveness. The forgiveness part certainly makes sense, though I'm not sure I understand the prayer part. He answered in brief and promised to think more about it, so perhaps I will eventually get him to explain the prayer. Forgiveness is so fundamentally Christian--having particular emphasis in Catholicism, in my opinion--that it is certainly a good basic principle to employ in friendship. However, forgiveness implies that something has already gone wrong. It is also difficult to anticipate how forgiveness will best be achieved or expressed if, indeed, it becomes necessary during the course of the friendship. I found myself, after converting, revisiting in my mind friendships that had ended badly with people from whom I was long estranged, asking myself if I had forgiven them, asking for the grace to forgive them, in some cases, asking for the grace to be able to stop reliving the circumstances of the friendship or breakup of the friendship or whatever. I believe that I had already forgiven some simply because of the distance of time, but that seems too easy; I had not made the conscious effort to acknowledge the forgiveness. But those were not relationships that could be resurrected. It is possible that even if they could have been resurrected, the friendship would not have been worth saving. Or equally possible that, had they continued, the friendship itself would not have allowed for forgiveness in the same way that distance has. I alluded in a comment to my post that some friendships could be "dysfunctional." Even if we consider ourselves friends, behave like friends, care like friends, even care passionately--are there friendships that simply should not continue? Luckily, friendships are not Sacraments, as I've said before, and do not require annulment--we don't have to declare that the friendship was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. . . or is that really what I'm suggesting?

My friend also suggested that if a friendship in some way interferes with one's relationship with God or if it becomes an occasion of sin, one should consider moving on. . . That is an interesting concept. Friendships can be occasions of sin in large ways, I would imagine, inspiring lust, leading one to commit crimes, indulge in excesses; but what about friendships that inspire envy or anger? Of course, these could be looked at as opportunities for improvement. Basically, in the case of a bad friendship, these things can get very, very complicated.

I confess that I have experienced many more bad friendships than good ones. The intense ones tended to be the ones that ended badly--with a need to completely remove oneself from the person. The lukewarm ones simply faded away. There have been some good friendships along the way, people who, should we chance to meet again, would be happy to see me, and with whom I could spend a lot of time "catching up" before fading away again. People with whom I shared some commonalities, though not the deepest, and with whom I probably share very little at this point.

When I think of those deep-but-failed friendships, I can liken them to passionately flawed dating relationships or teenage obsessions. The world revolved around those relationships, but when they were over and sufficient time had passed, I/we/you realized that they were started for the wrong reasons, were woefully lopsided, and doomed to failure, or, if not, to utter misery. There was enough "there" to form a strong attraction, but there was also some great incompatibility.

The idea that Sarahndipity mentions about people with children assuming that other people with children will have commonalities is an interesting case. It is similar (though perhaps only similar on a surface-level) to the "Catholic friend" question, though only in that it is one shared commonality among many possibly commonalities. Also, while one assumes a greater common background among Catholics than among parents of children, both have many possible variations.

Having said this, it is also a new experience for me to have friends who have children. Until recently, I just didn't know many people with children. Being in grad school and having children creates a bond of sorts. In fact, just the experience of giving birth gives women something to talk about who might not be able to stay in the same room with one another otherwise. These are starting points for friendships, but don't necessarily spell success, I guess. It is something I have enjoyed lately, though--the company of other smart moms!!

What is success in friendship, by the way? I've suggested my marriage as a successful friendship, but surely friendship does not need to be held to such a strict standard! Something more to ponder, I guess. . .

Reading Kate's recent blog entry on friendships, which she writes in part a reaction to my original post, I was struck by many things. Thanks, Kate, for such a great post on the topic! When Kate quotes Cicero, I feel as she said she would have felt in high school. Cicero writes:

"Friendship may be defined as a complete identity of feeling about all things in heaven and earth: an identity which is strengthened by mutual goodwill and affection."

And, well, I have not yet met anyone (to whom I am not married) about whom I can say these things. I felt, upon first reading this, that it was an impossible standard. My friendships have been mostly the type that involve stimulating conversation and interest in some aspect of the other person's life--and not much more. I found the following observation of Kate's rather profound:

I discovered that my friendships had bottoms, walls. Stopping points. Places beyond which we did not go. The freedom I had found in friendship – the freedom to enjoy each other, to be unafraid of rejection, to grow alongside one another – the freedom had limits.

And her discussion of her own experiences with friendships is touching and insightful.

At the end of the film The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, the main character says to her daughter that she was simply not meant to have a passionate, loving romantic relationship, and that, really, she hasn't missed it. I wonder if having a passionate, loving marriage is compensation for the lack of other types of friendships? (Or something better than compensation, since it is a deeper bond--indeed, a Sacrament!)

Different personality types have different needs where personal relationships are concerned. Some do need more than one close friend. I'm not sure that any friendship could be as deep or fulfilling as the one I have. And I'm not sure it matters. I like having friends to talk to and who offer different perspectives on the world. I like giving things that others need. But I may go too far--giving too much and being hurt if the other is not "there" for me in a similar way, when not everyone shares the same capacity for emotional support. And we can't expect reciprocity if there is no capacity for reciprocity in the other person. But what about the giving? It seems Christian to give, and yet giving until we hurt without mutual understanding, with different ideas of respect and admiration, with what is essentially self-sacrifice. . . Is that appropriate, even for a Christian friendship? I suppose that may in fact lead both away from God rather than toward.

I've wondered what it says about me as a person that I have not had many close friendships or (any?) lasting friendships. I admit that I am not a particularly trusting person, so that is likely one fault I bring to the formation of friendships. But if, as Kate suggests, ideal friendships are bound by a desire to see one another in heaven (which should probably be the foundation for that "missing" Catholic theology of friendship!!), this has not entered into any of my friendships. It is simply not a habit of thinking that I have had toward anyone until recently, and that I have had it at all was a gift of grace taught to me through my family, and one of my strongest pulls to Catholicism. So if the ultimate friendship is a Christian friendship in more than just the sense that both parties happen to be Christian (or Catholic), I'm simply not there yet. Considering that, as someone said, it is harder to make (close?) friends when one is married (and perhaps even harder when one has children), maybe I won't have that kind of friendship at all. There are lots of nice people I wouldn't mind seeing in heaven, I'm just not sure our paths to holiness intersect! ;)

I'm afraid I have rambled more than is usually advisable in a blog post, but I'm hoping that there are enough tidbits here to initiate some more comments, for which I have been grateful!

5th Grade Library Blues

Just to give all of you homeschoolers a taste of what you're missing! ;) The school year started on Monday (I started teaching last night), and while it's too early to gauge, I have great hopes that this year will be better for my son (and, hence, for me) than the last. There will, of course, be little glitches along the way. Try to imagine what prompted this email:

Dear Ms. Librarian,

My name is Literacy-chic, and we visited on "meet the teacher" night. You might remember that I was accompanied by my son, my husband, and my very mobile toddler, and we talked specifically about fantasy and about the difficulty of finding appropriate books at my son's reading level.

I wanted to email you today to see if I could clarify your policies on checking out books--specifically, what guidelines govern their selection of books. My son returned from library (from Ms. Language Arts Teacher's class) without a library book today because, while he was interested in several books, they were all part of different series, and he was told that he had to start from the beginning of the series, or read the series in publication order. When he looked for the appropriate books, they had apparently been checked out by other students.

You must realize, first of all, that this is the consequence of having library on a Wednesday. The students who have library earlier in the week--or even earlier in the day--have a much better selection of books than those who have library later in the week (or day). So if the students are limited by the fact that their chosen books are part of a series, they are then further limited by the library's holdings and other children's selections. In order for every child to read every series in its proper order, the library should ideally have enough copies of each volume for every child who wants to read it at a given time. Of course, this is not possible. When I was in 6th grade, I was introduced to the Chronicles of Narnia by a school librarian. The books were not available in their publication order (which has since been changed by MacMillan), but I was able to read them when they were returned (in more or less . In addition, the library was missing a volume--The Magician's Nephew, but I was able to continue reading the series in spite of that, and read that book at a later date, after buying a copy for myself. I don't feel that this circumstance lessened my enjoyment or my understanding of the series. In fact, I wrote my M.A. thesis on the Chronicles of Narnia.

The Chronicles of Narnia are an excellent example of how children's books published serially can function. As I mentioned, the original publication order of the books has, within the past 10 or 15 years, been altered from the original publication order as it was at the time of the author's death, with little more than the whim of a publisher and Lewis's letter to a 6-year-old child to substantiate this decision. However, while I personally prefer the original order of publication for reasons of authorial development and the structure of the series as a whole, I must admit that it does not lessen children's enjoyment of the books to have the order changed. Their experience of reading the books is different, but not necessarily inferior.

The test of a good children's book, even if it is a part of a series, is its ability to stand on its own. I read the first two Harry Potter books, became disillusioned with the writing, and then resumed after I saw The Order of the Phoenix because that story seemed so compelling to me. I might have never finished the series (and I'm still working on it) had I felt the need to read the books in their publication order. This same experience might be true for my son, or for any other child--that the desire to read some books in the series is stronger than others, and by starting in the middle, he or she might have the desire to read the entire series from the beginning. On the other hand, if reading the early books seems like it is forced upon the child, or a chore, or if the books are simply not available when he is ready and willing to read them, the child might not read the series at all, which would certainly not be the desirable outcome.

My ideal is for my son to be inspired to read, and to choose library books, with your help and advice at times, that he will really enjoy. If the availability of books becomes a problem, leading to frustration or to his inability to find a book in the specified time, then this goal is not being accomplished. Do you have any suggestions for how we might be able to work through this problem? Might he be able to check out the next book in line, even if the first (or whichever is next in queue) is unavailable?

I am cc-ing Mrs. Language Arts Teacher, so she will know why my son is reading a book from home (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) rather than a book from the library. He had not checked out a book, was afraid of a detention for being tardy, and was probably a bit discouraged when she came to tell the class it was time to return to class.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this. Children's literature happens to be a passion that we share!

Sincerely,

Literacy-chic

Catholic Friendship?

I've been thinking a lot about the nature of friendship lately, and how the concept of friendship should be regarded in terms of Catholicism. If there is a theology of friendship, it's not something I have come across yet. Friendship is certainly not a Sacrament, but it almost seems to me that it might have the quality of a sacramental, though it could be that that just sounds nice, since I'm not prepared to elaborate on it at this time.

My greatest friendship is, of course, my marriage. It seems natural, though not all people see marriage in that way. Interestingly, it is also the only friendship I have had in my life that I can consider truly successful. I attribute this, in part, to the fact that my husband and I are alike enough and different enough in the right ways for a really deep friendship to work. I don't doubt that it is possible to have love without this kind of friendship, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Otherwise, friends come and friends go. Sometimes they drift away naturally, sometimes there is something more explosive involved. Usually with the friends whom I consider to be closer, the end is more explosive.

With a friendship as consuming as my marriage, other friendships have been mostly matters of acquaintance. I have hesitated to call colleagues friends, for the most part, though this has altered as I have found more colleagues with more in common with me--family situation, in particular. Which brings up the question of on what bases friendships are built. Clearly, friends don't have to have any similarities. But it likely helps. Friends I knew in high school used to quote a line from the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead: "All we have in common is our situation." But is that truly enough?

Perhaps there needs to be some kind of mutual understanding. Or perhaps just the desire to be friends. An enjoyment of each others' company. But don't we have friends whose company we find agitating and antagonistic? What about concern for the other's well-being? Is that enough? And at what point, if any, should friends part ways? Like I said, it has always happened rather naturally for me--sometimes from mutual apathy, one might say. Other times from deep betrayal and hurt. Somehow, neither of these options feels particularly desirable from a Christian perspective. But does "loving one's neighbor" necessarily involve indissoluble bonds? Perhaps remaining true to such bonds teaches us about Christ. (Is that what I meant by friendship being a "sacramental"?)

Recently, Entropy and Kate have posted on different aspects of friendship, the former involving bloggers and the latter involving finding Catholic couples to hang out with. (Though I can no longer find Entropy's entry, I think that she was approaching some aspect of the post through a Catholic lens, even if it was through the lens of Catholic guilt--just kidding! At least, I think I'm just kidding. Unless I'm right. . .) I know that when I read Kate's post, I wondered about the Catholic connection--and the couples' connection. I've never thought specifically in terms of either. But it does kind of make me ponder the benefits--and possibly the additional responsibilities and constraints involved--in having or seeking Catholic friends in particular. Especially "like minded" Catholic friends.

I confess that this is a post of questions. I have no answers. But friendship has always been somewhat of a struggle for me, and I'm not sure if it has been because of some failing on my part or on the part of others. It is some of what made sense on that "personality quiz." (And the thing about being laid back--which I define loosely--until a vital principle is violated plays into this, too; friendships can easily be lost over such principles.) I take relationships very seriously, invest a lot emotionally in a very few friendships, and, well, this is not always considered a "healthy" state of things in the "real" world of post-Freudian pop-psychology. It made my life h*ll in high school, gotta tell you.

Toddler Bed Safety!!

We've been wanting to move the little one to a toddler bed for a while. The original plan was to gradually transition her into the room with her brother by having her nap in his old toddler bed during the day. This didn't work for several reasons. First, I just forgot on most days. I was always afraid that instead of coming out of the room right away, she would climb to the top of the bunk bed. And, well, for night time, the room where her brother sleeps is just too darned far away. Her brother slept in our room until he was about 4 years old, at which time he moved into a room adjoining ours. I still would prefer for him to be closer in case he needs us. So having her in the front bedroom (which, incidently, is closer to the front door), is really out of the question. Failing that, we moved on to a second plan, which involved moving our son's old toddler bed--a very nice, non-character shaped, non-race-car, Step 2 plastic model--into the space occupied by her crib. Unfortunately, it was too bulky for the space, which is right next to my husband's side of the bed. So we had to buy a new toddler bed, which we did figuring that at some point it is very likely that we will have both little girls in toddler beds at the same time.

So Wednesday evening we bought another toddler bed (we already had 2 mattresses, one a crib-sized futon) and assembled it. However, it only has 1/2 rail. I was paranoid the entire night that she would fall out--with the added concern that my husband would step on her in the night!! Periodically, I would wake up and scoot her legs back on the bed. Twice, I found her kneeling on the body pillow I put on the floor with her head on the bed, soundly asleep. Then it happened: clunk--waaaaaah! She was still mostly asleep, but she was on the floor, legs on the body pillow, head just a little bit under our bed, which is a platform bed. She couldn't go too far, because unfortunately, the under-bed area is storage (contrary to the effect of a platform bed, which is clean and sleek). Her brother never fell out of his toddler bed (and he moved into the toddler bed much earlier, since he didn't really have a crib, just a large Pack-n-play with a mattress), but he might have been a calmer sleeper!! So I scooped her off the floor, comforted her & tucked her back in. My husband can be an extraordinarily sound sleeper. The rest of the night was relatively uneventful, except that brother had a rare nosebleed and wound up sleeping on the futon in the living room to avoid climbing up & down his ladder if it should recur.

Now, the toddler is quite taken with the toddler bed--with both of them, actually, or any bed that she can climb into and cover herself. So yesterday, she was playing in it and decided to put her covers over her head. I'm not sure exactly what happened--it happened too fast--but somehow her mouth met with the wooden backboard, resulting in a pretty badly busted lip, a miserable toddler, and a lot of blood. And when she gets hurt, she most emphatically does not want to have it looked at or tended to. I managed a wet rag with an ice cube in her mouth for about 5 non-consecutive seconds, but that's it. Eventually, she settled down and fell asleep. I had to scoot her legs back on the bed a couple of times, but she didn't fall off during her nap.

Last night, she stayed relatively still. I scooted her legs in the bed once or twice; she woke up once & climbed in bed with us for an hour or two; I put her back. Then, at about 6:40, I awoke and looked over in the bed--no toddler!! So I walked around, and there she was--on the body pillow, on the floor, curled up, fast asleep. My thought is that rather than falling out, she scooted out gradually without waking. I woke my husband & pointed to the empty bed, which surprised him, and the baby on the floor--right where he steps to get out of bed!

So now I'm trying to think of a solution to this. There are no bedrails designed to fit in so small a space. I'll likely have to make something, but I am, of course, concerned with safety. Something that velcros to the footboard and side rail, goes under the mattress and fastens on the other side should work. Hmmm. . .

Any suggestions?

Crazy, Weird Book Quiz

Courtesy of Entropy, who tagged me, and without whom I would have no posts this week! ;) This quiz IS very much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and is an interesting way to keep yourself busy on the internet! So if you're bored, or procrastinating (have I mentioned that I start teaching again on Tuesday??), feel free to play along! I would particularly like Chris to try this one 6 or 7 times! ;)

Some various results:

Never read this one, actually. Animal allegories aren't really my thing. Or books that masquerade as children's books but are really something else. Or maybe I'm just closed minded. A lot of people I know liked this book, but a lot hated it, too. . .

You're Watership Down!

by Richard Adams

Though many think of you as a bit young, even childish, you're
actually incredibly deep and complex. You show people the need to rethink their
assumptions, and confront them on everything from how they think to where they
build their houses. You might be one of the greatest people of all time. You'd
be recognized as such if you weren't always talking about talking rabbits.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

This one I read. I believe I read it when I was an undergrad and it was a Book-of-the-Month club selection. Back then, I was eager to read anything and everything. Wonder what happened? Oh yeah, grad school. . .

You're Love in the Time of Cholera!

by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Like Odysseus in a work of Homer, you demonstrate undying loyalty by
sleeping with as many people as you possibly can. But in your heart you never give
consent! This creates a strange quandary of what love really means to you. On the
one hand, you've loved the same person your whole life, but on the other, your actions
barely speak to this fact. Whatever you do, stick to bottled water. The other stuff
could get you killed.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

I read this one in high school. I really, really enjoyed it. I guess this may have been my first introduction to postcolonial theory, as we read this one alongside Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe and briefly mentioned the difference between a white South African and a black South African writing about the native experience. I preferred Paton. The book is haunting & poetic.

You're Cry, the Beloved Country!

by Alan Paton

Life is exceedingly difficult right now, especially when you put more
miles between yourself and your hometown. But with all sorts of personal and profound
convictions, you are able to keep a level head and still try to help folks, no matter
how much they harm you. You walk through a land of natural beauty and daily horror. In
the end, far too much is a matter of black and white.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Ugh! Blech! American lit! Okay, no one can deny that Twain is bright & influential, but I really found it a chore to get through this book. And our American lit class in high school conspired to distract our teacher from talking about the book so that our discussion of Huck Finn carried on for the entire nine-week period. We didn't do ourselves any favors.

You're Adventures of Huckleberry Finn!

by Mark Twain

With an affinity for floating down the river, you see things in black
and white. The world is strange and new to you and the more you learn about it, the less
it makes sense. You probably speak with an accent and others have a hard time
understanding you and an even harder time taking you seriously. Nevertheless, your
adventurous spirit is admirable. You really like straw hats.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

I am a bit embarrassed by this one. I believe I have long since discarded my copy with the very personal marks in the margins. Another that I read in high school. And reread. And reread again. And dressed like the main character for Halloween. And identified with this book. And finally realized that I had gotten everything out of it that I possibly could, and let it go. Though I never believed in the whole "goddess worship" thing, I was absorbed enough to wish that the alternate religion were real. The book fed into my disgust with Christianity and perpetuated it. Besides that there were a lot of juicy sex scenes. *sigh* My depraved youth. . .

You're The Mists of Avalon!

by Marion Zimmer Bradley

You're obsessed with Camelot in all its forms, from Arthurian legend
to the Kennedy administration. Your favorite movie from childhood was "The Sword in
the Stone". But more than tales of wizardry and Cuban missiles, you've focused on
women. You know that they truly hold all the power. You always wished you could meet
Jackie Kennedy.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Sad that there's only one question's difference between The Mists of Avalon and Ulysses. But when you consider that the focus of each is really ego... I knew the last one was heading to Joyce, so I backed up & changed my answer on "stream of consciousness." Way to cheat!!! And no, I have not read Ulysses. I plan to avoid reading Ulysses as long as possible. I did try once, a long, long time ago. . . Dubliners is more my speed, really.

You're Ulysses!

by James Joyce

Most people are convinced that you don't make any sense, but compared
to what else you could say, what you're saying now makes tons of sense. What people do
understand about you is your vulgarity, which has convinced people that you are at once
brilliant and repugnant. Meanwhile you are content to wander around aimlessly, taking in
the sights and sounds of the city. What you see is vast, almost limitless, and brings you
additional fame. When no one is looking, you dream of being a Greek folk hero.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

And, taking the test one more time:

You're Prufrock and Other Observations!

by T.S. Eliot

Though you are very short and often overshadowed, your voice is poetic
and lyrical. Dark and brooding, you see the world as a hopeless effort of people trying
to impress other people. Though you make reference to almost everything, you've really
heard enough about Michelangelo. You measure out your life with coffee spoons.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

I do love Eliot. Anyone else remember the Crash Test Dummies song, "Afternoons and Coffee Spoons"? When I worked at a coffee shop as an undergrad, I had a shirt advertising the coffee shop (and probably commemorating an anniversary) with the quote "I heave measured out my life with coffee spoons." Only they misquoted it as, "measured out my life in coffee spoons." So I corrected it. On the shirt. And wore it that way. (Geek!)

What I find interesting here is that my results seem fairly firmly 20th century. Perhaps all of the results are. . . Well, at least there are 2 Modernists, here! And no Virginia Woolf!

Thanks, Entropy, for the fun! ;)

Personality Test

Once again, courtesy of Entropy:

Your personality type is INFP.

Introverted (I) 71%	Extraverted (E) 29%
Intuitive (N) 95%	Sensing (S) 5%
Feeling (F) 55%	Thinking (T) 45%
Perceiving (P) 82%	Judging (J) 18%

I haven't really ever done a formal one of these, though I've always been intrigued with the concept. I'm not surprised at all that I should come up fairly strongly introverted--less so than I used to be, actually, but still. . . I'm not sure I understand the rest of the classifications, but what I found on this site seems to pin me down pretty well.

Things that surprised me a bit:

• being "driven to do something meaningful and purposeful"--after all, if that were the case, wouldn't I be a doctor or something? But I've said before that on some level, I do think that what I do is important. "Meaningful and purposeful" can be what you make it, right?
• "warmly interested in people" (are introverts interested in people??)--but I think I vary. Sometimes I think that the reason I distance myself from people is because of my capacity to become too involved. I am interested in people in practice, individual by individual, and though I claim not to be interested in people more generally, the whole theory behind my dissertation has to do with people and how they engage with texts and how the way they engage with texts helps them develop as people. Ummm. . . yeah. . . kind of demonstrates the "meaningful and purposeful" thing--my dissertation validates what I do. THAT's not self-serving at all!!
• "service oriented, usually putting the needs of others above their own"--I can see how I might do the latter, but I never considered that that implies the former. And really, I feel like I only put the needs of others above my own in cases when my "loyalty and devotion to people" comes into play. But I guess that's to be expected, no?
  

Things that don't surprise me, and I like the way they're articulated:

• "Flexible and laid back, unless a ruling principle is violated"--enough said. Has anyone here mistaken me for "flexible and laid back"?
  
• "Prefer to work alone"--However, that's not to say that I don't get inspiration from feeding off of the conversation and ideas of others. That's the nice thing about teaching sometimes, and something I miss about coursework is constant stimulating conversation (depending, of course, on the class!). I do better in terms of dissertation work when I do have regular meetings with my adviser, but I only really seek the input of a few trusted and respected people, and easily disregard the input of people whose opinions I don't respect. That's why conferences don't do much for me, I guess. I know I've just marked myself as a total elitist snob. Let's just chalk it up to the personality type, shall we?
• "Value deep and authentic relationships"--enough said. Or maybe not. How does one know a "deep and authentic relationship" outside of a spouse?
• I'm "out of the mainstream" alright. In fact, I'm out of several mainstreams. In fact, if you find a "mainstream" that you think I might fit into, I'm sure to find an exception. Basically, I have the unique talent of being able to p*ss off people on both sides of the spectrum!!
  
• I will be happiest in a career that allows me to "live my life in accordance with my values." So if you find one, will you let me know?
  

This is not really a meme, but I'd really like to tag some people to take the test and comment on what things did and did not surprise them about "themselves". . . Please, take this opportunity to talk about yourself!! Here! For my amusement! Being an introvert, I won't hold it against you if you ignore me. . . Really. . . At least, I'll pretend not to. . .

Totally Random: Laundry Meme

I figure I might as well write about the laundry, since I'm sure as heck not doing it right now. . . I'll get to it later. . . along with everything else. . .

1. In your home, who does the laundry? I do a lot of the laundry, but not all. Some weeks my husband does it all, and recently my son has been learning some of the basics.
   
2. Do you sort your laundry? Compulsively.
3. If you sort, how many different color/fabric type groups do you sort it into? It varies week-to-week, but here's a sampling: Darks (which then can be divided into blacks and non-blacks), medium-colored permanent press (which might be split into a jeans-only or mainly-jeans batch, and then a medium-greens and grays batch with some purples thrown in), light colored permanent press (usually divided into lighter greens, blues and greys and then other pastels like yellow), reds and dark oranges, white permanent press, and towels (sometimes divided into white towels and colored towels, depending on how many towels are dirty). The baby's clothes have slowly been integrated with ours, but in October, I will be re-introducing the baby clothes category. There! Do I get the obsessive-compulsive laundry award? Is it any wonder I hate doing housework with the way I classify and divide?? I blame it on growing up with my mom.
   
4. Do you hand wash anything? Not usually
5. Are there any articles of clothing that you send out to be cleaned professionally? Nope. Except those starched jeans--just kidding!
   
6. If you have any clothes cleaned professionally, is that drycleaning? Or regular laundering/pressing? n/a
7. At home, what detergent do you use? Any detergent additives that you regularly use? ALL with bleach, Dreft and Target's Dreft imitation for baby clothes
   
8. What whiteners/brighteners do you use? Bleach sometimes, sometimes OxiClean or OxiClean for babies, but ONLY on whites. Colors fade, whatever they claim!
   
9. Do you use any fabric softeners? Sometimes I use fragrance-free Downy in a Downy Ball, but mainly for baby clothes.
   
10. How do you handle stains? Dreft Stain Removal spray is expensive but worth it! OxiClean stain removal spray is good, too, but worrisome because of warnings not to use on khaki or fluorescent colors.
    
11. Do you use different water temperatures for your different loads? Yes. Mainly cold, warm or hot for towels, warm for baby clothes.
    
12. Do you use a tumble dryer, or do you hang your clothes to dry?Both. Lots of spandex in t-shirts, screen-printed boy clothes, and things likely to shrink
13. In your home, who folds the clothes? Nobody. Ummm, I mean, we all pitch in (when we get around to it!)
14. Where do you fold your clothes? (i.e., in the laundry room, at the kitchen table, etc.) Futon in front of TV, in bedroom on bed, coffee table, on sewing cardboard on living room floor. . . Pretty much any available flat surface!
15. Who puts the folded clothes away? Nobody. . . Ummm, I mean, we are all in charge of putting the clothes away and anyone who can't is usually helped out by the person who folded the clothes.
    
16. Do you have a certain day of the week you consider "laundry day"? Weekends are laundry days, though increasingly that doesn't really happen and so on Wednesday or so I usually start a load or two a day, when I'm on top of things!
    
17. About how many laundry loads do you do per week? Too many! But really. . . probably 8-10. This is an increase from before we moved to this apartment and a smaller capacity washing machine.
    
18. Do you iron? Nope. There's barely a reason to dig out the ironing board except to press a seam in something I'm sewing. However, my husband irons when necessary or advisable!
    

I'm also going to gripe about the little endangered species of birds that likes to build nests in the dryer vents to the apartment complex. So every couple of weeks, I can't dry a load of clothes--however small--in a single cycle. When we first moved in, it was taking an average of 3 dryer runs. But they have to clean the darned nests out every month or two (not often enough). I like cute little birdies that dive-bomb people as much as the next person, but sheesh! Can't they block the vent openings or something??

Hat tip to Entropy at Sphere of Influence!

Incidently, Boober is my favorite Fraggle. Really. Wembley comes in second.

New Labor Strategy

Okay, my husband has just volunteered to make a PowerPoint for me of things and people who annoy me. I'll call it "Labor Antagonism Technique," write a book, and make my first million. I'll advocate getting rid of all of this mamby-pamby Easy-Listening and New Age-y music in favor of some rap and heavy metal. That'll do the trick!

Finding Inner Strength. . . If you can call it that!

I've been struggling for some time now (since I discovered that I was pregnant, truthfully) with the prospect of labor. Having had the same scenario play out with both pregnancies so far--membranes rupture or leak, admitted to hospital, no contractions, can't stimulate contractions, pitocin administered, pain unbearable, epidural, wait the requisite amount of time, baby!--I fear the same scenario will occur again, but I also fear the possibility that the same scenario will NOT play out again, and that I simply won't be able to cope with labor. From the beginning I had moments of panic--they went away, but are resurfacing--and I feel that I am just not up to this challenge. Now, I am a very determined person. For me to so completely lack personal resolve--or to waver the way I have been--and to have the urge simply to cave in without a fight is totally uncharacteristic and deeply disturbing. And the reason I say "cave in without a fight" is because truly, I do believe that natural childbirth is my preferred option. But my mind keeps telling me, "I just can't. . ." With the other two pregnancies, I always felt that I could muster up the strength when I needed to. This time, I guess I still think that deep inside, but since I know I don't really have to--that is, that medical intervention is waiting for me to wimp out--I just focus on the fear and the memories of the last time and conclude that I'm not up to the challenge. Sad.

So I am enrolled in "Active Childbirth" classes--or something--currently, which is the closest to real Lamaze that is offered in this area. Actually, it rather skips the patterned breathing of Lamaze, instead focusing on deep breathing and focused relaxation, very much like yoga, so I'm pretty much in tune with it there. My problem is that watching births and hearing about certain stages of labor--Transition in particular--fills me with such deep anxiety that I REALLY NEED the focused relaxation by the end of the class. I take this as a really bad sign. When we discussed Transition on Monday night, I really had a hard time because Transition is the stage of "natural" labor that most resembles (emotionally and physically) the experience of intense, no-epidural pitocin-contractions, at least in my experience. Especially the feeling of not being able to cope. Yes, pitocin is perpetual Transition. I just had to write that because of the oxymoron.

Last night I asked my husband if it seemed defeatist just to resolve to go as long as I can naturally. He didn't think so. That resolve alone lifted a burden, although I have never said definitively that I would refuse the epidural at all costs, not even with previous pregnancies.

But today, I think I may have discovered a source of determination. I think it was there on the first night of classes, but it went away. And that source of determination is from the depths of my ornery being: I find strength in resolving to fight others. This is not something I'm particularly proud of, but hey, if it works. . . So in thinking about writing the birth plan and fighting for my rights with the hospital staff, I find a kind of inner strength. Not a peaceful inner strength, but it's something to build on, I guess!

Words: "Conversion"

Well, it's happened. Someone has made me think! ;) Blogging around this afternoon--something I have neglected this week--I discovered this post by Entropy on the subject of being a "Cradle Catholic" vs. a Convert. Now, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, so I couldn't help adding my $0.02. I think it becomes a particularly relevant question to Catholic converts, or should, whether converting is "better," somehow, than being raised in the Faith, since practicing Catholicism involves choosing Catholicism for one's children, which is not something that can be said of most Christian churches, and which is in contrast to the experience of some (many?) coverts to Catholicism. In particular, the churches I was exposed to as a child required a personal conversion experience, and in fact, many tried ("revival"-style) to induce a conversion experience (in the manner of Langston Hughes' "Salvation," which has always been a favorite short story of mine). So I was "touched by Jesus" several times when visiting weird youth-groups with friends, only to realize when I returned home that what I mistook for "repentance" was actually guilt for some minor or imagined teenage transgression, and that I had been duped into feeling something that was not, in fact, genuine. Over the years, one of my issues with the churches I had attended (the more mainstream ones, that is) was this emphasis on the Ultimate Conversion Experience--that is, the moment of Being Saved. It struck me as being so intangible as to be unreliable, first of all (child of reason that I was), and second, so wrapped up in emotion as to be, to my mind, distasteful. (I've said before that I've had to gradually "grow into" spirituality, in part because I had been warm & fuzzied to death over the years. . .) I wondered how one recognized the One Moment, what happened if one lapsed (this from observing the "Saved" around me, or the hairdresser who declared her son to be "Saved" anew every time he came back home needing money), and any number of other things. I believe I understand things a bit better now, but suffice it to say that I was skeptical, and rejected the whole concept out of hand. I came to wonder if not everyone was capable of the Ultimate Conversion Experience, so when I was looking for a conversion experience, I looked to reason rather than the lightening bolts I was told to expect. (Is it any wonder I liked the Hughes story?)

Now, this is not to say that my conversion experience, when it came, was not recognizable as something unique and momentous, and suffused with emotion, but that's not where I'm going with this. Rather, I want to think about the difference in the way "conversion" is represented within Catholicism. Certainly, "conversion" is the act of becoming Catholic--or Christian, if one is not Catholic. It involves Baptism if one is not Baptized already, and in Catholicism, it involves the acts of receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation--First Communion, First Reconciliation (if one is already Baptized) and Confirmation. But I was surprised to find, within Catholicism, a discourse of conversion that went beyond initiation into the membership of the Faith--something beyond that first acceptance--of the individual by the Church and of the Church by the individual. During Lent in particular, there was a discourse of "turning away," of "converting"--turning one's mind and actions away from sin and toward God. Those Catholics who had turned away from the Church, but returned were described as having "conversion experiences" (though they were not called "converts"), and even those who had never left the Church were sometimes referred to as having a conversion of mind, heart, spirit, etc., sometimes to a new acceptance or a closer understanding of Church doctrine. In addition, the Eucharist is a means toward our continual conversion. I found comfort in this expanded definition of "conversion" which placed emphasis on a continual affirmation of faith rather than a one-time faith event that was supposed to sustain the love of God and the will to remain relatively sinless. It placed more responsibility on the individual and acknowledged the individual's weakness simultaneously. It also somewhat modified my understanding of what "conversion" means.

Thinking about Entropy's post, then, my initial response addressed the question of what I gained from being a convert, and what I thought my children stood to gain from being raised Catholic rather than being allowed to convert later, in the manner of many Protestant denominations, which teach that Baptism should follow the individual conversion experience rather than being chosen by the parents. I did value my choice, but this was from the perspective of rejecting organized religion (int he form of all Christian churches). However, I do think that even had I been raised Catholic (as I "should" have been, given that my parents were Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church), I would have rebelled at some point. But perhaps I would have had a better vantage point for converting, that is, for turning back. I still would have had the ability to "claim" my faith, and perhaps (ideally) I would have had a better idea of what I stood to gain or lose. Who knows? But this is my point: that what we really mean by "converting" when we talk about the Ultimate Conversion Experience (or even Being Saved) is the act of Claiming one's faith. And though Catholics are Baptized at birth, all Catholics have various opportunities to claim our Faith. Inevitably, it is (or should be) an act of will to convert--to claim one's faith; however, everyone should at some point exercise their own will in choosing their faith, even to choose the faith that they were given from birth by their parents.

I am not a quilter

But I made this last November. It nearly killed me. My aunts and mother would make them, sometimes to sell, sometimes to keep, sometimes for gifts. The original backings were bandannas, but bandannas wear out very easily.

My mom gave us one after we were married that we eventually gave to my son; for my birthday one year, she gave me one with a beautiful bright pink Indian pattern on the back; my aunts made one for my daughter sometime between her birth and first birthday with a Mary Englebright print and a flower garden motif on the blue-jean side. So the only one who didn't have one all to himself was my husband, and we had been looking for a particular "motif" for the backing--blue jays. It's a New Orleans thing. A very specific New Orleans thing! It took us until last year to find the fabric. And it took several weeks for my fingers to heal from all the pins! But it was worth it. He was very happy, and I am so proud of it. I don't think I'll make another one, yet I can't bring myself to give away blue jeans. . .

Blankies!!

Here are some more photos of things that I like to make. I made this blanket yesterday. I bought the fabric a while back before the last baby shower I attended, when I was trying to pick out the right color scheme for my friend's blanket. It's become kind of a standard shower gift. They're really easy to make, and picking out the colors is fun! Anyway, I made this one for myself, probably for my (older) daughter, since we didn't know that the new one is more-than-likely a girl when I picked out the fabric. I need to experiment making one for a boy, and I have an idea and a baby boy in mind, I just need to do it! Most of the mothers I know who have had babies recently have had girls, though!

This is mine (for my daughter). I'll have to look around to find new colors for the new baby! She likes to wrap herself up in it. The backing is polar fleece, very cuddly. It's a play quilt in summer, or a cozy quilt for winter!


Here's the first I made:

Green and pink:Peach!

Did you know. . . (with update)

That botulism is the Latin word for sausage? And that "food poisoning" was originally named "sausage poisoning" (botulism) because a widespread incidence of food poisoning was linked to bad sausage? Check Google. Isn't the internet wonderful? Because I wasn't concerned enough that the sausage I just put in my red beans had a white slime coating. I washed it off, and the sausage smelled fine, but as I was putting it in, I thought, 'This is not smart. I'm going to regret this. I won't be able to eat this with a good conscience." And then I hit Google! So I am now cooking a delicious-smelling pot of potentially contaminated supper. Wonderful. To top it off, I realized that the sausage expired today. Sweet.

UPDATE: Well, my husband was the brave one. . . or the guinea pig, whichever you prefer. I would not have let him eat it had I not become convinced that cooking for 4 hours at a vigorous simmer had not killed anything that needed to be killed, or had I thought it very likely that the sausage was bad to begin with. So he ate a couple of pieces of sausage the day it was cooked, brought some beans the next day, and by Saturday, I was confident enough to eat some and feed it to my son. My daughter did not have any. However, we all survived. Not the trace of a stomach ailment. Hooray! I hate wasting food. But I don't like taking chances, either!!

Projects!

This is not exactly a real post, I just wanted to display the things I have been working on! The pictures could be better. It's just a good thing that I wasn't selling these on eBay! But maybe you can get kind of an idea of them.

Baby Sling (courtesy of Elizabeth Lee):
Diaper Bag Purse to coordinate with sling (Scrap Bags makes the pattern):

Pretty batik fabric that inspired the sling/bag combo:
Nursing peasant shirt (modified McCalls):
A close-up of the paisley:
And, for a limited time. . . Oops! Gone now!

So Much to Do. . .

. . .And so little time!

Blogging is likely to be limited in August. I've been feeling a bit overwhelmed knowing that the baby is coming in 13--that is, THIRTEEN--weeks, that the fall semester starts on August 27th--only 3 weeks away--that my son starts school on the same day the semester starts, that once the semester actually starts, I will have NO TIME AT ALL for baby preparations.

Monday I start childbirth classes. There are many worries associated with that. I have wanted a natural childbirth both times so far, adn both times I was optimistic. Unfortunately, both times I have had my water break (or leak) with no contractions, and had to have pitocin, which effectively eliminates the "natural" part. It is my opinion that to have pitocin (at least at the levels at which it was administered to me) necessitates the epidural. So my fear is, what if my contractions come naturally and they are just as bad as the pitocin and I've been fooling myself that the reason I couldn't handle the pain was because of the pitocin? There are plenty of reasons to think that the assumption that the reason I couldn't handle the pain was because of the pitocin is correct, but in the wise words of the nurse midwife (whom I decided not to continue to see for appointments), "Labor hurts." Gee, thanks. I thought all of that pain management stuff was just for fun. And after all, I've never done this before. But she felt the need to tell me that her labors were CERTAINLY as bad as a labor with pitocin. That's what you get from a midwife who is former military.

I've been trying to get a lot of things done that I "saved" for after the move and the summer semester. I made myself a baby sling (the type with rings). Yesterday, I finished a nursing top that was modified from a regular McCalls pattern--not sure how it will work; I may still need to adjust some things. I am working on a combination purse/diaper bag to coordinate with the sling, but the pattern is disappointing and I have to modify it to make it what I really want it to be. And there are more projects I would like to complete before the semester starts: a nursing "twinset," two nursing dresses, a dress for my toddler to coordinate with the twinset, a play quilt for the new baby, a maternity top I started ages ago but couldn't finish because I didn't have enough fabric (misleading directions). Sewing--especially modifying projects--takes a lot of mental effort. And when I get started on a project I'm excited about, it pretty much consumes me. Even when I'm not actually working on the project, it preys on my mind--thinking about the pattern directions, wondering the best way to accomplish any modifications I have in mind. . . It can really be absorbing!

Then, there are the other things I need to do: I need to register my son for school, procure a cello for him for the fall, figure out why financial aid hasn't posted my loan, finalize my syllabus, set up my course site on Moodle (once the darned administrator sets up the course for me) and oh yeah! finish a chapter on D. H. Lawrence. Whoopee!! Needless to say, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed. I'm drinking more and more caffeine every day. At some moment--sometimes multiple moments--every day, I have to face this choice: drink caffeine to try to stay awake & get things done, or nap. Sometimes the nap wins, but not often.

Best not to think about it too much, though. The hormones kick in, and it's downhill from there! The dissertation is going O.K. these days. Steady. Not really satisfying work, but it seems that that's what "middles" look like--the inspiring part is over, and you just need to continue to plod through & make your case. I find plodding rather difficult. Oh well!

I guess we'll call this early nesting. I know I won't have time for it later, but such is life!

Breastfeeding Virgin - Madonna Lactans - A favorite of mine

Jay at Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate posted this today (well, yesterday now) about how he was fortunate enough to see, completely without warning, El Greco's The Holy Family, which happens not only to portray the Holy Family, but what Jay considers "one of the most beautiful portraits of the Blessed Mother ever painted" (with which I am inclined to agree--see Jay's site for a detail) and my favorite of all of the portraits of the Virgin breastfeeding that I have ever seen. Simply beautiful and inspirational. I was saving this one for a really inspirational post, but this seemed like a good occasion.

From an art historical perspective, it strikes me that the Virgin and Child are not arranged in the usual triangular shape, with their two figures closer to heaven. I wonder who the woman is caressing the Infant's head. . . In El Greco's work, the beauty, of course, is in the representation of the faces, and the emotion evoked by his choice of color. This image speaks to me of adoration. I wish I was also fortunate enough to see it in person.

Hmmm. . . Looking at Jay's post again, it appears that the reproduction I have posted is a different version of the painting than the one on display in Jamestown! How interesting!!

Today's Surprises

1) I was surprised today that I had no fewer than 4 text messages from my mom when I turned on my phone after Mass.

2) My mom was surprised today by a representative from her mortgage company trying to change the locks on her house--she made him go away for now. . .

3) I was surprised that my favorite yummy pizza buffet place has raised their prices. We used to get a lunch buffet for $4.25. Now, it's $8.00. :(

4) I was surprised today to learn that a friend of mine from high school Speech & Debate is running for Louisiana State Representative. Well okay, not too surprised. But I was surprised when he offered to help my mom find a job if he could!

5) I was surprised today when asked in the grocery store by my son's former Religious Education teacher, from whom I had taken Communion only hours earlier, if this baby was going to be my last. I think I surprised both of us when I said, "And what kind of a Catholic would I be if I said 'yes'?"

6) I was surprised to learn that Chris has given me an award! (More on that later.) I was even more surprised, given what the award was, to find out that it was given to him!!

7) I have been surprised all weekend by the number of responses on Jen's post on ambitious women and staying at home. I was surprised to find myself in agreement with the anonymous poster that caused Jen to disallow anonymous posts. I was also surprised to find myself defending stay-at-home moms from the accusation that they were trying to find company in their misery. No really, I was surprised by that! I was not too surprised to see the conversation devolve into the "you think you know what's best for everyone" type of dialogue. That kind of thing just happens too often.

8) I was surprised not to be able to think of 3 more surprising things. I really wanted to make it 10. . .

9) I wasn't really surprised when my husband went on a cleaning spree. He does that kind of thing from time to time--much more often than I do.

10) I was surprised when he hurt a muscle cleaning and said it was divine retribution because I'm not fulfilling my womanly role. You see, I've been telling him about Jen's post! ;)

Things I've Been Thinking About. . .

If anyone can find a way to make that title grammatically correct and casual at the same time, let me know. . .
1) A while back, Jen referred me to another blog post of hers in response to a comment I made on this post. On my most recent post, I seemed once again to be asking the same questions, so I decided to write a response to Jen. It went something like this:

One of the reasons that I object to those who advise married couples to re-prioritize with God's will in mind is that it implies a serious judgment on the couple--that by pursuing careers, they are not considering their vocation as a married couple and God's will for their family the way they should be, and that the couple needs to re-prioritize with these things in mind, making sacrifices, yada yada. But I think that even if the couple was not yet consciously considering God's will, they might have been acting in accord with it simply from having been directed that way. So the acknowledgment that the family is or should be guided by God does not necessarily mean that everything that has happened up to that point was fruitless or misdirected. I know that in my life and my marriage and my family, I have certainly seen what I now take to be evidence that we were heading in the right direction. In many ways, my conversion was a culmination of where God had been leading me through motherhood, marriage (in that order) and my pursuit of higher education. There are certainly some things that I should have done differently to be more perfectly in accord with God's plan for my life--like the marriage and motherhood being somewhat out-of-order--but as I read somewhere, on "The Anchoress" blog, I believe, the Holy Spirit works with such materials as he has, and I'm not sure God could have gotten through to me in any other way. Had I not become pregnant, my husband & I would have probably lived together without being married, and may have lost each other by doing so. So if you look back on your life and feel like you can see that yes, God has been leading you into certain choices simply by making the right options available at the right time, how can you possibly interpret that as a cause to re-evaluate? I know situations are different, and something like the materialism you describe may be a cause to reevaluate priorities, but that may involve a shift in thinking and not always an entire lifestyle change.

The other problem I have is that the implications are usually the most dire for women--especially ambitious women, who must give up everything that they have pursued to the point of marriage and/or motherhood. Had I believed this when I became pregnant with my son, I either would have been pushed toward abortion, or I would have left school before reaching my B.A., which would have had serious consequences for our financial well-being as a family as well as my ability to cope with the challenges of motherhood. But again, I don't think that commitment to a marriage necessarily involves the degree of self-sacrifice that is generally attributed to it. I do believe that it involves compromise, some self-sacrifice on the part of both spouses, devotion to the marriage, the spouse, and to family, but I'm not sure that it involves an abandonment of personal and professional goals outside of the house, especially if those goals were family-friendly or were made with the possibility of a family in mind. Now, if the plans were made with an overly idealistic view of how things would work with a family, that is something different, and reevaluation would certainly be in order. But these things tend to be discussed in such abstracts and absolutes that it is difficult to find oneself in what is being proposed.

2) Harry Potter. Before my mom left, we went to see Order of the Phoenix. It was compelling--more so than the other films, I thought. And it raised enough questions that I wanted to read the book. Now, I hadn't gotten past the first chapter of Azkaban previously. There were some things that really bugged me--and some that still do. One is the matter of internal consistency. But I have revisited Azkaban. They're great when you need an escape--and I do.

3) An article mentioned, I believe, by The Curt Jester, titled "The New Victorians." I do take issue with the title, but we won't go into the Victorian thing. The idea is that there is a movement among women to embrace traditional conceptions of family and reject the trappings of the Sexual Revolution, including scanty clothing and promiscuity.

4) An article mentioned last Friday in Jen's Friday Favorites about a professional couple who decided to keep a baby at a professionally inconvenient time, rather than abort the baby to allow them to continue with their plan to investigate restrictive abortion laws in Mexico. There's a lot that's troubling here, although the overall message that life can continue with a baby is one that I'd like to see promoted more often, as I've mentioned before. I'm frankly surprised that this appeared in the New York Times. It just doesn't seem like their kind of topic.

5) The Latin Mass. Specifically, what the recent Motu Proprio issues by Pope Benedict XVI really means, apart from the hype of those who want to say that it's a step backward, that the Latin Mass is anti-semitic, and all of the other charges that have been leveled in recent weeks. My question: Does this really affect most parishes in this country? Should we really expect to see Latin Masses popping up in our local parishes? Unfortunately, the answer is likely 'no'. It is great that in parishes where a lot of crotchety Catholics have been clamoring for a long time for the Mass in Latin, the priest no longer has to rely on the permission of the bishop (who, in a perfect world, would have seen the value of permitting the Latin Mass) to serve his parishoners' liturgical needs. And similarly a good thing that those who attend schismatic masses simply because they like the Latin can be reincorporated into the Body of Christ. But in places where there's not a huge agitation, just a handful who would really like to seethe Mass done in Latin on a regular basis (weekly or at least monthly), there is little real hope that the pastors will see the need to comply. Here is one post that suggests some of the obstacles--popular opinion being one, and one that attempts to explain the implications of the Motu Proprio. I've been told by a deacon friend that, while "the motu propio has made provisions for the faithful to initiate the request and a mechanism for bypassing balky priests
and bishops," several obstacles exist, including that "most American seminaries stopped teaching Latin in the 1970s or have greatly lowered the Latin that they teach their seminarians," resulting in a loss of comfort level with the Latin among priests. There also seems to be a scarcity of the 1962 Missal. I also wonder if the sheer hassle of trying to fit another Mass--in another language--in the weekend and determining who will officiate is part of the deterrent. Any way, I feel rather let down, like the Motu Proprio--so long anticipated--has been much ado about. . . you know.

6) A half-post started a while back, in response to a comment from Melanie B on this post. She links to an article by Christopher West, of Theology of the Body fame, whose work I have never before read, but who has some interesting things to say in this brief article about Catholic moms and breastfeeding. This comment came at an interesting time for me (although I read it a few days late), as my husband and I had just been talking about something related. I was remembering having read that the Catholic Church encourages mothers to breastfeed for nutritional/nurturing purposes--though I can't remember now where I read this. A quick Google search revealed that most of the mention of breastfeeding in a Catholic context has to do with NFP and Natural Child Spacing, with occasional references to John Paul II or a rather recent book called Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood that talks about breastfeeding in the context of the "vocation as a Catholic mother." None of these are quite what I had in mind. (I hate lost references!)

An aside: In the process of searching, I found a film review by the USCCB that listed potentially objectionable elements in a particular film as "Murder (not shown), several disturbing images of a female cadaver with upper nudity, realistic fistfight with blood, a dead pet, rough and crude language and profanity, sexual language and groping, breast-feeding, discussion of abortion, discreetly depicted urination, alcohol use and domestic discord." Hmph!! As far as I'm concerned, the term "breast-feeding" (however spelled) should never be included with the rest of that sentence! It should never even be considered potentially offensive. But the anti-breastfeeding bias exists, even in contexts where it should not. Well, at least we know that this doesn't represent the Church's official position on the subject!

Christopher West's article takes as its point of departure some of the recent controversies surrounding breastfeeding, particularly images of breastfeeding in popular culture (interestingly, I almost showed a breastfeeding picture from a magazine cover alongside a book cover for a book about implants in my class for visual rhetoric and had them analyze the implications of each, but that was the last slide and we ran out of time). He discusses some cultural differences in terms of how breastfeeding is regarded, and concludes more or less that it is our skewed (sinful) way of viewing things that results in breastfeeding being seen as somehow improper, inappropriate, scandalous.

Though taken out of context, I found this quote interesting:

John Paul II observed in his theology of the body that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” Since the body reveals the person, John Paul believes that this speaks volumes, not only about feminine biology, but about the dignity and nature of woman as a person.

My initial reaction was to take exception to the first observation, that the “whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look [is] in strict union with motherhood.” That is, until I remembered seeing on several documentaries about sex the same assertions made from a scientific and evolutionary rather than theological perspective. The body, from an evolutionary perspective, is designed to facilitate procreation--that is, survival of the species--beginning with sexual attraction of the mate, which, evolutionary biologists maintain, has to do with the potential mate's suitability for mating and the production of healthy offspring. Anyway, the compatibility of these notions struck me as interesting. The second part of the passage above is a little more complex. I'm not sure what is meant by "the body reveals the person." Again, it is taken out of context, but I wonder how less desirable physical characteristics would be regarded according to this sentiment, or how cultural and racial differences might enter that discussion. . .

And well, that's all for now! (Okay, it was a cheap ploy to get 6 posts in at once!)

Pregnant Grad Student Angst

I am in the process of recovering from a very stressful meeting with Dr. Adviser. I was dreading it in the first place, and so having a mini-panic-attack which for me means that I am pretty much sick to my stomach. It started out bad and got better, though I know I will be replaying various segments of the 2-part lecture: part 1-I'm disappointed in your progress; part 2-this is what happens when you get pregnant as a grad student and it's not going to get any better. Great. What I didn't need was for my dominant emotion coming out of the meeting to be "WELL, I DIDN'T EXACTLY ASK FOR THIS, DID I?" That's a really healthy attitude for someone about to enter her 7th months of pregnancy. I didn't realize that was as close to the surface as it was.

Problem #1: Well, we've already covered the "I don't really want to do this," haven't we? The thing is that when I'm doing it, it's stimulating. When I'm not doing it, I dread doing it so much that I have no motivation to push myself.

Problem #2: Teaching 15 weeks worth of material in 5 weeks, while pregnant and anemic, hence exhausted, every day for an hour and a half in the heat of summer in Texas, having to trudge to another building in the heat, and trying to find someone to watch the children while I do it since my husband was unable to do it this time and even if I liked daycare, I could not afford any of the child care programs that could accommodate the time of day when I taught.

A couple of interesting highlights from the meeting that perhaps deserve further consideration:

Well, at least you can look at it this way--when you finish, you will already have your family. You won't be looking at starting a family when you get a job--oh wait! when you get tenure, like Drs. 1, 2, and 3 who--oh by the way--are not full professors yet because that's what happens when you take time out for kids.

The system doesn't really allow for time off for pregnancy. It's just not "woman friendly."

The last time you were pregnant you were far enough ahead that you could take some time off without it hurting you, but that just can't happen this time.

So there go all of my rosy optimistic ideas. Poof!

Clearly Dr. Adviser is not familiar with Natural Family Planning and that whole "openness to life" thing! And neither is anyone else. So basically, the problem is not so much the getting pregnant in graduate school. The problem is converting to Catholicism in grad school. I guess I should have waited for tenure first.

I'm sure there's a lot more that will come back to me from this conversation. I had at least expected some constructive feedback on what I had written. I was given something to research that might prove interesting--just the seed of something, but a direction to pursue nonetheless.

I am reminded of one of my earlier angry momma posts that asked whether God liked to play tricks on unsuspecting Catholic women by letting them know somewhere along the line that they're supposed to have large families instead of those other pursuits that they had--especially before they were married or before they were Catholic. It's all very well to say "re-prioritize," but a lot depends on where the family is at the point of re-prioritizing, and most who make that observation are either 1) the men--usually husbands, frequently husbands whose wives are stay-at-home moms, or 2) women whose husbands have jobs that allow for re-prioritizing of personal and familial goals. It also implies a degree of materialism and frivolity of personal and familial goals. So how does one "re-prioritize" away the financial need for a teaching assistantship, either to take care of babies or to finish a dissertation? And how does one "re-prioritize" away the need to finish last 3 chapters of a dissertation, abandoning the Ph.D. altogether? In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I just don't see the value of abandoning everything at this point. In spite of my lack of enthusiasm, I don't really want to abandon everything at this point, as my "children in academia" posts should indicate.

But I'm getting off track. That's not at all where I wanted this to go, but it's all bound together. I know what's at stake and why I need to finish (after all, he's got 3 grad students in the pipeline after me--one of whom is also pregnant!). But that doesn't make any of this any easier--emotionally, physically, or intellectually.

The Ethics of Charity--on the receiving end

Okay, so why do I have such deep, deep, penetrating reservations about accepting help from Mormons?? Help is help, right? Could it be because the friend who is the liason with the Mormons converted in order to secure a community to insure her son's well being after she dies? And that she speaks in terms of "still being Catholic, really"? Well, no. That's not the reason. But it creeps me out to know that they are offering help. Especially since at one time the implication was that they were not particularly interested in helping those who were not interested in becoming Mormon. I wonder what the friend has been saying to the Mormon hierarchy that they are willing to help now. I've been trying to go through all the Catholic channels, but bureaucracy is bureaucracy, right? These things take time. Except for the Mormons, I guess.