It's not Just for Breastfeeding Mothers Any More!!

But this article about Southwest Airlines rather explains the loophole that allows airlines to get away with telling breastfeeding mothers to do. . . well. . . whatever it is that the flight attendants tell them to do on a given flight--cover up, stop feeding, whatever. It seems that, while Southwest claims not to have a dress code, they also reserve the right to censor passengers' outfits for various reasons, with the result that two women have brought complaints against Southwest for addressing their wardrobe choices:

Setara Qassim said a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Burbank, California, and asked whether she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.

Qassim, 21, told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.

Last week, 23-year-old Kayla Ebbert said a Southwest employee pulled her aside as she was preparing to board a plane departing San Diego for Tucson in July and told her she was dressed too provocatively to fly.

Ebbert, who took her case to NBC's "Today Show," said she was allowed on the plane after adjusting her sweater and short skirt. She said she was humiliated and felt the stares of other passengers who had overheard the verbal dressing-down.

Now, do you think these women were wearing anything that you haven't seen in Church? Okay, unfair question! ;)

What strikes me first is the rationale behind the censure. One was "dressed too provocatively." There clearly isn't an objective standard for this. I would like to know if the airline employees imposing these guidelines were male or female, fundamentalist, or personally turned on by the passengers' attire. (This reminds me of discussions I've seen on other blogs about whether a sexily dressed woman is responsible for others' "occasions of sin"!) But this is the passage that seemed relevant to breastfeeding in the air:

American Airlines claims the right to refuse to carry passengers for a variety of reasons, including being drunk, barefoot, having an offensive odor or being "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

That's pretty broad. The example given is offensive graphics on a t-shirt, but it's not tough to see how breastfeeding falls under this jurisdiction--even if the mother is discreetly covered. (But then, some passengers (and flight attendants) find the presence of children offensive enough anyway. . .) Of course, breastfeeding is an act, not a manner of dress, but certainly if the breast were all or partially exposed, one could anticipate this regulation being invoked. I have breastfed without incident on an airplane, but it was years ago (a bit over 10 years ago, to be precise). It was probably Southwest. But then, I don't like sitting by other people anyway, so there was likely no one there but my husband, and he wouldn't have complained!

The Best of Both Worlds

After my recent posts and the responses that others have posted, I found, on my wanderings, two posts that seem to address what I will call wanting "the best of both worlds." Because I believe that that's what I'm striving to achieve. I do naturally assume that most mothers want to spend time--some time, all of their time, more time, whatever--with their children. I feel that this can be accomplished more than it is being now by a pervasive change in attitude. And, well, it doesn't seem that I'm alone here.

In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.

The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.

The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.

Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:

. . . .

However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .

I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .

Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.

Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!

Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:

. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.

My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .

I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).

Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.

We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.

So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.

Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.

So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.

The Stupidity of Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sometimes I hate this

What is it about blogs that draw me in? I think I will be taking a break for a while. I've been composing an entry that I call "Skirting the Issue" about people who narrowly define what is "feminine." It is in response to this post and, to a lesser degree, this post, which includes the following comment from a reader:

It's important to also remember that the Tridentine does not allow disruptions such as the laity hand-shake/kissy face/hugging fiesta, nor does it have the holding hands Protestant innovation during the Our Father, no musical instruments other than the Organ, only sacred music or Gregorian chant and polyphony; no women on the altar, kneeling reverently to receive Blessed Sacrament only on the tongue, no talking in Church, only reverent dress, no slacks for women, etc. (emphasis mine)

I have become caught up with thinking about the issue of traditionalizing femininity, especially in a Catholic context, and I am frustrated that, for one thing, so many of the blogs I am reading voice this opinion in one way or the other. I have become inarticulate about the matter. Luckily I know that the Church in no way endorses the attitudes that these bloggers/serial commenters represent. Rather, they are viewing the theology narrowly, for their own ends, and defending/asserting their claims with narrow-minded arguments and persuasive techniques (the type I teach my Freshman to analyze, then to avoid). This is not my last word on the matter, but I don't want to spend the time and effort on the response right now, as I am tired from a long weekend of caring for a sick baby, and I don't think my blood pressure can stand the stress. What I object to most are the personal attacks and misrepresentation--after all, if I disagree slightly, I am the enemy--emblem of all they are fighting against. This has ceased to be fun for me right now.