This past Sunday saw St. Paul's words about marriage from the Letter to the Ephesians make their appearance again. (For non-Catholics, our Lectionary, which contains all the Bible readings for Mass, runs on a three year cycle. If you attend Mass every Sunday for the whole three years, you hear about 90% of the Bible. If you add in daily Mass, you get up past 95% of the Bible. The only part left out is all the "begats." Remember that next time someone tells you that the Catholic Church isn't a "Bible believing" church. Grr.)
Anyway, the part that gets people all riled up, of course, is the part about wives being submissive to their husbands. I will quote, from Ephesians 5:21-30.
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
This was immediately followed by the Gospel reading, which was from John 6, the Bread of Life discourse. After Jesus tells His listeners that He will give them His flesh to eat, people start to leave Him and call Him a blasphemer. (Tangent: if Jesus meant this to be only a symbol, don't you think He would have called back His followers and explained, corrected their misperception? But He didn't do that, He let it stand.....hmmmm......) Another quote:
Many of Jesus' disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
I chuckled inwardly, because that could just as easily apply to modern attitudes toward the second reading as to Jesus' declaration of His Real Presence in the Eucharist. While I am happy to report that another deacon at a different Mass than the one I attended apparently gave a great homily that did address this reading, I waited in vain to hear it addressed at my Mass. (Usually priests give the homilies, but deacons can do it too, and at our parish there is usually one Sunday a month when the deacons preach.) In different years, I have also heard a deacon tell the congregation that he has never and will never preach on that Scripture, because his wife told him he'd better not. I remember thinking, "Wow, you are an ordained minister of Christ, supposedly one of His soldiers, and you can't even take on your wife's ridiculous order that you neglect teaching your flock about a certain part of Scripture?!" This past Sunday was a different one, but his avoidance of the second reading was obvious, and to my mind, pathetic.
If this reading makes you uncomfortable....SO WHAT?! This is YOUR JOB. (This goes for priests too.) When you avoid talking about this reading, you give the message that the secular society who declares us backward woman haters is right! You communicate that there is something shameful about that Scripture, and that it needs to be hidden and ignored as much as possible. If you think this Scripture will anger your female audience, then you need to learn more about how it needs to be taught to a modern audience. But also, you need to adopt more of a "so what" attidude about that possibility. People get angry when you say abortion and euthanasia are wrong too. They get angry when you preach against premarital sex and divorce. Are you gonna stop? (And if you would, then please, just hang up your stole right now.)
Here's the thing. This teaching looks different in every single family that attemtps to live it. The one thing it is not, which so many seem to think it is, is license for a man to lord it over a woman, putting up his feet and ordering her to get him a beer while she slaves away on housework. Your job as an ordained deacon or priest is to dispel misconceptions like that. How can you do that if you refuse to ever talk about it?
Really, truly READ that passage. First, it tells spouses to be subordinate to each other. Then it goes on to tell wives to be subject to their husbands. Is it possible that cultural bias of the time influenced the wording? Sure, after all, the Bible was written by inspired HUMAN authors, and each added their own influence to what they wrote. But let's think about this: the man is described as the head of his family. Don't families work best when a man truly embraces that role? When he takes on himself the responsibility of the welfare of everyone in his domestic sphere? How healthy are families when he doesn't do that? Fatherlessness is a national crisis, and yet we persist in trying to have it both ways, wanting to deny men their leadership role. Keep reading, and you will see that men are ordered to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. You know, that Church that he allowed Himself to be CRUCIFIED for? How is that not subjection and subordination? Wives are basically told to listen to and respect their husbands. Husbands are told to be ready to suffer torture and death for their wives. Wow. That would seem to put things on a pretty unfair level....for MEN. That's an awfully high standard to expect of them. And yet, a man who has truly embraced his leadership role will be ready to do that for his wife and children, because that is what his call is as a Christian husband and father.
I can't give you a formula for how this looks in every day family life. I could tell you how it looks in my family, but that won't be relevant for anyone else. Each couple has to work it out for themselves, and that is where the guidance role of our leadership comes in. If you have been ordained as a priest or deacon, and you refuse to lead Christ's people in the difficult matters, if you refuse to help them understand what might be confusing, you are not doing your job. If it's uncomfortable or scary, well, so what? Jesus didn't call you to give you an easy life. He called to you preach His Word and lead His flock. That's always been hard. It's like being a good parent, where the easy path is basically never the right one.
Now the caveat here is that a woman has to choose a man wisely before she puts this much trust in him. Likewise, men must choose wisely before committing themselves to lay down their lives for a woman. I have told my daughters, any guy who quotes the first part of this Scripture in an attempt to boss you around is someone you should run from, with all the speed you can muster. Because men like that seem never to get around to reading the second part. They are troglodytes in Christian robes. For men, if a woman wants to try and use this Scripture as an excuse not to develop herself and reach her potential, educationally, professionally, morally, whatever, then you should also run from her. She is just looking for someone to blame for her failures. While you should be willing to face crucifixion for your wife, it shouldn't be your wife doing the crucifying.
Honestly, if I can work out this little bit of cogent thought on the topic, shouldn't someone who has been educated and ordained by the Church be able to do as much? Gird up your loins, guys, and get to it!
Showing posts with label traditional values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label traditional values. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
If you want a Mr. Bates, you have to be an Anna
This is another thought that has been buzzing around in my brain for a while, but also suffered from my lack of opportunity to post. I seriously need to get a notebook and start writing myself little notes, because I am going to forget some of these topics before I get to post.
Downton Abbey is PBS' biggest success in years. People talk about it resurrecting a dying network. It has the largest audience PBS has been able to garner in a long, long time. People bring all kinds of reasons along with them for liking it. In fact, I have one friend who claims to watch it just for the clothes! (As an Anglophile, I can't resist pointing out that this show is actually a BBC production, which most of PBS' best stuff has been over the decades. So really the most credit they can take is for being good shoppers.)
One huge reason that Downton's largely female audience loves the show seems to be because of John Bates, one of the main characters, who is Lord Grantham's valet. His unfailing moral uprightness, stoicism, self-sacrifice, and utter devotion to Anna Smith, a maid, seem to be like catnip to American women fed up with little boys in adult bodies who can't seem to commit to anything lasting longer than a hookup.
But here's the thing, girls. If you want a Mr. Bates, you have to act like an Anna Smith. There was a scene in the second season (spoiler alert, but since the shows have been out since January, I apologize for nothing) where the frustration from John's attempts to gain a divorce from his evil, scheming wife so he can marry Anna has reached the boiling point, and Anna suggests she should just become his mistress. What non-watchers of the show need to understand is that this was a momentary lapse for Anna. Through most of the two seasons, she has been so proper as to be painful. The growing feelings between her and John became more and more obvious, but they hardly ever touched, and never even kissed until after they were engaged. It was clear they both wanted to throw themselves at each other.....BUT THEY DIDN'T. No matter how in love, sex and physical involvement is clearly for the married in their world. Anna makes it clear in her interactions with John that no matter how much affection she has for him, there are lines she can't cross unless she is his wife. John, an old soldier who has clearly seen the more worldly side of these issues, loves and respects her so much that he wouldn't dream of violating her boundaries. When Anna breaks down and suggests that they live together illicitly, John immediately refuses, though it's clear he wants her very much. He says, "That's not you. You couldn't be happy that way." He also tells her that he could not live with himself if he compromised her honor in such a way.
The result of all this is that when John and Anna finally do marry, their tastefully done nuptial scene, in a beautiful room of the mansion provided to them by the family as a wedding gift, is so much lovelier and more meaningful.
Women of America, the reason too many of us don't have this is because we don't demand it. If you want to stop being a victim of the hookup culture, then stop participating in it. Will this make it harder for you to find a man? Probably, because they have all been programmed to expect sex by the third date, and if they don't get it, they won't waste time on you, but find another woman who is easier. But what would happen if ALL women stopped degrading themselves in this way and started demanding actual involvement and commitment from their men before consenting to sex? One of the basic facts about male psychology is that they value much more what they have to work hard to obtain. Women who give it up too easily betray all women, by making a culture of commitment impossible. Just look at our divorce and non-marriage rates to see where the sexual revolution has taken our society. Being that woman who decides to make herself unavailable for sex without commitment could result in eventually finding the right kind of man. But these days the deck is so stacked the other way that it could backfire and lead to a woman never finding a mate. Personally, though, I think it's worth the risk. It's the advice I am giving my daughters. In fact, my oldest, who is 14 and a Downton Abbey fan, has already heard the title and concept of this post. Talking about it with her is what inspired me to post.
There are ways to meet men who share your values, and none of them are perfect, but they do increase your odds. Meeting men at church gives you better odds than bars or frat parties, for example. I worry about my kids being able to find mates, make marriages that last, and build strong families. The culture is so toxic to those goals. But I will stand by what I believe, and teach my daughters the virtues of Anna Smith, and my sons those of John Bates.
Because ladies, if you want a Mr. Bates, you have to be an Anna.
Downton Abbey is PBS' biggest success in years. People talk about it resurrecting a dying network. It has the largest audience PBS has been able to garner in a long, long time. People bring all kinds of reasons along with them for liking it. In fact, I have one friend who claims to watch it just for the clothes! (As an Anglophile, I can't resist pointing out that this show is actually a BBC production, which most of PBS' best stuff has been over the decades. So really the most credit they can take is for being good shoppers.)
One huge reason that Downton's largely female audience loves the show seems to be because of John Bates, one of the main characters, who is Lord Grantham's valet. His unfailing moral uprightness, stoicism, self-sacrifice, and utter devotion to Anna Smith, a maid, seem to be like catnip to American women fed up with little boys in adult bodies who can't seem to commit to anything lasting longer than a hookup.
But here's the thing, girls. If you want a Mr. Bates, you have to act like an Anna Smith. There was a scene in the second season (spoiler alert, but since the shows have been out since January, I apologize for nothing) where the frustration from John's attempts to gain a divorce from his evil, scheming wife so he can marry Anna has reached the boiling point, and Anna suggests she should just become his mistress. What non-watchers of the show need to understand is that this was a momentary lapse for Anna. Through most of the two seasons, she has been so proper as to be painful. The growing feelings between her and John became more and more obvious, but they hardly ever touched, and never even kissed until after they were engaged. It was clear they both wanted to throw themselves at each other.....BUT THEY DIDN'T. No matter how in love, sex and physical involvement is clearly for the married in their world. Anna makes it clear in her interactions with John that no matter how much affection she has for him, there are lines she can't cross unless she is his wife. John, an old soldier who has clearly seen the more worldly side of these issues, loves and respects her so much that he wouldn't dream of violating her boundaries. When Anna breaks down and suggests that they live together illicitly, John immediately refuses, though it's clear he wants her very much. He says, "That's not you. You couldn't be happy that way." He also tells her that he could not live with himself if he compromised her honor in such a way.
The result of all this is that when John and Anna finally do marry, their tastefully done nuptial scene, in a beautiful room of the mansion provided to them by the family as a wedding gift, is so much lovelier and more meaningful.
Women of America, the reason too many of us don't have this is because we don't demand it. If you want to stop being a victim of the hookup culture, then stop participating in it. Will this make it harder for you to find a man? Probably, because they have all been programmed to expect sex by the third date, and if they don't get it, they won't waste time on you, but find another woman who is easier. But what would happen if ALL women stopped degrading themselves in this way and started demanding actual involvement and commitment from their men before consenting to sex? One of the basic facts about male psychology is that they value much more what they have to work hard to obtain. Women who give it up too easily betray all women, by making a culture of commitment impossible. Just look at our divorce and non-marriage rates to see where the sexual revolution has taken our society. Being that woman who decides to make herself unavailable for sex without commitment could result in eventually finding the right kind of man. But these days the deck is so stacked the other way that it could backfire and lead to a woman never finding a mate. Personally, though, I think it's worth the risk. It's the advice I am giving my daughters. In fact, my oldest, who is 14 and a Downton Abbey fan, has already heard the title and concept of this post. Talking about it with her is what inspired me to post.
There are ways to meet men who share your values, and none of them are perfect, but they do increase your odds. Meeting men at church gives you better odds than bars or frat parties, for example. I worry about my kids being able to find mates, make marriages that last, and build strong families. The culture is so toxic to those goals. But I will stand by what I believe, and teach my daughters the virtues of Anna Smith, and my sons those of John Bates.
Because ladies, if you want a Mr. Bates, you have to be an Anna.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Let's talk about sex, baby.
So one of the big news stories in Arizona this week was that our teen pregnancy rate showed the largest drop in the nation, according to the latest available statistics. Of course that is good news. As the mother of a teenage girl myself, I celebrate the fact that fewer children are having babies they are not prepared to raise.
However, the treatment of the story by commentators had me absolutely livid. I am a talk radio listener. I usually leave it on all day as background noise, tuning in when I hear something that catches my interest. I hear, and at times call in and participate in, more in-depth discussion of many news stories than the soundbites on the TV news. So when I heard the local fill-in guy going on and on and on about how this did NOT reflect more abstinence, but only increased contraceptive use, and the percentage of sexually active teenagers had NOT changed, and it was ALL about more contraceptive use.... as if it were his mission to make absolutely certain that there was no way that any of this good news could be tied to....GASP .... traditional values, I got so sputtering angry that my kids watched me struggle to form a sentence about it. Of course, they are used to this. They just laughed and said, "Mom's yelling at the radio again," to each other with giggles and knowing little nods.
As I drove them to school, I thought about why it made me so angry. I mean, it's nothing more than we hear every day. "Kids will do it anyway." "Abstinence education doesn't work." Anyone who disagrees with these pronouncemets is branded naive, stupid, or a religious radical. I am neither naive nor stupid, but I am willing to wear the third badge. As a serious, practicing Catholic, who strives to accept and live all the teachings of my Church, that's how I am regarded by society at large, and frankly, by most of my own family. (By the way, I am a failure at one of the biggies... see here for discussion of that.)
What I realized is that our public discussion of sexuality, for both teens and adults, is purely about the physical. We regard ourselves as successes if people avoid disease or unintended pregnancy. What we never talk about is whether they should be having sex at all. We don't talk about the impact of sexuality on hearts, minds, and souls.
This society regards itself as a success when more teenagers reach adulthood without having had a baby or contracted a disease. Why is it that we don't regard ourselves as failures when the only things we teach them about sex are how to have it in a defensive posture? When all we teach them is to protect themselves against the people they decide to share their bodies with? When we neglect to warn them about and ignore the evidence of broken hearts, degraded spirits, and jaded attitudes? When we teach our children that engaging in the most intimate thing two people can do, while only considering how to keep their innermost selves safe from the person they are sharing it with, what kind of accomplishment is that? When we tell them it's fine to do things that say forever, while knowing the relationship they do them in has almost no chance of being anything but temporary, how do we consider ourselves decent parents?
When are American parents going to step up and do better for their kids? When are we, as a society, going to stop living this fiction that sex can be a recreational activity with no consequences? When are we going to start telling our kids the truth about just how much one person gives of themselves to another when they share a sexual embrace, and how dangerous it is, not physically, but spiritually and emotionally, to share that with the wrong person?
In short, when are we going to admit the truth that the sexual revolution has largely destroyed the fabric of this country's social structure, and start rebuilding it by acknowledging that maybe those repressive grandparents who thought you should save it for marriage might just have known what the hell they were talking about?
I don't know about anyone reading this, but my children are too precious to be launched into the world believing such dangerous tripe. They won't hear from me that the gift from God to married couples, in which they are privileged to help Him create new human beings in His image and likeness, is acceptably dumbed down into a team sport, with as many players on the field as you choose.
When high standards are promoted, some people fail to live up to them. That has always been true. But when societies decide that because some fail, none should try, that is when they collapse. The acceptance of only the lowest standards ensures that everyone can meet them and almost no one will exceed them.
I have a much different vision for how sexuality will become part of my children's lives. I want them to know that it is a beautiful and powerful gift from God, that has unbelievable responsibility attached to it, and that when used correctly, its rewards are more than anyone can describe. In short, I will teach them the Catholic vision of sexuality, in all its life and soul-affirming truth and joy.
Call me crazy, call me stupid. But you'll never be able to say that I didn't TRY.
However, the treatment of the story by commentators had me absolutely livid. I am a talk radio listener. I usually leave it on all day as background noise, tuning in when I hear something that catches my interest. I hear, and at times call in and participate in, more in-depth discussion of many news stories than the soundbites on the TV news. So when I heard the local fill-in guy going on and on and on about how this did NOT reflect more abstinence, but only increased contraceptive use, and the percentage of sexually active teenagers had NOT changed, and it was ALL about more contraceptive use.... as if it were his mission to make absolutely certain that there was no way that any of this good news could be tied to....GASP .... traditional values, I got so sputtering angry that my kids watched me struggle to form a sentence about it. Of course, they are used to this. They just laughed and said, "Mom's yelling at the radio again," to each other with giggles and knowing little nods.
As I drove them to school, I thought about why it made me so angry. I mean, it's nothing more than we hear every day. "Kids will do it anyway." "Abstinence education doesn't work." Anyone who disagrees with these pronouncemets is branded naive, stupid, or a religious radical. I am neither naive nor stupid, but I am willing to wear the third badge. As a serious, practicing Catholic, who strives to accept and live all the teachings of my Church, that's how I am regarded by society at large, and frankly, by most of my own family. (By the way, I am a failure at one of the biggies... see here for discussion of that.)
What I realized is that our public discussion of sexuality, for both teens and adults, is purely about the physical. We regard ourselves as successes if people avoid disease or unintended pregnancy. What we never talk about is whether they should be having sex at all. We don't talk about the impact of sexuality on hearts, minds, and souls.
This society regards itself as a success when more teenagers reach adulthood without having had a baby or contracted a disease. Why is it that we don't regard ourselves as failures when the only things we teach them about sex are how to have it in a defensive posture? When all we teach them is to protect themselves against the people they decide to share their bodies with? When we neglect to warn them about and ignore the evidence of broken hearts, degraded spirits, and jaded attitudes? When we teach our children that engaging in the most intimate thing two people can do, while only considering how to keep their innermost selves safe from the person they are sharing it with, what kind of accomplishment is that? When we tell them it's fine to do things that say forever, while knowing the relationship they do them in has almost no chance of being anything but temporary, how do we consider ourselves decent parents?
When are American parents going to step up and do better for their kids? When are we, as a society, going to stop living this fiction that sex can be a recreational activity with no consequences? When are we going to start telling our kids the truth about just how much one person gives of themselves to another when they share a sexual embrace, and how dangerous it is, not physically, but spiritually and emotionally, to share that with the wrong person?
In short, when are we going to admit the truth that the sexual revolution has largely destroyed the fabric of this country's social structure, and start rebuilding it by acknowledging that maybe those repressive grandparents who thought you should save it for marriage might just have known what the hell they were talking about?
I don't know about anyone reading this, but my children are too precious to be launched into the world believing such dangerous tripe. They won't hear from me that the gift from God to married couples, in which they are privileged to help Him create new human beings in His image and likeness, is acceptably dumbed down into a team sport, with as many players on the field as you choose.
When high standards are promoted, some people fail to live up to them. That has always been true. But when societies decide that because some fail, none should try, that is when they collapse. The acceptance of only the lowest standards ensures that everyone can meet them and almost no one will exceed them.
I have a much different vision for how sexuality will become part of my children's lives. I want them to know that it is a beautiful and powerful gift from God, that has unbelievable responsibility attached to it, and that when used correctly, its rewards are more than anyone can describe. In short, I will teach them the Catholic vision of sexuality, in all its life and soul-affirming truth and joy.
Call me crazy, call me stupid. But you'll never be able to say that I didn't TRY.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Get thee to a nunnery!
Right now a convent sounds good. A cloistered convent. A nice, cloistered convent, with tall walls. On a mountaintop. In Switzerland.
What, you're thinking I'm a bit old and a little too married to be thinking about this? Not for me silly.
For my daughter. Let me show you....
I have three daughters, and shown here are the oldest and the youngest. Meaghan is nearly 14 and as you can see is beautiful. She is also as smart as Einstein (no I am not exaggerating, ask her math and Latin teachers), kind, funny, and generally a wonderful person.
So what were her father and I thinking letting her just walk around in the world, where everyone can see her and notice her? What. In the hell. Were we thinking. Because now... someone noticed her. A male someone.
See now why a convent sounds good to me?
Here's the thing: in theory, I want all of my children to grow up to be successful adults, to marry, and to raise families. I want them to know the feeling of laying on the couch with the most important person in their world, watching their children play, knowing the joy of baby smiles and preschoolers learning to write their names. It all sounds great and wonderful.
But that means that people of the opposite sex have to start noticing them, and that will take place when they are teenagers. Which means I have to deal with this RIGHT NOW! Oh dear God help me remain sane. And nonviolent. Let's add Meaghan's dad to that particular prayer list too, while we are at it.
Even though we knew it had to be coming, and we could see some signs that at least one boy likes her "that way," we really, literally were not ready for this. She hasn't seemed to be on this wavelength at all yet, and we were grateful for that.
I trust my daughter. I trust the upbringing we have given her. She is a strong, confident young lady with no doubt about her own value. She is rooted in her faith in a way I didn't know people that young could be. She continually amazes me. Hell, she amazes stangers on the bus. Apparently, an accountant sitting near her the other day told her he would have no idea how to do her math homework! If I am honest with myself, I don't really expect her to make bad or stupid choices.
I know the young man who asked her out. He is a fellow altar server with Meaghan at our parish. He seems like a nice boy and he and his mother are very active in our parish, so I know he has good roots and is grounded in faith as well.
But, and there always is a but.....teenagers are unpredictable. Raging hormones is a cliche precisely because it is true. I remember how it felt, and so does every other adult. I also remember how hard it was to fight temptation once I found the person who made me not want to fight it anymore. I am now in the stage of parenting where my child is still a child, but yet in a state of development where one poor choice, one lapse in judgement, one devil-may-care moment......can literally determine the course of the rest of her life. Anyone who doesn't spend at least a good chunk of their time in fear over that is just not paying attention.
By the way, I will feel the same way about my boys as they get older too. This idea that one needs to worry more about girls, well, let's just say I find that offensive. If a girl can get pregnant, my son can get one pregnant. One is exactly as serious as the other. And any son of mine who thinks he might go on his merry way and leave a girl and his child in the lurch will be forewarned that this family takes the role of a father very seriously, and he will receive no help or support of any kind from us, including room and board, should that be the choice he makes.
I have never been that person that believes that teenagers are "going to do it anyway," so that paradigm and its attendant issues need no discussion here. I have informed all of my children that I expect them to graduate high school virgins (and ideally stay that way until marriage), never having been drunk, and never having used illegal drugs. Once they are adults and out of my control, they will have to make their own choices, but that is my expectation and they are aware of it. And will be reminded. Many times. Crazy you say? Unrealistic in today's world, you say? I really don't care what you think. I want better for my children than the social cesspool this country has turned into, so I fight. I will never lay back and concede defeat. If one of my kids fails to live up to this, well, then we deal with that and we move on. But still, never concede defeat. You can always strive to do better today than you did yesterday.
To say that my parents did not raise me with this kind of structure would be the understatement of the century. There was no support in my upbringing for chastity until marriage (in fact, the one time I mentioned such a thing it was ridiculed to my face), and the idea was communicated to me that the loss of my virginity in high school was basically inevitable. I will not go into detail about the consequences that had. Suffice to say there are choices I wish I could take back. But they were choices made with a handicap, and I did beat the odds and graduate a virgin anyway. Looking back now, I wish I would have had something different. But my parents are who they are, they believe what they believe, and they could only give me what they themselves had to offer. I proved to myself that I could be more than the low expectations placed upon me by virtue of my own choices. So I know my daughter can be more than the world around her expects, through the power of her choices, too.
And so. Here we go. We will dip our toe into these waters. Dad and I decreed, intolerant beasts that we are, that Meaghan is ridiculously young for one-on-one dating, so any outings will be in a group setting or chaperoned for now. We can't stop boys from liking her, and we can't stop her from growing up, nor do we really want to. But we can exert some control until she is older, much like one holds a toddler's hand during those first few tries at walking.
I really do look forward to the day she breaks my grip and runs away under her own power. And I will let go when I feel she is really ready. She may pull before then, she may test the strength of my grip. But it will never fail her. She is just too precious and too important for me to let go at the wrong time.
What, you're thinking I'm a bit old and a little too married to be thinking about this? Not for me silly.
For my daughter. Let me show you....
So what were her father and I thinking letting her just walk around in the world, where everyone can see her and notice her? What. In the hell. Were we thinking. Because now... someone noticed her. A male someone.
See now why a convent sounds good to me?
Here's the thing: in theory, I want all of my children to grow up to be successful adults, to marry, and to raise families. I want them to know the feeling of laying on the couch with the most important person in their world, watching their children play, knowing the joy of baby smiles and preschoolers learning to write their names. It all sounds great and wonderful.
But that means that people of the opposite sex have to start noticing them, and that will take place when they are teenagers. Which means I have to deal with this RIGHT NOW! Oh dear God help me remain sane. And nonviolent. Let's add Meaghan's dad to that particular prayer list too, while we are at it.
Even though we knew it had to be coming, and we could see some signs that at least one boy likes her "that way," we really, literally were not ready for this. She hasn't seemed to be on this wavelength at all yet, and we were grateful for that.
I trust my daughter. I trust the upbringing we have given her. She is a strong, confident young lady with no doubt about her own value. She is rooted in her faith in a way I didn't know people that young could be. She continually amazes me. Hell, she amazes stangers on the bus. Apparently, an accountant sitting near her the other day told her he would have no idea how to do her math homework! If I am honest with myself, I don't really expect her to make bad or stupid choices.
I know the young man who asked her out. He is a fellow altar server with Meaghan at our parish. He seems like a nice boy and he and his mother are very active in our parish, so I know he has good roots and is grounded in faith as well.
But, and there always is a but.....teenagers are unpredictable. Raging hormones is a cliche precisely because it is true. I remember how it felt, and so does every other adult. I also remember how hard it was to fight temptation once I found the person who made me not want to fight it anymore. I am now in the stage of parenting where my child is still a child, but yet in a state of development where one poor choice, one lapse in judgement, one devil-may-care moment......can literally determine the course of the rest of her life. Anyone who doesn't spend at least a good chunk of their time in fear over that is just not paying attention.
By the way, I will feel the same way about my boys as they get older too. This idea that one needs to worry more about girls, well, let's just say I find that offensive. If a girl can get pregnant, my son can get one pregnant. One is exactly as serious as the other. And any son of mine who thinks he might go on his merry way and leave a girl and his child in the lurch will be forewarned that this family takes the role of a father very seriously, and he will receive no help or support of any kind from us, including room and board, should that be the choice he makes.
I have never been that person that believes that teenagers are "going to do it anyway," so that paradigm and its attendant issues need no discussion here. I have informed all of my children that I expect them to graduate high school virgins (and ideally stay that way until marriage), never having been drunk, and never having used illegal drugs. Once they are adults and out of my control, they will have to make their own choices, but that is my expectation and they are aware of it. And will be reminded. Many times. Crazy you say? Unrealistic in today's world, you say? I really don't care what you think. I want better for my children than the social cesspool this country has turned into, so I fight. I will never lay back and concede defeat. If one of my kids fails to live up to this, well, then we deal with that and we move on. But still, never concede defeat. You can always strive to do better today than you did yesterday.
To say that my parents did not raise me with this kind of structure would be the understatement of the century. There was no support in my upbringing for chastity until marriage (in fact, the one time I mentioned such a thing it was ridiculed to my face), and the idea was communicated to me that the loss of my virginity in high school was basically inevitable. I will not go into detail about the consequences that had. Suffice to say there are choices I wish I could take back. But they were choices made with a handicap, and I did beat the odds and graduate a virgin anyway. Looking back now, I wish I would have had something different. But my parents are who they are, they believe what they believe, and they could only give me what they themselves had to offer. I proved to myself that I could be more than the low expectations placed upon me by virtue of my own choices. So I know my daughter can be more than the world around her expects, through the power of her choices, too.
And so. Here we go. We will dip our toe into these waters. Dad and I decreed, intolerant beasts that we are, that Meaghan is ridiculously young for one-on-one dating, so any outings will be in a group setting or chaperoned for now. We can't stop boys from liking her, and we can't stop her from growing up, nor do we really want to. But we can exert some control until she is older, much like one holds a toddler's hand during those first few tries at walking.
I really do look forward to the day she breaks my grip and runs away under her own power. And I will let go when I feel she is really ready. She may pull before then, she may test the strength of my grip. But it will never fail her. She is just too precious and too important for me to let go at the wrong time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
