OK time to go all religious on you, folks. Honestly, President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius didn't give me much choice.
I am a Catholic. I will fight the encroachment of the Federal government upon the rights of my Church. If you are not Catholic, I am fighting the encroachment of the Federal government upon the rights of your church too! Your church allows contraception and sterilization, you say? The particulars of the belief in question don't matter. What matters is that, in direct violation of the First Amendment, the Federal government has informed our Church that we are not allowed to hold and practice this belief without penalty from them. If we drop health coverage for employees to avoid the requirement to fund contraceptives and sterilization, then the Federal government will fine us. And the fines are not small. If we continue to write policies, the law requires we write them to violate our beliefs. This time, it may be a belief or teaching you don't care about. But what happens when the Feds again decide the Catholic Church, or any other church, teaches something they don't think it should? And this time it's one you care about? If you sat back and allowed them to destroy our First Amendment rights this time, how can you hold the line the next time?
Some people would call me a hypocrite. Many people in my life don't know what I am about to admit, and I'll be honest, I am afraid their opinion of me will change. But one cannot operate on fear.
I had a tubal ligation in December 2007, a couple months after my fifth child was born.
Yep, I disobeyed the Church. I committed a mortal sin. I thought all my reasons were good at the time, and that the Church was just being unreasonable, so therefore it was fine for me to disobey. All the normal rationalizations that one tells themselves when they set out to purposely disobey God.
And you know what? That means precisely.... NOTHING. My failure to live up the the laws of the Catholic Church in no way invalidates those laws. If surveys are to be believed, at least 90% of Catholics fail in obeying this particular teaching. Even failing on that massive scale does not affect the validity of the Church's teaching. All it means is that the human sin of pride is alive and well. If the sins of its members invalidated the laws of the Catholic Church, then the Church wouldn't have survived one century, never mind twenty. And if only the pure can defend the Church, then there is no one to defend Her. As Jesus said about throwing stones....
I have nothing but the deepest respect for people who are able to live up to the Church's requirement of the use of only natural methods for regulating births. They are stronger than me and I know it. But they have their sins too, they are just different ones from mine.
I did go through a period of rebelliousness when I called myself a "birth control dissenter." What we like to call "common sense" told me that it was impossible for people to actually live that way. Those ideas were just outdated and the hangover from Medieval attempts to control the laity in every respect. Basically, I bought into secular reasoning on this topic, which is hard not to do. I must say, too, though, that some supporters of NFP methods do the Church no favors, in that their lack of charity can be breathtaking. But in the end, after some growth and soul searching, and further reading of works that both supported and attacked the Church's position, I came to realize that there really isn't anything special about my position or my choice at all. I am merely a sinner, who needs the hospital of the Church for her soul. The fact that my sin has to do with a controversial topic, and would be regarded by most as no sin at all, again means nothing.
I submitted myself to the legitimate authority of the Church and made my Confession. I expressed remorse and received absolution, so I know in my head that God has forgiven me my sin. Sometimes my heart is another matter, though. Even expiated sin leaves lingering temporal effects, which is why Purgatory exists. (That is a whole other post and I am not getting into it here!) Some days I am pretty sure that we do part of our time in Purgatory here on Earth. Just before the doctor put me under for the surgery, I almost told him to stop, don't do it! But I hesitated and the moment was lost. I live with consequences from the choice I made often. I wonder who the next baby would have been. I wonder if God would have blessed us with a third son. And I feel the absence in my life. Victoria being four, by now I would have had another baby if our previous pattern and fertility continued. Of course our lives would be different, and some sacrifices would have been necessary, had we chosen to have more children. But different is not always bad. In fact it's not even usually bad. Whenever I have these feelings, though, my mind reminds me of the financial struggle, physical consequences, and unkind social pressure that led to the decision in the first place. It reminds me of my two lost babies, the ones I loved but never got to hold, and how Craig and I were so afraid to face that again that we almost didn't have Victoria. Sometimes I feel momentarily guilty about making love to my husband, even though my priest assured me that I should not. I also feel guilty about depriving him of the opportunity to love more little people that look like him, because no matter how hard things got, he would always have been happy to greet another child into the world. His well of love is deep and always ready to grow. There are reasons he could not bring himself to do what I did, and I am sure I don't know the half of them. In short, I live with spiritual warfare inside myself, as the price of my disobedience.
The worst temporal effect, by far, though, is that I have to explain this to my children as they grow up and I teach them about marriage and the Church. Talk about Purgatory on Earth. All I can do is emphasize that we are all sinners, and this is one of my more obvious sins. I don't pretend that these issues are easy to decide for anyone, nor that they will likely cause my children and their spouses struggle and sleepless nights as they did me. I suppose I will be in a unique position to understand and offer charity and sympathy. You will never see me on a blog or message board screaming that contraceptors should be thrown out of the Church. Yes, there are people who actually do say that. I always ask them, for what other sins do we summarily throw people out of the Church? There are sins bad enough that they incur automatic excommunication and can ordinarily only be absolved by the Bishop, but they are extremely few. But, we don't throw people out of the Church for committing murder, rape, or abusing children. We don't throw out people who cohabit in a sexual relationship without being married, straight or gay. They may be in a state of mortal sin, but they can always come back and confess those sins and restore their communion with the Body of Christ. Their membership in the Church is unaffected. Yet some people think those who practice contraception should be just thrown out? Reminds me of a dialogue about eyes, specks, and beams....
And so, this is how a woman with her tubes tied ends up defending the Catholic Church and its teaching on contraception. I challenge anyone to read the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae by Paul VI, the one that confirmed the teaching of the Church against artficial birth control in 1968, and tell me that all of his predictions for society did not come to pass.
As I said in the beginning, though, the particular moral teaching that the Federal government's action impacts upon really, truly, is not the issue. This is about the First Amendment, and the absolute prohibition on the government interfering in churches, and its utter disregard by this Administration. Non-Catholics and Catholic birth control dissenters... join us in the fight. Because if we lose and they win, the Constitution is dead and churches will be subject to government control or suppression, like they are in China and Pakistan now and in the Soviet Union in the last century.
I will end as I began. I am a Catholic. I am loyal to my Church and try my best to accept and obey all Her teachings, even when I don't fully understand them. I recognize Her authority as legitimate and coming directly from Jesus Christ. When She is under attack, I will do my best to defend Her. But I am also an American, and I regard the Constitution as precious and one of the pinnacles of human achievement. By standing up against the onerous intrusion of the Obama Administration upon the Church's rights, I am defending both my Church and my country. And your church and your country, too.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
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.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Sharing the burden
Wow, it's been four years since I posted on this blog... sad. But not too sad, really, as I just had so much life going on. I deleted some old political posts that no longer matter (Fred Thompson for President anyone?) and am ready to start over.
So I became a CNA late last year, and after three months of trying, finally landed a job at the local hospital. Getting hired as a new grad is HARD, even when you are the lowest guy on the totem pole, wiping poop off of people and emptying urinals and bedpans. Yes, that's me. I am sure I'll discuss all those lovely aspects of my job in the future, but there is one thing that is really sticking in my mind about this new job.
This is the first time since I got married and had children that I have worked full time. To some people that probably sounds insane, but hey, that's the choice I made. I am sure that over the last 14 years, more than one person has thought I wasted my bachelor's degree...and maybe I did. I sure am not using it now. But so what? I got a good education and no one can ever take that from me. I have used my brains and my education to more good effect in raising my children than I ever could have in any corporate or government setting, and will continue to do so.
So anyway, here I am, working full time for the first time in a very very long time. Up to this point, my husband has been almost solely responsible for supporting the family financially and providing health insurance. In 2010, after he got laid off from his civilian job, he did this by volunteering to be deployed by the Army National Guard. He spent a year in Afghanistan, so that his family would be taken care of. (There is no doubt that I married a full-fledged MAN.) No one should ever think that I did not fully appreciate the kind of obligation he took on by being sole support for a wife and five children, but let's face it, I couldn't really know what it felt like.
Now that I am working full time, I qualify for health insurance and such through my job. Previously, when I worked part time, either I didn't qualify or it was so expensive I might as well not have. When looking at the differences in the premiums, it became immediately and forcefully apparent that the coverage from my job is a much better buy than the options available from his. So today I enrolled the family. And I keep thinking about it. And thinking about it. Over and over again. In fact, I procrastinated for a few days, because this just felt SO BIG.
Why? When I worked before, they were part time jobs that brought in a little money to help with bills and groceries. We needed the money from those jobs, but if I had wanted to quit for some reason, it wouldn't necessarily have been the ruin of the family. But now, I am carrying this family's health insurance! Basically, now that this step is taken, I couldn't quit even if I wanted to. I don't want to, but that's not the point.
I have always had certain obligations to my family, of course, but as a stay at home mother, they were the kind of things that were built into my days, or came up by natural instinct, anyway. They didn't feel like "work." (Well okay, laundry and dishes will ALWAYS feel like work... yuck.) But now, it's like I feel a weight on me. I always respected my husband and honored his dedication to and sacrifices for us. But I had NO IDEA what this feels like. How has he maintained his sanity when he lost jobs? If this little piece of obligation feels this heavy to me, how must it have felt to him to know that absolutely everything depended upon him?!
I have long known that my husband is a man of deep faith and quiet strength. And I have always loved those things about him. Because of the feelings I am having about this new step in my life, I think I will end up appreciating him a whole lot more. In a world full of tall little boys, he has always been a real man, and my life with him has turned out better than I could possibly have hoped. He deserves some help, though I know that he will always take the burden of being the rock of our family upon himself, no matter what I do. And there are no words for how much I love him for that.
So I became a CNA late last year, and after three months of trying, finally landed a job at the local hospital. Getting hired as a new grad is HARD, even when you are the lowest guy on the totem pole, wiping poop off of people and emptying urinals and bedpans. Yes, that's me. I am sure I'll discuss all those lovely aspects of my job in the future, but there is one thing that is really sticking in my mind about this new job.
This is the first time since I got married and had children that I have worked full time. To some people that probably sounds insane, but hey, that's the choice I made. I am sure that over the last 14 years, more than one person has thought I wasted my bachelor's degree...and maybe I did. I sure am not using it now. But so what? I got a good education and no one can ever take that from me. I have used my brains and my education to more good effect in raising my children than I ever could have in any corporate or government setting, and will continue to do so.
So anyway, here I am, working full time for the first time in a very very long time. Up to this point, my husband has been almost solely responsible for supporting the family financially and providing health insurance. In 2010, after he got laid off from his civilian job, he did this by volunteering to be deployed by the Army National Guard. He spent a year in Afghanistan, so that his family would be taken care of. (There is no doubt that I married a full-fledged MAN.) No one should ever think that I did not fully appreciate the kind of obligation he took on by being sole support for a wife and five children, but let's face it, I couldn't really know what it felt like.
Now that I am working full time, I qualify for health insurance and such through my job. Previously, when I worked part time, either I didn't qualify or it was so expensive I might as well not have. When looking at the differences in the premiums, it became immediately and forcefully apparent that the coverage from my job is a much better buy than the options available from his. So today I enrolled the family. And I keep thinking about it. And thinking about it. Over and over again. In fact, I procrastinated for a few days, because this just felt SO BIG.
Why? When I worked before, they were part time jobs that brought in a little money to help with bills and groceries. We needed the money from those jobs, but if I had wanted to quit for some reason, it wouldn't necessarily have been the ruin of the family. But now, I am carrying this family's health insurance! Basically, now that this step is taken, I couldn't quit even if I wanted to. I don't want to, but that's not the point.
I have always had certain obligations to my family, of course, but as a stay at home mother, they were the kind of things that were built into my days, or came up by natural instinct, anyway. They didn't feel like "work." (Well okay, laundry and dishes will ALWAYS feel like work... yuck.) But now, it's like I feel a weight on me. I always respected my husband and honored his dedication to and sacrifices for us. But I had NO IDEA what this feels like. How has he maintained his sanity when he lost jobs? If this little piece of obligation feels this heavy to me, how must it have felt to him to know that absolutely everything depended upon him?!
I have long known that my husband is a man of deep faith and quiet strength. And I have always loved those things about him. Because of the feelings I am having about this new step in my life, I think I will end up appreciating him a whole lot more. In a world full of tall little boys, he has always been a real man, and my life with him has turned out better than I could possibly have hoped. He deserves some help, though I know that he will always take the burden of being the rock of our family upon himself, no matter what I do. And there are no words for how much I love him for that.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
What it takes to be a good mother
Note to readers: This is another one of my older writings. Still relevant, though!
Here's what I think it takes to be a good mother. These opinions get me in trouble all the time. :D
#1 Get educated. That doesn't necessarily mean getting a degree in anything. Learn how the world REALLY works. Learn to use your brain instead of your emotions to make decisions. Learn to be self-sufficient, so that you will not be so afraid of being alone that you will make bad decisions.
#2 Be picky about who you date. Do not accept lies, immaturity, selfishness, possessiveness, or abusive behavior. Have a one-strike rule. Remember, you are searching for the father of your children. Do not be weak. As soon as an undesirable behavior is shown, show him the door.
#3 DO NOT GET PREGNANT OUT OF WEDLOCK! Children have a right to a stable home and family, and that almost never happens in unmarried pregnancy situations. Even if the parents do get married, it tends not to last or be healthy, because, of course, they got married for the wrong reasons. The easiest way to accomplish this is to abstain from unmarried sex. If you will not do that, it's not that hard to prevent pregnancy. You just have to be responsible and think about it EVERY time.
#4 Respect the concept of obligation. When you have children, you become obligated to another human being. Your needs are 100% secondary once a child is born to you, and your wants rank even lower.
#5 Be there to mother your own child. I do not understand women who have babies just to turn them over to strangers to be cared for. Do you know that studies show that babies left in daycare show behaviors of grief and loneliness, no matter how good the daycare is? The current generation has been taught that dependence, especially upon a man, is the greatest of all evils. But a strong woman, who is really sure of herself and her goals, is not afraid of what it takes to achieve them. I am financially dependent on my husband. I am not afraid of that, because it allows me to be the best mother I can be. I am strong and sure of myself, so dependence poses no threat to me. I was also careful about who I married. (see #2) I know I will not end up abandoned. Dependence is not dangerous with the right kind of man. One who is not afraid of the responsibility of being a provider. (Note: I recently heard Dr. Laura Schlessinger say, "I wish more young women were afraid of neglecting their babies than of upsetting their men!" to a woman whose husband insisted she had to put their 3-month-old in daycare so she could work.)
#6 Breastfeed. I know, I know. You have a hundred excuses. Guess what? Most of them are crap! Few women have true medical difficulties nursing. Breastmilk is the only food designed specifically for your baby. I, for one, believe that parents are actually obligated to give their children the best they can. And when parents CHOOSE to give an inferior, artificial product to their babies instead of the wonderful, perfect food that nature provides, it pisses me off. I've heard the convenience excuse. What is more convenient about having to mix, warm, and wash bottles? About having to lug all that stuff with you? I've heard the hangups excuse. Some women just aren't comfortable enough with their bodies.....well, they were comfortable enough to have sex! I've heard the back to work excuse. Well, I believe mothers should ideally have only one job, at least in the early years...mothering. (Or, if they must work to earn, they should fit it around their mothering obligations. I do it, so can you.)
#7 Be responsive. You will not be an effective parent if you do not know your child. Getting to know your child begins in infancy. Your baby tells you what he needs, and you give it to him. Sick, manipulative baby-training systems that tell you to let the baby cry and schedule feedings will only distance you from your child. That hijacks the process of getting to know your child. If you don't know your child, how will you parent appropriately? Never mind that crying it out and forcing a tiny, hungry baby to wait for food are cruel. When a baby cries too long, the stress hormone cortisol rises in his system. His misery compounds upon itself the longer he screams, and then he has a hard time calming down because of the cortisol flowing in his system. People ask why our kids seem to have so many anti-social behaviors. Could it be because so many of them were parented anti-socially?
Here's what I think it takes to be a good mother. These opinions get me in trouble all the time. :D
#1 Get educated. That doesn't necessarily mean getting a degree in anything. Learn how the world REALLY works. Learn to use your brain instead of your emotions to make decisions. Learn to be self-sufficient, so that you will not be so afraid of being alone that you will make bad decisions.
#2 Be picky about who you date. Do not accept lies, immaturity, selfishness, possessiveness, or abusive behavior. Have a one-strike rule. Remember, you are searching for the father of your children. Do not be weak. As soon as an undesirable behavior is shown, show him the door.
#3 DO NOT GET PREGNANT OUT OF WEDLOCK! Children have a right to a stable home and family, and that almost never happens in unmarried pregnancy situations. Even if the parents do get married, it tends not to last or be healthy, because, of course, they got married for the wrong reasons. The easiest way to accomplish this is to abstain from unmarried sex. If you will not do that, it's not that hard to prevent pregnancy. You just have to be responsible and think about it EVERY time.
#4 Respect the concept of obligation. When you have children, you become obligated to another human being. Your needs are 100% secondary once a child is born to you, and your wants rank even lower.
#5 Be there to mother your own child. I do not understand women who have babies just to turn them over to strangers to be cared for. Do you know that studies show that babies left in daycare show behaviors of grief and loneliness, no matter how good the daycare is? The current generation has been taught that dependence, especially upon a man, is the greatest of all evils. But a strong woman, who is really sure of herself and her goals, is not afraid of what it takes to achieve them. I am financially dependent on my husband. I am not afraid of that, because it allows me to be the best mother I can be. I am strong and sure of myself, so dependence poses no threat to me. I was also careful about who I married. (see #2) I know I will not end up abandoned. Dependence is not dangerous with the right kind of man. One who is not afraid of the responsibility of being a provider. (Note: I recently heard Dr. Laura Schlessinger say, "I wish more young women were afraid of neglecting their babies than of upsetting their men!" to a woman whose husband insisted she had to put their 3-month-old in daycare so she could work.)
#6 Breastfeed. I know, I know. You have a hundred excuses. Guess what? Most of them are crap! Few women have true medical difficulties nursing. Breastmilk is the only food designed specifically for your baby. I, for one, believe that parents are actually obligated to give their children the best they can. And when parents CHOOSE to give an inferior, artificial product to their babies instead of the wonderful, perfect food that nature provides, it pisses me off. I've heard the convenience excuse. What is more convenient about having to mix, warm, and wash bottles? About having to lug all that stuff with you? I've heard the hangups excuse. Some women just aren't comfortable enough with their bodies.....well, they were comfortable enough to have sex! I've heard the back to work excuse. Well, I believe mothers should ideally have only one job, at least in the early years...mothering. (Or, if they must work to earn, they should fit it around their mothering obligations. I do it, so can you.)
#7 Be responsive. You will not be an effective parent if you do not know your child. Getting to know your child begins in infancy. Your baby tells you what he needs, and you give it to him. Sick, manipulative baby-training systems that tell you to let the baby cry and schedule feedings will only distance you from your child. That hijacks the process of getting to know your child. If you don't know your child, how will you parent appropriately? Never mind that crying it out and forcing a tiny, hungry baby to wait for food are cruel. When a baby cries too long, the stress hormone cortisol rises in his system. His misery compounds upon itself the longer he screams, and then he has a hard time calming down because of the cortisol flowing in his system. People ask why our kids seem to have so many anti-social behaviors. Could it be because so many of them were parented anti-socially?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Gen X'er Reviews The Feminine Mystique
Note to readers: This is a writing of mine a couple of years old, but, I feel, still relevant. As I was setting up this blog, I went around to my old web hangouts and gathered up some of my best posts to help me get this blog launched. I will be putting them up over the next few days, along with more current comments. Hope you enjoy! BTW, the term "SAHM" below is shorthand for stay-at-home mom, for those who haven't seen it before.
Actually, I hate the term Generation X, but it's a handy and recognizable shorthand for my age group.
Anyway, on to the book. Someone once said that a SAHM's blood would boil as she read this book. While I was irritated by it in many respects, I actually found little that I disagree with in the book. Betty Friedan's contention that education is essential to freedom and the ability to develop one's human potential is one I wholeheartedly endorse. I thought her dissection of Freud and his misuse in American popular culture was really good. Helpful to a layperson who has really only heard the misuse of his theories. (She has a degree in Psychology.)
One thing that bugged me was how the "feminine mystique" and the prison it supposedly built for women was somehow society's fault. She recounted tale after tale of women who consciously made the decision to quit school, not be serious about college, or derail their own career/achievement track and fit into the housewife stereotype. Friedan herself admits to giving up a promising internship for these reasons. I don't doubt for a minute that there was relentless social pressure to fit a certain mold. But the women Friedan is talking about were the privileged few who made it to college. They had the brains and motivation to get that far.....these were not downtrodden people who had no choice but to submit to some stupid, artificial construction of who they should be. If they chose to do that and then were unhappy, whose fault was that? And should the government be funding a "mothers' GI Bill" as she proposed in order to save people from the consequences of their own free choice?
Another thing that bothered me is that she talks about nursery schools or daycare like they solve a problem. Women with children can complete their education or pursue careers because of such "help." Does she really believe that a child's own parents are that insignificant to his/her development? It doesn't matter if both Mom and Dad are gone for hours and hours on end, even to an infant, as long as some placeholder is there? Unfortunately, in this area, it seems Friedan's thoughts on the matter have become mainstream opinion. Research is regularly chipping away at the truth of that idea, but how quickly do we see anything changing? How this idea came to be so well accepted is beyond me.
She keeps making the distinction throughout the book between housework/childcare and "meaningful" work that is valuable to human society. Tell you what, I'll give her the housework thing. It is a necessary evil, drudgery to be completed as quickly as possible. I am not going to glorify waxing floors or ironing underwear! (Does anyone do that anymore? I hope not!!) But for childcare to be lumped in with the mindless tasks we all must do to maintain our homes...... She seems to think child care is all about diapers. Not once does she ever mention the joy that comes from helping to guide a brand new person's development, watching learning, or receiving love. Not once does she ever say that raising the next generation is work that contributes to society. She seems to think that staying home with ones children automatically turns a woman into a neurotic, castrating, clingy, critical monster who cannot appreciate anything about her children or allow them to grow up. That contention I have MAJOR problems with.
Finally, this book really is very classist. Her ideas, if they apply at all, apply only to those middle class and above women who had the rare opportunity to go to college. She deplores, at one point, someone telling a woman who went to college that maybe after her kids are grown she can get paid work as a housekeeper, because she will be an expert with so many years' experience. But in the same book, she suggests that women hire cleaning ladies to free them up to complete their educations. So being a cleaning lady is beneath the women Friedan is writing to, but not beneath other women? Who are those women upon whom it is okay for other women to tread in order to fulfill themselves? And if childcare is so mindless and devaluing, who are the women who run the nurseries and daycares? Why is childcare beneath Friedan's audience, but not those women?
I think she concentrates a little too much on the influence of "women's magazines" on how real women thought. I'm sure those magazines were well read, just as some of them are today. But how much do they influence the way people structure their lives? Is someone really going to make life decisions based on what some magazine says, if it is really against their beliefs or preference? Is someone's self image going to be dictated by the usually bad fiction published in such venues?
Anyway, I just wanted to post this because all my life I have heard of this book but never read it. It is supposed to have been the seminal (for lack of a feminine equivalent - ovinal?) book of the second wave of feminism. I took at least two classes that might be construed as "women's studies" in college and we never read this book. So I wanted to read it for myself. I must say the generation gap shows. There is a lot in that book I just don't get. But perhaps that shows how effective it was. I can't relate to the cage Friedan describes, and I am eternally thankful for that. I never had a societal message put into my head telling me that it was "unfeminine" to be smart, educated, and to fulfill my potential. I was never told that I shouldn't compete with men. In fact, societally, I was discouraged from the profession I have chosen....the same one Friedan decries as dehumanizing. Maybe that's part of why it is fulfilling for me, because it was a free choice for me, even a countercultural one. And because there is no bar to me pursuing my own interests or furthering my education because I have chosen it.
If, and that's a big if to me, the social construct of femininity was as restrictive, debasing, and unfair as Friedan describes, I can only celebrate its demise. I am just not sure things were quite as bad as she makes them out.
For another view of women's status pre-second wave, see F. Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism.
Actually, I hate the term Generation X, but it's a handy and recognizable shorthand for my age group.
Anyway, on to the book. Someone once said that a SAHM's blood would boil as she read this book. While I was irritated by it in many respects, I actually found little that I disagree with in the book. Betty Friedan's contention that education is essential to freedom and the ability to develop one's human potential is one I wholeheartedly endorse. I thought her dissection of Freud and his misuse in American popular culture was really good. Helpful to a layperson who has really only heard the misuse of his theories. (She has a degree in Psychology.)
One thing that bugged me was how the "feminine mystique" and the prison it supposedly built for women was somehow society's fault. She recounted tale after tale of women who consciously made the decision to quit school, not be serious about college, or derail their own career/achievement track and fit into the housewife stereotype. Friedan herself admits to giving up a promising internship for these reasons. I don't doubt for a minute that there was relentless social pressure to fit a certain mold. But the women Friedan is talking about were the privileged few who made it to college. They had the brains and motivation to get that far.....these were not downtrodden people who had no choice but to submit to some stupid, artificial construction of who they should be. If they chose to do that and then were unhappy, whose fault was that? And should the government be funding a "mothers' GI Bill" as she proposed in order to save people from the consequences of their own free choice?
Another thing that bothered me is that she talks about nursery schools or daycare like they solve a problem. Women with children can complete their education or pursue careers because of such "help." Does she really believe that a child's own parents are that insignificant to his/her development? It doesn't matter if both Mom and Dad are gone for hours and hours on end, even to an infant, as long as some placeholder is there? Unfortunately, in this area, it seems Friedan's thoughts on the matter have become mainstream opinion. Research is regularly chipping away at the truth of that idea, but how quickly do we see anything changing? How this idea came to be so well accepted is beyond me.
She keeps making the distinction throughout the book between housework/childcare and "meaningful" work that is valuable to human society. Tell you what, I'll give her the housework thing. It is a necessary evil, drudgery to be completed as quickly as possible. I am not going to glorify waxing floors or ironing underwear! (Does anyone do that anymore? I hope not!!) But for childcare to be lumped in with the mindless tasks we all must do to maintain our homes...... She seems to think child care is all about diapers. Not once does she ever mention the joy that comes from helping to guide a brand new person's development, watching learning, or receiving love. Not once does she ever say that raising the next generation is work that contributes to society. She seems to think that staying home with ones children automatically turns a woman into a neurotic, castrating, clingy, critical monster who cannot appreciate anything about her children or allow them to grow up. That contention I have MAJOR problems with.
Finally, this book really is very classist. Her ideas, if they apply at all, apply only to those middle class and above women who had the rare opportunity to go to college. She deplores, at one point, someone telling a woman who went to college that maybe after her kids are grown she can get paid work as a housekeeper, because she will be an expert with so many years' experience. But in the same book, she suggests that women hire cleaning ladies to free them up to complete their educations. So being a cleaning lady is beneath the women Friedan is writing to, but not beneath other women? Who are those women upon whom it is okay for other women to tread in order to fulfill themselves? And if childcare is so mindless and devaluing, who are the women who run the nurseries and daycares? Why is childcare beneath Friedan's audience, but not those women?
I think she concentrates a little too much on the influence of "women's magazines" on how real women thought. I'm sure those magazines were well read, just as some of them are today. But how much do they influence the way people structure their lives? Is someone really going to make life decisions based on what some magazine says, if it is really against their beliefs or preference? Is someone's self image going to be dictated by the usually bad fiction published in such venues?
Anyway, I just wanted to post this because all my life I have heard of this book but never read it. It is supposed to have been the seminal (for lack of a feminine equivalent - ovinal?) book of the second wave of feminism. I took at least two classes that might be construed as "women's studies" in college and we never read this book. So I wanted to read it for myself. I must say the generation gap shows. There is a lot in that book I just don't get. But perhaps that shows how effective it was. I can't relate to the cage Friedan describes, and I am eternally thankful for that. I never had a societal message put into my head telling me that it was "unfeminine" to be smart, educated, and to fulfill my potential. I was never told that I shouldn't compete with men. In fact, societally, I was discouraged from the profession I have chosen....the same one Friedan decries as dehumanizing. Maybe that's part of why it is fulfilling for me, because it was a free choice for me, even a countercultural one. And because there is no bar to me pursuing my own interests or furthering my education because I have chosen it.
If, and that's a big if to me, the social construct of femininity was as restrictive, debasing, and unfair as Friedan describes, I can only celebrate its demise. I am just not sure things were quite as bad as she makes them out.
For another view of women's status pre-second wave, see F. Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
