Tis the Season for New Babies

A lot of members of our peer group (I hesitate to call them friends because they're mostly acquaintences of my husband's) are having babies this season. I can think of at least three off the top of my head and I'm probably leaving a few out. New babies bring new hope. They're blessings, right? I keep telling myself that at about 3am when LilyBoy is finally asleep after his second night-feeding and I'm just about to doze off when LilyBaby wakes up, wanting to come to mommy and daddy's bed. Recently, I read a woman's blog who wrote something about mothers that upset me quite a bit. She and her husband have been married about five years. And she wrote that she hopes when has children she does not lose her identity and her relationship with her husband. They have gotten so used to having lots of time alone together, doing what they want, going where they want, etc. that the thought of children scares them about limitations.

Well, of course, this got me thinking. You see, I also remember the times John and I had before the babies came. It was wonderful having so much freedom, so much closeness with my husband. I asked John, last night, whether he was ever jealous of childless couples who have the freedom we used ot have. He says "ho." How I wish I could be like him. This is a man who gets home from work after 9 hours and does not hesitate to pick up the baby, change him, play with LilyBaby, make dinner, make a pitcher of tea, fold the laundry and keep LilyBoy downstairs while mommy goes upstairs and takes a nap with LilyBaby. He is a true gem and I am very lucky. But, I wonder...how can he not miss the time when our life was not so hectic? I'm sure he doesn't. I don't think he's lying. But, still, I do find myself advising young couples to enjoy the time they have together now because it will be different once the babies come.

Back, though, to my "friend's" comment about individuals losing their identities when they become parents. I don't think that's true. I feel we take on different identities - identities that include the role of parent, but we do still retain that sense of individuality that drew our spouses to us in the first place. I told my friend that while life does change for the couple who has a child, the couple who has a good marriage can grow to love each other in a different and deeper way. Above, I spoke of what a wonderful man I am married to because of how willing he is to help me with the children and how devoted he is to his family. I wouldn't have necessarily seen this side of him had we not had a family. When I married John I knew he would make a wonderful father someday, but I never would have guessed just how wonderful. Yes, we can't fly off to Europe at a moment's notice and simply going to the movies takes a lot more planning than it used to but the core relationship - that between me and my husband - is solid and sound...and that is what makes for a great family life.

As the chidlren get older, I know that John and I will be afforded more freedoms. Freedom to read a book, to shower, to eat a meal together as opposed to in shifts, to watch a telelvision show or movie in its entirety, to stay up past 9pm and still get a good night's sleep without interruption, etc. We are just at a stage where I look back on our childless days and realize that we had it pretty good then. But this is good too.

So, back to the question. How have John and I retained our identity as a couple separate from our children? That's the question that I wanted to answer. Here are some points I've come up with:

• We share private jokes with one another and can still laugh when we want to cry
• We laugh and laugh and laugh together...at each other, at outselves, and the kids, at our situation, etc. In fact, we're convinced that it is our sense of humor and ability to laugh together that will see us through everything.
• We pray together - in our own way. Again, ususally invovles deep theological discussions rather than actual prayer but we do keep God in our lives.
• We do have date nights....though the date night may consist of a trip to Toys R Us and Target, we do get the opportunity to get away by ourselves for while...only to find we miss the children after a couple of hours.
• By keeping up with news, politics, religions, etc. my husband and I are able to have converstaions over a nightly meal about topics other than the children.
• Because we both work, my husband and I also have lives separate from each other and from our children. This allows us to reconnect when we are together.
• We still dream as a couple. We still set goals for what we want to achieve and look for ways to make those goals come to fruition. Our goal right now...we want to move to another state. We may have to wait until after the recession is over but it is a goal of ours nontheless.

To conclude, then, parents who want to do and can have identities separate from their children. In fact, I can't think of too many couples or people who don't. Maybe the problem with my friend is she hanging out with the wrong type of parents. Who knows? All of our friends have always had identities separate from, yet connected to, their children.

And a final point...and this is going to sound really corny considering I consider myself a feminist. How can love for a spouse not grow when you look at your little child and see your spouse in that adorable little face? Both of my children look very much like my husband and, to me, that's pretty darn cute and adorable.

Realizing Something About Mothering That I Guess I Already Knew

With the arrival of our second child in three years, I was convinced that some kind of maternal moment would overtake me. I would beg my husband to let me stay home with our two babies and trade in my high heels for a baking apron. I would have no problem selling my car, foregoing my costly cosmetics, and my savings account for the sake of the children.

Well, that maternal moment never arrived. I've been at home with the two children now for a little over two weeks and am continually drawn to my workplace - through papers that I did not finish before LilyBoy was born, through emails that need my immediate (not really) responses, through communicating with my temporary replacement (yes, she was hoping for the maternal moment too that would make her job more permanent). I can't help it; I was not meant to be a stay-at-home mom. Finally, I'm at peace with that. Now, I know some may criticize and say "Then why did you have that second baby" but before you even go there, let me remind you that this second pregnancy was sooooooo not planned. In fact, it was anti-planned. I am 1 in 1000 women for whom the birth control device failed. Yes, I could have terminated but....my husband and I chose to be open to life throughout our marriage.

So, what does this mean for the two we've got? Well, it means it's time for a nanny to step in. My mom has been so wonderful to take care of LilyBaby for us while we both work but my husband and I both realize that asking her to take care of two would be too much for anyone - including myself. So I'm in the market for a mommy's helper - hopefully a cheap one. My mom will supervise the mommy's helper and the mommy's helper will never be alone with the children because my mom will always be there. Who could ask for better. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to going back to work and seeing if I can make a go of a full-time position though I am open to the possibility of part-time. And, even though I'm a Catholic, I will continue to pray and pratice that God does not "bless" us with another little one - for at least four or five years. My body really needs a break from the c-sections.

Family Frustrations

This week begins the week of Thanksgiving which means having to put up with family that I have done my best to avoid all year. This year, my recently divorced brother-in-law will be making his first Thanksgiving visit in years. What does this mean? It means we are expected to drop everything and run to visit. Now, if John's brother had been a nice guy all along, had shown any remote interest in our family whatsoever, I might be so inclined to visit. But, there has been a lot of hurt. Now, his mother (my mother-in-law) will say he is not responsible for the hurt; the hurt is all a result of the wicked wife he just divorced. Of course, I don't buy it. He is perfectly capable of picking up a phone and calling his brother. He is also capable of sending a quick email or note just to say "hi". This all came to a cusp when I had LilyBaby. After experiencing a very hard delivery that ended in an emergency c-section, John's brother did not even bother calling to either express concern or ask about his new niece. Never a gift or card was sent. In fact, we never even heard from them until that following Christmas (Lily was born in March). Since his divorce, the man still has not bothered calling and expressing interest in Lily or his new nephew on the way.

So, what are we, as practicing Catholics to do? On our end, we've always tried to be open to the possibility of healing the relationship. I encourage John to send his brother birthday cards and I have encouraged him, in the past, to call him every now and then. I just got tired of John doing all the chasing and never getting a response. So, we're at the stage now where the question is "Now what?" Just keep trying? For me, I need to let my brother-in-law know how he has hurt us before we can move on. But I know my mother-in-law prefers passivity. Passivity does not work with me; in fact, it just tends to make things worse. It makes my resentment build; it makes me angrier.

Oh well, I will ocntinue to pray for guidance. In the meantime, I'm planning my own Thanksgiving dinner. I have told my in-laws they are welcome at our house for dessert but that I am not going over there. I'm using my nine-month pregnancy as an excuse. At this point, that is all I can manage.

A Post on Money

Money - the root of all evil? I don't know about that. What I do know is that Jen, over at the Conversion Diary, has written a post on the two-income trap. To sum up, it's the argument that most Americans, today, live beyond their means and need two incomes to "keep up with the Joneses". Now, who is to blame for such a trap? Well, there's enough blame to go around. Yes, there are the people who have chosen to live beyond their means or who desire more than they can afford. There is the consumer culture that encourages spending at all costs - even during times of national distress and war. There are the corporations/banks that entice us with their credit acccounts, encouraging us to take on more debt that we can possibly handle, etc. Now, what I was trying to emphasize in my comments to Jen is that it would take a major shift in culture to go back to a time when one-income households were the norm. Our economy is driven by the two-income household. I mean, just look at our houses. Do homebuilders even make houses that cost less than 100K anymore? It seems those houses have been allocated to the less desireable parts of town, meaning that if you do to purchase one your security and school district will be in question. I guess you could choose to be a life-long renter but...that presents its own troubles in that you will never have any built up equity which is how most working people build savings.

Another way our culture has assimilated itself to the two-income household is in the way it allocates funds for health care and for retirement. In the 1950s, most wage-earners were promised a pension after so many years of work. This eliminated the need for retirement savings which allowed for more spendable cash. Today, pensions are virtually non-existent - especially decent ones on which you can actually live. So, wage-earners have to set aside money for retirement. If they are lucky, their company will match some of what is put in. But that, too, might one day be a thing of the past. Back in the good old days (ha), health coverage for an entire family was also covered by an employer. Again, this eliminated the need for a wage-earner to allot a sizeable amount of income to health insurnace. Today, it is expected that every wage earner cover him/herself and those darn kids' coverage is not cheap. I guess what I am saying, here, is it has become very difficult if not impossible for a family to subsist on one income. Now, there are many out there who will brag about living in 500 sq ft tool sheds and driving cars that are older than themselves. And, while that is admirable for them, even they have to admit that their counterparts in the 1950s would not have considered this standard of living to be acceptable. Even back then, the standard of living for any nuclear family was to have decent housing, reliable transportation, a sound education, and opportunity for advancement - again, very difficult for a family living on one income. How will said tool-shed living family send their child to college. Let's face it, not every child is going to get a "full-ride" scholarship.

I'm frustrated with arguments like these because they tend to go against the family values argument. It seems that if this culture were truly one of family values, there would be more movement towards making families more capable of achieving the one-income lifestyle. It is unfair to assume that all two-income households are greedy, self-centered, and/or don't love their children. The more common scenario is that two-income households live modestly and rely on those two incomes to simply make ends meet. Most tw0-incomers want decent education for their children, want to live in a decent (not ostentatious) neighborhood where they can take their kids outside in the evenings, and want to save for their retirement and kids' education. In other words, we two-incomers want to be self-reliant and self-sufficient like the conservatives tell us we should be. Seriously, if we're about family values, what about providing a real tax benefit for those parents who stay home with their children? What about some extended maternity leave that allows a mother to keep her job secure for a couple of years? What about affordable health insurance that does not cost the primary wage-earner 1/3 of their monthly check? What about helping families with secure retirement savings that allows them to invest a little and get a lot (okay now that's probably not possible but you get the idea)? In this culture, it seems we talk out both sides of our mouths. We give lip service to family values but when it comes down to actually supporting families, we don't do it. Instead, many many stay-at-home parent households are forced to survive on a hand-to-mouth basis while convincing themselves they are perfectly content with that. And we wonder why the majority of divorces cite finances as a primary reason for the dissolution?

I should probably put my cards on the table now. My husband and I are both college-educated professionals. Yes, he earns more than me but my salary is nothing to scoff at. When LilyBaby was born and, now that we are expecting LilyBoy, we have talked and talked about the idea of my staying home for a few years or about working part-time. This would enable me to spend more time with the children (which I really really want) and it would enable us, as a family, to have more time in the evenings and on the weekends to do something other than catch up on errands and housework. Yes, we own a home; in fact, we own two. One is rented out. The one we live in was purchased well-below what we could afford. We purchased it with the intent of my staying home once we had children. We have two cars - one is paid off; the other, well, it's our little gas-efficient car. We have no debt currently, praise God. Budgeting for my staying home would mean several things: 1) less retirement savings; 2) no college savings; 3) less income for mortgage and bills which may lead to a taking on of debt in order to purcahse other needed items like clothes and some fun things; 4) a ginormous health insurance bill. And, that's just what we can calculate. Now, theoretically, we're supposed to be happier, right? Sadly, I don't see that happening. I see myself stressed out because of our financial situation and becoming snappy at my husband for working too much (surely, he would begin working over-time to make up for the loss of income). I see my husband becoming silently fussy over my decisions to purchase an extra flingy thing at the store that was not budgeted for. I see my husband starting to assert his "suggestions" over where and what I should buy for the children. These are not necessarily bad scenarios, they are just what is likely. I don't see either me or my husband being happy with these scenarios. I have always seen myself as working to help the family - to give the family more financial peace. This is how I love my family; this is how I serve them.

I think, in order to give families more real choice over whether to stay home, there needs to be a cultural shift that values the stay-at-home contribution and serves to enable stay-at-home families to stay home while still maintaining some form of decent living standard. After all, isn't that what the American Dream is all about? Or is the American Dream really dead after all?

Pregnancy and Work...Again

As I enter into the last trimester of my pregnancy, I am forced to deal with the subject of work again. I'm not feeling the guilt that I did last time over my decision to leave my babies at home while I work outside of it - I now know that the babies will be okay and that LilyDaddy and I are giving them all of our time when we are home. Security is not an issue when it comes to LilyBaby. What I am feeling, this time, is pressure to return to work as quickly as possible. This is probably because I hold a supervisory position this time around and we are in an accredidation year which makes my role especially critical - at least for this one year.

Also, economics are different this time around. Last time, LilyBaby was planned and finances were in order by the time she was born. She was also born in March which allowed me to take the rest of the school year off. This time around, we are more limited on the financial front, baby is being born in December which means I am going to have return to work sometime and I am planning to formula feed instead of breast feed. What's also kind of disconcerting is the fact that several wonderful teachers are willing and eager to step in and take my place should I decide not to return. Seems like everyone's been affected by this economy. Lots of people have advised me not to give up my job since I have one which just adds to the pressure. See, LilyDaddy's job is pretty secure but it does depend on government purchases - it is my fear that the government may find itself strapped for cash not too long from now. So, in reality, my job is probably more secure than his.

I talked to my doctor yesterday about the possibility that I might be experiencing depression. Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done, medically, about it. I understand where it is coming from. The pressure over work, the anxiety over an unexpected pregnancy, the worry over what is going to hapeen in the next few weeks - nationally and otherwise, the surgery, LilyBaby, how my marriage is going to be affected, etc. Well, I'm off to teach again.

Purchasing for Two Now

So, this past weekend my mother brought some little clothes for the new baby - LilyBoy. It really makes me feel strange. Now, when I was pregnant with LilyBaby I loved buying her things. But this one...I don't know. My husband and I were out shopping for Christmas presents the other day - just looking, not buying. We're thinking of getting her a little motorized car (not the Power Wheels...the cheaper version). Anyway, I loved the one that was pink and purple. But, I couldn't help but notice there was a blue and red one too. I noted to my husband that it would be more practicle to get the red and blue so that both children could use the toy. Of course, he agreed, saying he would put little magnet flower stickers on in for LilyBaby's sake. I couldn't help but be a little sad, though; I really liked the pink and purple but seeing a little boy in the pink and purple car just isn't going to happen. Oh well.

Not too much longer and LilyBoy will be here soon.

Jealous of the Single Life?

I wonder is this is an inevitable stage of early motherhood. Lately, I have found myself experiencing feelings of resentment towards my 25 year old sister-in-law because of the freedom that her divorce and new boyfriend have awarded her. Because of her divorce she now finds herself a part-time mommy who shares the burden (yes, yes the joys too) with her ex. This has given her so much more time, now, to pursue her own interests and her own desire. As a mother of two, now, I sometimes yearn for the time to pursue my own interests and desires. But, as a married mother, I know such yearnings are just that. So, what do I do? Well, I pray continuously that I might remember the blessing of having a good marriage and the blessing of having my child(ren) with me every day most of the time. But, still, it would be nice to drop my LilyBaby off with my husband in exchange for a free weekend every once in a while. Unfortunately, I'd want my husband with me so that wouldn't work. The best, then, that I can hope for is a rare night out with hubby for dinner and a movie. But, you know what? Even then, I'm always eager to get home to LilyBaby after just those two precious hours away. So, I'll keep remembering that in the hopes that my resentment over my sister-in-law, who is jetting away to Detroit for her boyfriend's softball game through Sunday while her baby stays with her ex, hopefully fades away. And, now that I think about it, it's not the single life I'm jealous of...it's the child-less life that I'm jealous of. Oh, how I how I fondly remember those five years with my husband before we had LilyBaby. But...this is fun too and I wouldn't trade LilyBaby in for anything. In fact, I was just remembering how towards the end of our child-less years LilyDaddy and I would say how much more fun some event would be if we had a baby to push around in a stroller. And, you know what? The Texas State Fair was a lot more fun with LilyBaby with us...as was the beach...and the mall...and the store...etc., etc.

Carve your blessings in stone and note your troubles in the sand.

Sara Palin Being Used to Divide Women

The talk of Sara Palin has physically made me ill. But not for the reason that you think. You see, I can respect Sara Palin as a professional and accomplished woman. I do find her to be a politican just like all the others. She just doesn't impress me in that regard. For me, she is the bridge to nowhere as far as women are concerned. I realized today, though, that what is making me ill about Sara Palin is that she - as a stock figure - is being used by both sides of the political spectrum to divide women. How can that be a good thing?

Women are all up in arms. Conservative women feel the need to defend her against feministas who question her politics and ultra-conservatives who question her ability to lead because she is a mother (See Dr. Laura's blog). Democrats and liberals are at a loss. We like Sara Palin because of what she has accomplished but...she hasn't really accomplished more than what many many other women have accomplished. I know many many working mothers that I respect and it has nothing to do with the fact that they're mothers. I admire women who are able to balance work and career; I admire women who stay home; I admire women who decide that motherhood is not their vocation. So, I forget, why am I supposed to be impressed with Sara Palin? She's a mother of 6. Great! So are many of the women who blog on Catholic Mothers Online. My mother is mother to seven plus. A close friend of ours who happens to also be state senator of Texas is also mother to seven! So, what is there to be impressed about? Women have been balancing work and family for years...with very little help from politicians thank you very much. I have expressed to several people, women included, that it is not Sara Palin that I don't like; it's her politics. Her stance on the issues. The fact that she lies just like all other politicians lie. So, does Sara Palin win my vote of admiration? Nah. There are many many other women out there who can better claim my respect. And, no, that does not make me a sexist.

Now if I wanted to get more seedy (oh, heck, why not...no one reads this anyway except for my husband)...I think this is what the intent was in choosing Sara Palin all along. I think Sara Palin was chosen to divide the women in this country - to resurge that mythical fight that has supposedly been taking place since the seventies between SAH moms and working mothers. Between conservative women and liberal women. Sad thing is...it seems to be working. I have never seen people get so defensive or so hurt over anyone. I'm off to class...

Missing Mass

I chose the title of this post on purpose because I have, in fact, been "missing" Mass in both meanings of the term. Since LilyBaby has turned about 15 months, my husband's and my Mass attendance has been pretty poor. I'd say we're probably averaging about once every other week instead of once a week. There are various reasons: one weekend, I was very sick; one weekend LilyBaby was sick. But, mostly, the cause of our poor attendance is LilyBaby's behavior in Church. Of course, it isn't her fault - poor little thing - but her behavior at Church has caused us to miss Mass while actually being in attendance. Unfortunately, this has lead to a decreased motivation to actually get to Mass, knowing that our time there is going to be exhausting (because of LilyBaby) and seemingly unproductive (I know it's not unproductive...but it does feel that way while we're there). So, what is our experience like with LilyBaby? Well, here' s a description. I only share in the hopes that some mother out there will tell me whether this is normal for a toddler or whether my husband and I are spoiling LilyBaby too much or being unreasonable in our demands of her. Well, here it goes...

LilyBaby usually wakes up around 7am on Sunday. We have tried the 8am Mass with her and have found that she gets hungry, mid-way, through and will, hence, get extremely cranky. So, our routine is to get her up, her her fed, get her bathed and dressed, and make it Mass just in time for the 9:30 am service. 11am is nap so 9am is our best chance for any type of active attendance. Did I mention that LilyBaby refuses to nap in public, so 11am Mass is impossible...she would get extremely cranky. We know; we've tried. Anyway, LilyBaby finds it very hard to sit still so she immediately starts trying to walk up and down the area in front of the pew. When Daddy and I try to corral her in, she gets extremely frustrated to the point of expressing her frustration. And, yes, we have seen angelic babies her age who can sit still for several several minutes. Oh, you lucky parents. So, finally, Daddy or I decide that it would be best for other worshippers if one of us takes LilyBaby to the narthex of the Church. And, this is where one or the other of us ends up spending the majority of our time. We did try to leave LilyBaby in the nursery, once, and that did not end well either. She cried and carried on until they called us to come get her. Granted, she was calm for the rest of Mass, but torturing LilyBaby for the purpose of attending Mass just doesn't seem to be in the family spirit of Mass attendance for me.

The best experiences my husband and I have had at Mass are when my mom stays with LilyBaby and we go by ourselves. Then, we really get to focus on what is going on and appreciate our attendance more. But, it still doesn't seem right leaving LilyBaby out of Mass most weekends, so that's where we are. The only saving grace is that I am usually not alone in my walks up and around the narthex. There are usually a couple of other parents of young ones there too.

So, what to do? Do I just try to be patient until she can understand that she needs to sit and be quiet most of the Mass? Do I leave her at home? It seems electing out, myself, isn't doing me or the family any good but then, again, my being at Mass with LilyBaby ends up making me very frustrated with her behavior and ends up ruining my Sunday. Ah, well. I guess this too shall pass....at least until LilyBoy goes through this exact same stage. AAUUGGHH!!!

Is Sara Palin John McCain's Harriet Meyers?

Oh, Say It Isn't So...

So, I just heard that Sarah Palin's seventeen year old unwed daughter is with child. Oh my. I also read that her mother is "very proud" that her daughter has chosen to keep the baby. Does this mean that momma is happy that daughter had a choice in the first place? It would seem that a woman, staunchly pro-life would not express a sentiment such as this. I mean, when I found out I was pregnant, abortion was never really an option and my husband and mother never said they were proud of my decision to keep the baby. It was kind of just assumed because we're all pro-life (at least for ourselves). It makes me wonder....is there a hypocrite lurking up there in those Alaskan woods? Is Mrs. Palin pro-choice for herself and her family but pro-life for everyone else? It wouldn't be unheard of, would it?

Now, before conversation even gets started...it is not Sarah Palin's fault that her daughter is pregnant. I wouldn't even say that her daughter's pregnancy is evidence to Mrs. Palin's failure as a mother - it's not though many conservatives want to sometimes make this connection. No, no mother is responsible for the pregnancies of her daughters. A mother can just do the best she can in reaising her daughter and/or son with morals and values and then pray for the best. What a parent can be held responsible for is not knowing whether their child is sexually active and respond accordingly. Does this mean parent should put daughter on birth control? I guess that's up to the parent; I probably would. But it would at least warrant a stern discussion. I can't help but wonder if Mrs. Palin knew whether or not her daughter was sexually active. I tend to think she probably was not.

Will the Real Independent Please Stand Up?

There's been a lot of buzz surrounding politics lately. In fact, more people have been involved in American politics than ever before and that's great. But, I tend to find politics to be quite tiresome. Growing up, I generally associated myself with one party. Now, I'm disgruntled with both. Why? Well, because all politicians are phony. The trick, then, is to find the one that is least phony so that you can do your democratic duty by casting your vote.

So you don' t think both candidates of our major parties are phony? That's not surprising. People who tend to lean right focus on Obama's phoniness and ignore McCain's while people who lean left focus on McCain's phoniness while ignoring Obama's. Obama phony? Yes. Remember when Obama used to be against off-shore drilling because it is bad for the environment and does absolutely nothing to help out with gas prices in the short term (not that I believe that we should have short-term help with gas prices; we deserve what we get and we should pay for what we consume)? Then, Obama finds out that off-shore drilling is popular with the sorely misinformed American public, so he decides to alter his position to favor that of the popular opinion. Big surprise. Has there ever been a candidate who has publicly changed his/her opinion against popular opinion? McCain? You say? Well, maybe the McCain of ten years ago. He, too, has decided to realign himself with the loonies of his party so he can gain some more votes. Now, our former POW is for torture when he used to be against it? Our pro-choice Republican candidate is now mum on the issue, yet vows to appoint justices like Scalia and Roberts? So, sadly, McCain is a phony too.

So what is one to do when making a conscientious decision on who to vote for? I guess it all has to revert back to the individual voter's personal morals, values, and issues. It would seem that the voter would have to explore how the candidate stands on those issues and make a decision about which one will more closely represent those morals, values, and issues...of course, assuming your morals, values, and issues aren't loony themselves!! And you know what? Your morals, values, and issues are going to be different and held in different priority than somebody else's and that is very difficult if not insulting to change. What has disappointed me the most, I think, about all this election talk is people's refusal to come to terms with personal biases, judgements, prejudices, etc. How can a Democrat who has never voted Republican try to convince a Republican that Obama is the better choice over McCain, that higher taxes for a certain percentage (the top 5%) of the population can be a good thing? How can a Republican convince a Democrat that health care is not a right but something that every individual must take care of personally? So, really, do we have to go around and around all the time? Just cast your vote darn it. If you've always voted Republican and you tend to lean conservative, then vote for McCain/Palin and sleep well at night thank you very much. If you've always voted Democrat and you tend to lean liberal, then vote for Obama/Biden and God bless us everyone. But, for the love of the Lord, please stop trying to justify your decision or pretend that you're an Independent. Just say, I voted Republican because I believe in small government (because I fear big government...I can rack up just as much debt as any politician), I want to protect baby life (but go ahead and kill the criminals and the scum who can't afford health insurance), and I believe marriage should be protected (against those darn gays who should be shipped off somewhere over the rainbow...I fear them too). Or you can say, I voted Democrat because I believe in big government (who else to better send money too? Sally Struthers? Please...), I want to protect a women's right to choose (I still don't see how conservatives tend to be for small government yet want to involve themselves in this one...will someone please explain this to me like I'm five years old??!!), I believe the term "pro-life" extends beyond just unborn babies and should include the poor, the uninsured, the criminals, the infirm, etc. etc., and I believe that people should be allowed to decide who they choose to live with and who they choose to kick out of their beds (let God deal with them themselves, thank you very much...when the heck did we assume the right to judge? Before or after we were caught cheating on our cancer-ridden wife with a wanna be film maker?)

I guess this all gets back to the formation of relationships, and political hobnobbing is not good for that, unless you are in the company of those that are politically like-minded. This week, I have seen colleagues leave lunch tables over a subject where both were myopic in their arguments; I have seen a good friend of mine let a terrible logical fallacy involving age and taxes let fly just because the person who questioned her was 20 years her junior; I have had my stomach turned with a man I consider a close friend because he could not admit that Michelle Obama is an impressive woman. And, by the way, she is. So is there a common ground for Republicans and Democrats to civilly talk about politics and walk away from the table having better formed relationships with their counterparts? Sadly, I think not. The debates are too heated; the talking points too ingrained in our head. It just seems impossible for either a Republican or a Democrat to break out of their mindset and recognize the fact that both candidates are flawed. Both have too much pride to give over one point to the other party. So, my friends, nationally - we have reached a stalemate. So, in the interest of keeping the relationships we've formed, I say cast your vote and keep your mouth shut...unless of course you like a good fight or you are in good company.

Coping with Non-Catholic Family Divorce

This is a topic which has been weighing on my mind quite heavily for quite some time. In fact, I know it has affected my relationship with my in-laws for the worse, yet it is impossible for me to explain it to them. I have talked about it with my husband (a Catholic) and my mother - who both understand my sentiments completely...but it still bothers me that I can't seem to neither get it off my mind nor express my feelings with those it directly involves. So, here's the situation...

My husband and I have been married a little over seven years now. It's a mixed-culture marriage. I come from a very close, large Mexican-American assimilationist Catholic family; he comes from a small (not so close) Protestant non-denominational family. He is the middle child of three - with one older brother and one younger sister. Being that we've been married for more than seven years, I have known my in-laws for almost nine. Okay, during our seven years of marriage, I have seen both my brother-in-law and sister-in-law marry and divorce under different circumstances.

My brother-in-law was married in a Lutheran church in big fashion. The idea of sacrament was there and the marriage seemed pretty solid. These two were together for about 9 years, I guess, and have two children. Then, one day, out of the blue....we get a call from brother-in-law telling us that he and his wife are getting divorced. Now, don't get me wrong, brother-in-law's wife is not my favorite person in the world...but what bothers me is the way in which my in-laws respond to the news. I took the news very hard. Hard because, for me, the death of a marriage is always tragic. It was also hard because, like a death, I expected some kind of family mourning period for the dissolution of the marriage itself. For me, this would have communicated a genuine caring for the married couple, a love for the daughter-in-law, support for the children involved, and just...genuine respect for the sacrament of marriage. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying whether the two should have stayed together or not...that's none of my business....but I was expecting a mourning period. Sadly, that mourning period was not to be. I soon found out that my brother-in-law was and is having an extra-marital affair (the divorce is not yet final) and, worse, my parents-in-law don't seem to have a problem with that. In fact, they try to justify the fact that my brother-in-law was involved with someone other than his wife. It was her fault, in other words, not his. Before news of the divorce, my parents-in-law let on that they were very supportive of their daughter-in-law. I couldn't say anything negative about her or question her motives without their coming to her defense. Now, to me, it seems they have completely turned on her and are all excited over the prospect of a new woman for their son.

My sister-in-law is another sad story. She is younger. She got pregnant at 19 with her sweetheart's child. She was pushed into marriage before the baby was born because "she was going to marry him anyway". In fact, the marriage was decided to take place three weeks after the pregnancy was confirmed. Both my husband and I were disappointed...not with the baby...but with the quick marriage. There was no indication that these two were ready for marriage and it was clear that had there been no pregnancy there would have been no immediate wedding. My husband did make his feelings known to his sister and his mother - only to find himself shushed and scolded on the days leading up to and the day of the wedding. Sure enough, the marriage lasted less than three years. That's not the problem. It's good that she was able to get out of that marriage that was no good for her or her baby. Again, my issue is with the response to the divorce. Before she even moved out of the house, my little sister-in-law was involved with another man whom she is now living with, for all intents and purposes, and with whom she now plays spouse with. Okay, that's not unusual in our day and age unfortunately. What is unusual is the way her parents (my in-laws) were able to reallocate their affections from one husband to the new boyfriend so quickly. Hubby's chair wasn't even cold yet and they're welcoming boyfriend with open arms and talks of another marriage. For me, even though I was no fan of first marriage, this message is not a good one to anyone.

Rather than stick my nose into how this message is bad for others in the family, I'll focus on how these messages have affected me and my family. I am now convinced (whether justly or mistakenly) that my in-laws' feelings for me are insincere. How could they be sincere? I think they express love for me in the same way they expressed love for their former daughter-in-law and former son-in-law. How quickly their feelings were reallocated to someone new. They were also so quick to turn against the formers. They would then probably turn against me if something were to happen to our marriage, God forbid. This makes me feel awful towards them and it makes me feel strange about having my baby around them...wondering what their real feelings are for the baby and her mother. I hinted this one afternoon when I told my sister-in-law that I could imagine the celebration the family would have if my husband ever left me. You know what? She confirmed that the celebration would be grand. Of course, sister-in-law was joking but...you know there may have been real sincerity behind that joke.

So what have I learned from all this? As Catholics, I think our perception of marriage is very different from that of our Protestant brothers and sisters. Because we see marriage as a sacrament that should not be broken, a sign of God's presence and grace, it stands to reason that sacramental marriage must be respected and mourned when it is lost. Protestants, many of whom do not see marriage as sacramental, seem to view it as something that can be dropped, replaced, put on hold? I don't know. I think it must have something to do with the love as action as opposed to love as feeling argument. Commitment and all that stuff. Again, I'm not saying that marriages should never end. A lot of times there is very good reason for their endings, but I do feel that marriage must be respected for the life it gives to the couple and mourned when that life is irrevocably extinguished. Though many Christians claim to uphold and defend marriage, when push comes to shove...when it hits their home...it seems many are quick to change with the wind. My husband has been hurt by the hypocrisy he has seen with his parents. He, too, expected higher principles from people who have long held traditional conservative beliefs about the sanctity of marriage. I guess actions speak louder than words after all. What could have been different? What I needed from my in-laws was a mourning period for both marriages. I needed them to express sadness over the dissolution of both unions and I needed them to show evidence of this sadness to me and my family. I needed for them to express disapproval (at least to me and my husband) over the new situations that were forming too quickly. And, finally, I guess I needed for them to remind my husband and me that they still support us in our marriage and that they would be terribly disappointed if we ever decided to follow suit. Now, my fear is that my in-laws are waiting me out...that they're hoping for a new wife for my husband that will be somehow better than I could ever be. And what does that mean for my children? It means that I have become more protective of them than ever; it means I want to keep them away from my parents-in-law's influence. How can that be a good thing?

So, yet, another example of how divorce affects more than just the immediate family. It extends to the extended family and can have disastrous effects if it is not dealt with for the better.

Why Does John McCain Wear A Corsett?

My 75 year old mother wanted me to post this on her behalf as someone who knows that it is not natural for a man in his seventies to look like Superman.

And...my thoughts on the Demcratic National Convention. I was very moved by Michelle Obama's speech Monday night. I found it to be very genuine in sincere as it really came across to me that she loves her husband and believes in him. That's the part I found very moving - it didn't sound phony. I also found Obama's little girls adorable. They really love their daddy too - especially the little one.

Hillary's speech; I haven't heard it yet but I plan to watch it this evening on YouTube or something similar. I did see pictures this morning and I loved her outfit - but then I'm a great supporter of Hillary's pantsuits.

Coping With an Unexpected Pregnancy

So, in my last post, I warned against the use of Mirena. I know, I know....what a tangled web we weave when first we try to avoid to conceive...through artificial means. But, I never said I was a perfect Catholic. So, my husband and I find ourselves a little over half way through a high-risk pregnancy. Oh, and to top everything off - it looks like my placenta might be lying a little low. So, the doctor fears I may have "Placenta Pervia" or whatever it's called...basically that thing that can lead to pre-term labor that I am already at risk for. My doctor's primary hope is to get me to 36 weeks. She fears infection to the baby via the Mirena and a possible rupture of the amniotic sac caused by the Mirena. So, there's that...

But, there's also the unexpected surprise of a new life joining our family much sooner than we had anticipated. LilyBaby is going to be a big sister and she isn't even out of diapers yet. We had so much hope for giving her so much time for a head start - now it is looking like giving her that time is going to be a real challenge. And LilyBaby is the sweetest baby ever (or at least that I've ever encountered). I'm afraid there will be a tendency to push her aside to fulfill the needs of the little one. And, of course, there's the finanicial. Because we had not planned for our new addition, we have not planned financially either. I was hoping to have the option of staying home with a newborn and a four year old in preschool. Now I am faced with hiring a nanny for a 2 year old and a newborn because work is now more of a necessity for me so we can continue to make ends meet. Okay, not make ends meet...to remain in the lifestyle with which we have grown accustomed to for better or worse. Thank God, my mom will still be with us to supervise the nanny and be with her little grandbabies. She just can't do all the work herself.

Emotionally, my husband and I are in a much better place than we were when we first found out the news. And, the good news is that I now know why I was having such a difficult time losing weight (that was my poor attempt at humor btw). Good friend and good support has helped with that. Catholic teaching has also helped a lot. We know we can't change this pregnancy; so we have gotten to the point where we have accepted it. We aren't completely to the welcoming stage, yet, but we do accept that this is God's will for us. We are also at the stage where we are praying for the baby's continued health and good fortune. So far so good. Like I said, I still have so many worries and concerns and I still wake up every morning wondering if this new pregnancy is just a scary dream, but things are getting better. At least my work is supportive but then I guess a Catholic school can't fault a Catholic teacher for having two babies in three years, now, can it?

Don't Use Mirena!

I haven't posted in awhile because there is something going on that I haven't really wanted to put into words. But, I finally decided that now was the time. About a year ago, shortly after my LilyBaby was born, I had a Mirena inserted for the purpose of a preventing future pregnancies (for at least awhile). I never said I was a perfect Catholic; I'm a practicing one. Once I'm perfected, I'll be sure to let you know. Anyway, I've had the Mirena in for over a year now. A few weeks ago (two to be exact), I was lying in bed and began to feel something very strange going on in my lower stomach. To me, it felt like a baby kicking. But, I told myself, this would be impossible. After all, the Mirena is supposed to be 99.9% effective. The next night, I felt the same thing while lying in bed. So, I decided to take a pregnancy test - just to put my mind at ease. And you know what? It came out positive! Talk about panic on the part of both me and my husband!!! After a quick trip to the doctor, we found out that we are more than 20 weeks pregnant! Not only are we pregnant, the Mirena is still inside me! Now, that makes me 1 in 1000 women for whom this product failed! After panicing for about a week or more, I'm starting to get used to the idea that a new baby will be making his presence known soon. We still aren't thrilled about the idea, but we're learning to accept it. What choice do we have? But, I did want to at least point out that I am very annoyed with this product.

A Perplexing Disucussion about Catholicism/Protestantism

This week, my goddaughters are visiting us from their home in another city. The girls are what some call "Irish twins" in that they are only eleven months apart. On this visit they are 12 and 13 about to enter seventh and eighth grade. During their visits I like to hear about how their religious studies are going, as that is kind of what my role is as their godmother. Unfortunately, my sister is not a practicing Catholic - she baptized her daughters to make our mother happy. But they have been baptized and they have received their first holy communion. In the past few weeks, as the girls' trip was being planned, I had heard that my older niece attended a Christian fellowship camp and that my younger niece had attended a praise and worship chuch with a friend. This bothered me a bit because I was afraid the girls might get mixed messages about their religion, but I figured there were worse places to attend since their parents are not interested in attending Mass. But I did decide to make it a point to figure out what messages these girls were getting and correct as necessary. Sure enough, the younger girl was full of interesting ideas related to Christianity that Catholics do not necessary laud. The main is the teaching of salvation through faith alone. The younger E described a procession where many were "saved" during a ceremony. I reminded her that she did not need to partake in such an experience as she has already been baptized. She then said something that I was dreadfully fearing "yes, but it's not the same." Oh my, I though, here we go.

Now the question quickly flashes in my mind: how do I go about having this discussion without insulting the good that E has learned from her protestant exchanges and without offending her mother who undoubtedly feels that these girls are at least enjoying something that is Christ-centered. I proceed with caution. First, I did tell her that while protesants and Catholics are both Christians in search of salvation and God's will, the two are often very different in their teachings. Because the salvation discussion is very advanced for someone E's age, especially since her catechism is very weak, I decided to give the example of the Eucharist - a topic that she has at least familiarized herself with tangentially. I told her that while some protestants do partake in a communion supper of some sort, Catholics are the only Christians who believe that, during Mass, the priest transforms the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Most protestants, I continued, see the communion ceremony and the communion taking as symbolic - not actual. I told her this was probably the most significant difference between the two versions of Christianity. E thougth about this for a minute. Her comment was "well, it doesn't really matter as long as you believe in God". Well, I thought, Rome wasn't built in a day and I didn't want to make her think I was attacking something I guess she has enjoyed in attending the praise and worship.

As for the older A who is a little deeper in in attending the protestant fellowship camp, she has asked me to purchase a "True Love Waits" ring for her. Well, I figure, there are worse things for a young teenager to ask of her godmother. I am hoping to purchase the ring and talk to her a little bit about chastity and why it's important. I don't think there will be as much conflict, there, but I'm still a little sad that this seems to be an uphill battle that I am taking on. In the end, I have to realize that the parents of these girls are their parents and are the primary teachers of their religious faith and formation. All I can do, at this point, is teach them what I can when I can and leave the tougher topics for when they ask or when they get a little older. This way, their parents won't see me as trying to undermine their efforts, which I think would be worse - after all, I do need to preserve the peacefulness of the relationship between me, my sister, and my nieces. It has been my experience that when godparents take it upon themselves to act as judge too much, the results can be devastating and I do not think that is the intention of the important role of godparent.

So, I will pray for the girls. I also plan to sponser both girls to The Pines next year. The Pines is a Catholic summer camp for kids, age 7-16. I will also encourage their Confirmation process which can begin next year, but I really don't know if that will go anywhere as who will take them to their religious ed classes? What else can I do? Be patient and trust that God will somehow call them back to the Faith.

Teaching Critically

On another blog, a friend of mine expresses her displeasure with professors and graduate students who use their classrooms as platforms for their political activism. Her displeasure has, in fact, influenced the field of study she plans to pursue and probably the types of institutions where she will seek employment. Here is a link to her blog. On the comments section to this post, I wrote that professing ideology or what one assumes to be the truth is part of the ethos of a professor in higher education. Professors and graduate students, for all their acquired knowledge, do assume their ideologies and beliefs are more informed, more researched and, therefore, better than those views expressed by others - especially those people who hold contrary or opposing views. I think this is why those are considered highly educated are often characterized as elitist, snobby, pretentious, etc. For those of us in the liberal arts, whose practice is not something really tangible or easily applicable, but whose practice is grounded in analysis of text, critical and creative thinking, it is our job to teach students how to think critically and creatively; how to enter into the discourse of the profession; how to be academics. And what it means to be an academic is to present arguments or ideas for analysis, critique, and discussion.

As a teacher at a high school prep school, we try to introduce our students to the thinking skills they will need to succeed in college. As an English or Liberal Arts teacher, it is my goal to teach students how to think critically and creatively and have struggled with the question of how to go about doing this. Teaching literature, I have stuck to the safe, comfortable literature. Literature whose message is not too difficult to figure out and whose message is not too new or controversial for high school students. I have often wondered if this is the coward's way out. But, in order to teach critically, I do find it necessary to play "devil's advocate" with these students. What I mean is I do ask the questions that challenge their comfort zone. I do present the argument that they may not have considered. And while I refrain from giving my own personal view on the issue or question, most of which I, myself, have not quite figured out, I have been termed a "liberal" teacher by some of my more conservative students. Because of this characterization, I am constantly questioning my methods, least I exclude a certain segment of my student population.

But, there is an unfortunate truth that when you try to encourage and include under-represented voices into the discussion, other voices may feel slighted or excluded. After all, they have never really had to defend their views or their privilege. I do feel it is absolutely necessary to raise those issues, to include those voices, but what about those other students? I have tried the "common ground" approach where I ask students to identify with the ideas and principles being presented on some level. Sometimes that has worked, but there is still some resistance. I remember reading a journal article about conflict in what has been termed the "contact zone" and I think there is valuable contribution there. The idea that when different voices are brought into contact, there is bound to be conflict. So how do you justify the inclusion of some and the unfortunate exclusion of others?

Well, first I think that a teacher has to come to terms with the fact that some students, for whatever reason, will choose to exclude themselves from the conversation. Perhaps there is anger there; perhaps something else. But I don't think this means we should back down from the necessary inclusion and discussion of difficult texts and topics. And, finally, why do conservatives feel so threatened in the academic environment? This is a question I have grappled with for awhile, and I do think there is an answer.

The reason that some conservatives feel their voices are unwelcome in academia is that conservative ideology - for better or worse - is grounded in the notion that there is one truth, one set of proper or correct values. Those who do not believe or follow said truth or values are somehow deficient or lacking. Now, as a Catholic, there is a conservative side of me who believes that Catholicism is the truth and the way to God. However, as a Catholic academic, I recognize that this belief is grounded, personally, and I recognize that this set of beliefs is likely to influence my judgement of other issues outside of the faith. This realization is crucial for the successful academic. The successful academic must recognize what his/her prejudices are, figure out where they come from, what might be viewed as the logical flaws regarding those prejudices, and work to allay those beliefs or at least reconcile them in their work. Why? Because in good academic work, there has to be the inclusion of multiple voices. Whereas conservatives tend to limit or exclude (not with a hateful purpose by the way), the ideologies guiding the beliefs does not make for good academic work. Hence, conservatives tend to shy away from academia or become frustrated and exit stage left. I don't think this is a good thing. I would like to see more conservative voices in academia but successful conservative voices also need to abide by the rules of good argument, fair play, and willingness to change. Liberals do too. But I think there's a tendency to believe that liberals, by nature, are more open to change...in fact, they rally for change and progress. But, I do understand that liberals sometimes have their issues to, especially in regards to looking down on those who do not readily rally for such change and progress. That is why there is the need for the conservative voice. Ah, checks and balances.

In conclusion, I do feel that the lack of conservative voices in academia is a result of pressure and self-exclusion. And while I would like for more voices to be included in the conversation, if one ideology has to be exchanged for another, I prefer to err on the side of progress, exposure to different ideas, and the inclusion of those voices who have not been represented and who have been denied privilege and voice in the past.

Oh, Those Rising Gas Prices

I guess I'd be giving away my age if I relate that I remember a time when gas was 88 cents a gallon. My mom? 35 cents. My, how times have changed. Now, with gas prices hovering around $4/gallon, I have begun to appreciate my most recent high gas-mileage car purchase. But we still have a car whose gas mileage is not so eco- and, hence, price friendly. So, we've been doing what we can to cut back. We drive the fuel-efficient car more, we avoid driving more and further than what is absolutely necessary, and we don't drive as fast as we used to. Lately, I've been observing the practices of others on the road and I have noticed that the traffic around me is not moving as fast as it used to. I assume that others are trying to save on gas as well.

Just last week (Thursday to be exact), my mom and I were doing some grocery shopping and started to notice an inordinate amount of cars pulled over to the side of the road. We began counting. I think on our trip to the store and back, we counted about 8 stalled cars. Many of the cars were older model Explorers and trucks. Given that the date of these stall-outs, I began to wonder if these were cars that had run out of gas while their drivers hoped against hope to make the gas last until pay day on the first. I shared my thoughts with my mom. She says that, from now on, people who run out of gas on the side of the road should display a sign reading "Out of Gas." The sign would serve to alert others as to how the gas problem is real, how it is affecting our neighbors around us, and...heck...maybe, some kind soul would actually be kind enough to stop and give a gallon. What a great idea. If there were enough signs, enough awareness of the problem, perhaps something would be done that would actually help. Pandering to the public with additional stimulus incentives of tax cuts isn't going to cut it. Sorry, presidential candidates. What will work is that terrible word that no one wants to say out loud. You know it begins with an R, has a G in the middle, and ends with an N. If you can't figure it out, go ask your friendly neighborhood liberal. Big profits for big gas companies needs to be curbed, period. For this country, gasoline is an unnatural resource that we cannot, unfortunately, live without. Then, like water, we need to make sure that all people have reasonable access to it. That doesn't mean it should be free but, like other necessary resources, the price needs to be controlled. Don't worry, friendly conservatives, we're too chicken to do it. It ain't going to happen. Fine. We'll all just sit without gas. But, let's at least put out our signs!!!

Coming into Her Toddler-hood

In the past week or so, I've begun to notice some changes in LilyBaby. She's starting to assert her will a bit more. Okay, so she's becoming a wee bit more stubborn. She does things she knows she's not supposed to (like climbing up the side of the stairs) and hiding behind the screen in the living room and gets very frustrated when we have no choice but to gently but firmly discipline her. At the moment, the discipline is going well. We are able to stop the behavior, communicate our disapproval and the reason for the disapproval. She responds with frustration and sadness at having being stopped. Disciplining her, while difficult, seems to come naturally to us. We know we're doing it for the right reasons and I'm proud of myself in that I have not lost my temper when I've had to discipline.

Today, she threw a tantrum when her daddy had to put her favorite chair in the closet. Of course, we had told her several times to stop climbing on the chair but she just wanted to see what she could get away with. During the fit, John and I just ignored her and continued watching television. Of course, we had a corner eye on her to make sure she didn't hurt herself. After letting her carry on for a couple of minutes, I started playing with one of her favorite toys. That took her mind off the tantrum and she calmed down and came over to play. I'm proud of myself. She threw another little fit at the dinner table. You see we have a toddler who refuses to eat at night!!! What this means is that she wakes up in the middle of the night for a bottle because she's hungry. We've been obliging her because forcing her to eat at night is not an option. I suspect a little reflux that keeps her up at night. We'll see.

As for the potty-familiarizing, it's going well. She pee-pees on her potty when we remember to take her or when she feels like alerting us but we haven't had success with poo. I guess that will come eventually. We aren't going to force.

All in all, we can't complain too much. I notice her cranky patterns tend to fall around hungry times and need a nap times. I do think, though, that we're beginning to get into the challenging twos a little early but, hopefully, with continued patience and love, we'll get through this like we've gotten through everything else.

Speaking of Guilt and Mothering...

If you've read my profile, you've probably noticed that I'm what most would call a "working mom" in that I work 40+ hours away from home and leave my child in the care of another - in my case, my mother. Since LilyBaby was born a little more a year ago, actually since I got pregnant with LilyBaby, coming on two years now, I've been advised by various people about what I should and should not be doing with my life and with the life of LilyBaby - in regards to mothering but also in regards to work.

I have always found these comments interesting, if not somewhat offensive, because I had never experienced this advice before becoming a mother. Before I became a mother I was always encouraged to get my education, to devote myself to my career, and to be the best at what I do. Of course, like all good Americans, I was told happiness and prosperity with ensue as a result of all this hard work. Okay, fine. I got my B.A., I got my M.A., I even got to the final step in a Ph.D. program. Up until LilyBaby was conceived, applause from all around. Even though I was married, it was generally assumed that LilyDaddy and I would take care of each other and that we should both be able to pursue our scholarly interests. It didn't matter that his salary is very healthy and could easily support us both; what mattered is that I used my education to the fulfillment of myself. Why should I depend on any man for my livelihood? Again, great. I have no problem with this. LilyDaddy and I both work very hard to earn what we've got and we both understand that our salaries are needed to support the goals we have for present and, more importantly, for future.

Then came LilyBaby. For some reason, a lot of people assumed that because I was embarking into motherhood, my views of womanhood had somehow changed. No one mentions the possibility of my finishing my Ph.D. except for my husband and many give me curious looks when I relate that I am not really interested in being a stay-at-home mom. They are especially curious because they somehow "know" that my husband's profession would permit me to stay at home without much cause for financial alarm. What I'm realizing more and more is that there is an assumption that when one becomes a mother, that is all a mother wants or should want to be. Hence, the introduction of intensive mothering. Anyone interested in womens' studies is familiar with the term or at least the concept of intensive mothering. As the term implies, intensive mothers are those mothers who are...well intense when it comes to mothering. Gender and social theory believes that these intensive mothers arise from ideological statements, both subtle and not, communicated to women. These statements tell moms that only if they perform an action a certain way will their child stand to reach their greatest potential. What action? You name it. Just walk down the parenting isle of your favorite bookstore. Everything from breastfeeding, to sleeping, to potty training, to discipline, to education....the list goes on and on. If you don't breastfeed your child for one year, if your fifteen month old still wakes in the middle of the night for a bottle, if your toddler is 3 and still is not potty-trained, then you are a failure as a mother. Everyone has an opinion and no one mothers correctly.

Suddenly women who were once so supportive and understanding were experts at everything related to mothering. And the comparisons made to their children...don't even get me started. So what is the appeal of intesive mothering? Well, the appeal is multi-fold. First, I find that intensive mothering speaks to many womens' sense of competitiveness. This competitiveness that comes natural for some and has been developed in the educational world in which many of us have profited. See, we weren't taught to be compassionate accountants and professors; we were taught to compete. So, when faced with staying home, what better place to compete than with the raising of children? I guess it's better than competing for who has the cleanest house, but I'm sure that factors into the competition somehow.

Another appeal or dis-appeal of intensive mothering is the inordinate sense of guilt that is automatically built into the concept. In fact, intensive mothering could not stand without it. It's this idea that if you are not in-line with the current research on child rearing than your child is undoubtedly bound to suffer. You didn't teach your baby sign language? Now she'll never be able to communicate her frustrations and the psychological damage she'll suffer is irreversable! Now, most of us can laugh it off. But, after hearing so many many messages including those that contradict each other, it becomes more and more difficult to have confidence in what you're doing. And if you're a working mom, forget about it. You don't even have enough time to spend with your child let alone care enough to devote the time needed to her rearing.

The media and our conservative society, in general, avidly supports the idea of intensive mothering. And why not? It encouraged mothers to stay home, to turn down promotions and opportunities for advancement at work, to stay in unhappy marriages, and to have more kids! Ah...the preservation of the lower middle class and patriarchy. Two in one!!! If you doubt that society supports intensive mothering, I encourage you to turn on the news. Just yesterday I heard about a child being kidnapped from daycare. And you can usually count on a story about a wayward nanny who abuses the child in her charge. What is the message? Mommy should not leave her child in the care of others; she should take care of the child herself. What we don't realize is how rare these cases are. I mean, really, how often are children kidnapped from daycare? And, for the record, the child was quickly found. But the message was clearly related nontheless.

So what's real? What I have found is as long as a child is loved and supported in a home environment, the child is going to do just fine. Not every child is going to be a genius, but every child has gifts. What is important in raising a child is how to foster those gifts. Truth be told, a secure environment that consists of a combination of both day care and home is fine. And before you say, it's fine but it's not ideal, I would say...nothing is ideal. Even those stay at home mom situations are not always ideal Sometimes I think my LilyBaby would be better off in day care but...I've given into the idea of intensive mothering a bit...and so has my mother.

The ideology of intensive mothering is pervasive and it's difficult, if not impossible, to break out of. The best a young feminist can do is be aware of it, study it, and continue to read feminist works for support to counteract the pressure. My battery is running low; that's all for now.

Toddler TV Watching

I know it's terrible that my toddler watches television but there is one show that she absolutely adores and which I actually find quite good. It's SuperWhy and it comes out on PBS twice a day. I usually let LilyBaby watch the show once a day, provided she is getting bored with her toys, etc. We watch it together and if you've never seen it, it's quite cute. The premise of the show is that there are four (actually five if you include the viewer) "Superreaders" who go into storybook village and adventure through a story. The four super readers each have a special power - alphabet power, spelling power, word power, and reading power - and the viewer has the power to help. As the viewer and the superreaders go through the story, each character uses his/her power to help the story progress and eventually reach its conclusion. The educational purpose of the show is learning to read through phonics. It's fun and LilyBaby tries to participate though her phonic-power isn't quite as adept as the show's target audience. So, to her, every sound is "t" or "b". I am so surprised though at the amount of words she recognizes and responds to. A couple of people tell me she's smart. My response? I hope so. We'll see. Whatever her intellectual capacity, we love her.

In regards to television, I first felt quite guilty about letting her watch. I have read that television should be banned for children under 3 and a lot of people I know don't even own a television. But, after a couple of weeks at home, I decided that letting LilyBaby sit down for a half-an-hour break (and giving myself one too), isn't too bad. It kind of refreshes me after running around with her all morning. Sometimes, I'm able to sneak in a read while she's watching. So, in the end, I go against what is supposedly "right" and here I post my guilty confession. There is a lot of inherent and rhetorical guilt built in when it comes to mothering, isn't there? I will, of course, let you know if LilyBaby's brain rots as a result of watching television and will then advocate against it as much as the next mother. Until then, though, horray for SuperWhy!

California's Decision

Well, I caught glimpses of same-sex couples in California lining up for marriage licenses this morning, courtesy of CNN. This issue has, lately, created sort of a conundrum for me. On the one hand, it goes against my nature to want to deny someone the same opportunities for happiness and stability that have been granted to me. So, part of me is in agreement with California, Massachusetts and other states that have granted same-sex unions. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is against it. So, there's my problem. I have always been one who wants to use my faith to justify good behavior and vice versa. There are many out there who feel that if you are Catholic, you cannot and should not support same-sex unions. I have prayed about this issue and have thought, academically and politically about it, as well. In my family and among my circle of friends and acquaintances there have been homosexuals. There aren't deviants; they aren't out to destroy family values. In my experience, they are just people in search of happiness and the American Dream...aren't we all? And, yes, Church and State are kept separate...what I'm talking about here is my own personal struggle with the issue and what my response as a good American citizen who is also Catholic should be.

The Catholic argument against homosexuality goes something like this:

1. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered because they go against natural law. This natural law is designed towards procreation. In other words, because homosexual relations cannot result in the conception of a child, the act itself is depraved. For the Church, this is quite logical because, as Catholics, we are also against contraception, pre-marital sex, and abortion. So the Church, in its teachings on marriage, is consistent in that the sex act itself serves the purpose of both procreation and unity. To separate either purpose from the act is an offense against natural law.
2. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity and are to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination is to avoided in their regard. (CCC 2358-2359).

Here's the rub, for me. As a country, is it possible to reserve civil unions for heterosexual couples, even though that could be seen as discriminatory? On the other hand, does granting civil unions to same-sex couples automatically sanction the act of homosexuality which goes against natural law? It seems the answer to second question is yes while the answer to the first question is no. I guess the Church (or an orthodox Catholic) might argue that if preserving natural law necessitates discriminatory behavior, then natural law must trump. That makes sense to me. But, we do live in a country that does not recognize itself as Christian or Catholic and strives to separate the entities of Church and state for the benefit of the inclusion of rights for all. That, I feel, is what makes this country great.

So, in the end, I end up separating my religious faith from my politics (a very bad thing I know). How do I justify it? I guess I can't. All I do know is that when the argument is made that homosexuality is an offense against heterosexual marriage, I stop listening. There are so many other grave offense against heterosexual marriage that I don't even think homosexual unions show up on the radar. Marriage, in general, is no longer looked at as a sacramental union between anyone. Instead, our culture seems to view marriage as something that is to be entered into for convenience, for fun, and for the moment. Divorce abounds; adultery is commonplace; etc. So does that mean, we should just add homosexual unions to the list of "offenses"? I don't know. Perhaps I've just convinced myself that homosexual unions are not ideal. But I think I see homosexual unions as something that has sprung up as a result of our disrespect and disregards for marriage in general. Rather than persecuting the homosexuals in search of stability, acknowledgement, and happiness, then, our best bet may be to start with taking a good hard look at what makes heterosexual unions so wonderful in the first place and why they are worth saving at all.

I did want to clarify that if I see homosexual unions as an offense against anything, it would be against the sacramental purpose of marriage. This means, I would see homosexual unions as an offense against the Church. I don't think, at this time, that homosexual unions pose a threat to the state. In fact, I think such unions could be good for the state and would, therefore, have to agree with the civil proceedings and rights that are granted to same-sex couples in search of such a union. For their part, many homosexual couples don't give a darn what any Church thinks about their union. They just want the right to be happy and they want the right to share in the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy (and probably take for granted). Again, taking religion out of the picture, what is wrong with that?

Patience with LilyBaby and Prayer

This morning I received an email from work that needed my immediate attention. One of my teachers was giving me a hard time about choosing a Catholic text for our Catholic curriculum. You see, she's a Baptist fundamentalist evangelical who teaches in our Catholic school because the pay is way better than in the Christian schools of our area. She does use her position to sneak in a little Protestant theology whenever she gets a chance. I don't have too big of a problem with it considering we have Protestant students at our school too. What I do have a problem with is when she proselytizes to the students about what's wrong with Catholic teachings. She has never been brought to task for this but is well-known for having these moments of proselytizing every now and then. Anyway the text in question in Willa Cather's Death Comes for the Archbishop. It's a novel about a European missionary who is sent to the southwest United States as Apostolic Bishop of the region. The novel is about his spiritual journey and is really quite beautiful in its natural and symbolic imagery. The novel does a good job in representing the Catholic Church. Though not all of the priests are in-line with Catholic teachings, the Bishop responds lovingly yet firmly. Seeing that our students have never really had a good experience with reading a Catholic text in a Catholic setting, I felt it would be a good addition for AP juniors and I stand by the inclusion. My colleague, on the other hand, is understandably having a difficult time with the text. She wrote me an email questioning its inclusion, its validity, etc. So I had to reply quickly. Did I mention that hers is the job that I currently hold after she was demoted? But that is another story.

Anyway, while attending to this email, LilyBaby decided it was prime time for taking all the books off the book shelf and throwing them onto the floor. She also threw things from her father's desk onto the floor. My husband and I, who were both very busy this morning, began to notice our patience quickly waning in regards to this beautiful little girl. I remember reading that prayer might help in times of patience. Sadly, the only prayer I could come up with is the strength to not throw the little girl onto the couch, forcing her to cry, but getting her out of my way. Somehow, I was able to write the coherent email and get LilyBaby to stop crying all in one fell swoop. And, no, she did not get thrown onto the couch. She was placed there though. Daddy got off to work and I'm left to sit and wonder how I'm going to get my summer work done at the rate I'm at now. You see, many mistake the fact that teachers, because they get a summer break, use that entire break to do very little. Most of us use this break to prepare for the upcoming school year, at least the best of us do. I have always gotten my best planning done during the summer but this summer I'm finding myself very frustrated with taking care of LilyBaby and trying to keep up with the upcoming year. The pressure is especially on because this will be the first year that I am in charge of managing the department.

Last night, on the Catholic radio channel, I heard about the need for prayer. The speaker likened prayer to oxygen for the soul. Essentially, the soul cannot live without prayer. This was a little disconcerting for me...not because I don't believe in what was said but because I often feel at a loss for prayer. I don't know what to say, what to do, and I definitely feel pressed for time. I find I am more comfortable with memorized prayers because they are familiar and I can say them on the go. The really hard prayers are the ones I have to come up with on my own but the ones I probably need the most. My husband is quite the opposite. Raised in the protestant tradition, he is easily able to come up with personal prayer and leaves the memorized prayer for ceremony and Mass. When we were first married, we would pray together at night...but I grew uncomfortable with it so we stopped. I think I recognized the fact that it was too humbling and I didn't like being humbled in front of my husband. Ah, there's pride. I've wanted to start it up again but have been too embarrassed to ask. Of course it doesn't help that we're both exhausted when we go to bed. Now what does all this have to do with new mothering? I have found myself getting better with the whole patience thing though I do still have my moments (like now) where I have to get away from LilyBaby for a few minutes. I guess now would be the time for prayer. A time to pray for patience...a prayer to the Blessed Mother perhaps. A prayer for me to recognize that when LilyBaby cries, it's because she needs me; other things can wait...at least for a little while. After all she does take a nap at 11 and she does like Super Y. The more I remember how fast she's growing up the more I feel bad about getting frustrated with her. Again, more prayer is needed.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad...Barack Obama?

To steal a line from Frank Rich...

In a recent conversation with a fellow blogger and dear friend, we talked about the candidates that be. Both of us expressed disappointment over the primary loss of Hillary but this is where our commonality ends. You see, my friend cannot vote for Barack Obama because she finds him "morally abhorrent". I was intrigued and asked for clarification and elaboration. She and one of her friends pointed me to a comment made by Senator Obama that equates punishment with children in the context of birth control and teenage pregnancy. Yes, I think Obama misspoke. I think he could have used better rhetoric...but is that a reason to characterize the man as "morally abhorrent" or value-defunct? Sadly, I'm not convinced.

Another argument that she and her friend came up with was one involving the deification of Obama by his supporters. Many seem to feel that Obama is being glorified by his constituents and newfound fans. For some reason, this is different from the popularity our current president enjoyed shortly after that terrible terrible day in 2001. Now, to be fair, my friends did mention that Bush and his supporters never saw Bush as a god, himself, whereas Obama's supporters do. But, I still have to ask the question: what does this have to do with Obama himself and his ability to lead? As long as he, himself, is not declaring himself God-incarnate, I don't see a problem. Every leader has its nutty groupies. Now Obama is being blamed for the beliefs of his followers? There is no evidence that he has encouraged or instigated this as far as I know...just like there is no evidence that he is a Muslim (not that would necessarily be a bad thing if he was). So, again, for me the argument fails. I'm still researching Obama though.

You see, my husband is an Obama supporter. I was a Clinton supporter. I haven't made up my mind about what to do in November. I did hear Senator Barbara Boxer reporting on Senator McCain's voting record in regards to women and it was perplexing. I don't see myself voting for a man who neither voted for equal wages for equal work nor for child care subsidies for single working mothers. That would go against my nearest and dearest principles.

I have to say, I never found myself in a position to be defending Senator Obama but here I am...telling my friends that their arguments just aren't flying. And they all seem to stem from fear. Fear of the big black president? I can't help but wonder if there is a little race relation in that fear. I don't hear too many people expressing irrational fears around McCain. Those fears seem to be rooted in some form of logic. For example, I have heard a few people express fear of a McCain victory because of a possible war extension in Iraq. For me, that fear is reasonable and grounded in statements that McCain, himself have made. But the sentiments of fear surrounding Obama just don't seem to have any grounding in reason.

For example, there's the fear that he's a Muslim because his father was one. Why this is terribly scary, I don't know but I'll play. Let's say it is scary and let's say we don't want a Muslim for president. Why is Obama automatically a Muslim because his father was (and a loose one at that)? My research tells me he has pledged himself to Christianity, as has his wife and daughters, shouldn't we just leave it at that? I don't remember anyone accusing any other political candidate of being anything other than Christian. But I guess there was no reason to.

There's another fear involving Obama. His patriotism. Again, this seems to me something that cannot really be argued without hard evidence. Has the man ever been found guilty of treason? Has he ever outwardly expressed the overthrowing of the government through force or violence? Has he ever spit on or burned an American flag? I know, I know. He didn't put his hand over his heart while a patriotic song was being sung. I can hardly get my students to recite the pledge of allegiance in the morning. Does this make them unpatriotic? Patriotism, much like Christianity, is expressed through actions - not through ceremonial gestures and not through the wearing of certain pieces of memorabilia (though those gestures and objects are great). I think if this man has invested all of his money, all his energy, all of his time, into the running of a campaign for senate and then for president, then must he have some marginal form of interest in this country? And who would want to lead for the purpose of destruction? Even rogue leaders thought they had the best interests in the country at heart, so this argument just doesn't fly with me either. Disagree with his principles; disagree with his strategies; but patriotism is just so nebulous. I can't agree with this man being unpatriotic. Even if does seek to change this country at its core, that doesn't make him unpatriotic. I think this argument has to do with a definition of patriotism which is probably flawed in that it must deal with conservation of status quo, but I digress. Let's move on....

Fear of Michelle. Well, I'm just not going to go there because that is ridiculous on so many levels. Are we still at the stage where we should be afraid of an assertive woman who supports her husband? If you ask me, I'd like to know more about Cindy McCain. Why is she so quiet? Doesn't she have anything to say? How old is she anyway? However old she is, she looks great!

So, you see. All of this poor rhetoric against Senator Obama, for me, says more about the people spreading it than it does about the candidate himself. It also says a great deal about this country and the work it still needs to do in regards to sound logic and unfounded prejudice.

The argument that does bear some thought? His experience. That is probably the most viable argument out there. But, I haven't heard too much on it. Off to research I go.

I'll Probably Go To Hell For This...

My husband I have been perplexed, lately, about the common thread between pro-life conservatives and their affiliation for corporations - even if those corporations are at odds with pro-life sentiments. So, in a particulary rare LilyBaby-free moment we started brainstorming about bumper stickers that would satirize the awkward connection...the strange bedfellows if you will. Here is some we can up with:

Fair Wages...Stops a Corporation's Beating Heart

No matter how small, a coporation is still a corporation

You Can't Be Both Pro-Democracy and Pro-Regulation!

Diapers are Disposable...Corporate-Tax Loopholes are Not

Save the Baby Businesses!!!

Federal Regulation is Like Magic...It Makes Big Business Disappear!!

Okay, so you get the idea. Snarky? Yes. Taking a terrible tragedy/condition and making light of its existence? Probably. But, there's something behind more behind our sick little game. You see, my husband I are pro-life. Our definition of pro-life is just a lot more expansive and includes the freedom of individual choice. In fact, you'll probably find this blog quite eclectic in that subjects will range from Catholicism to politics to motherhood to toddler raising to working mom issues to feminism. I've never fit into many categories which is why I won't expect to garner a strong readership. I can't join any Catholic mom's groups because I'm not conservative enough in my Catholicism. But, I am Catholic. In fact, I teach in a Catholic school!! Go figure.

Back to our little bumper sticker game. It seems that many Christian conservatives, in their efforts to promote one issue, lose focus on how other issues effect the very people - the very babies - they are trying to protect. What are those other issues? Poverty, Health Care (which is a right - not a privelege or a responsiblity - if you're pro-life), Worker Issues, Children's Issues, Womens' Issues, etc. etc. etc.

Now, where is this all coming from? You see, I have this nasty tendency to want to fit in. I always have. It must be some kind of psychologic holdover from high school. Living in one of the most conservative and, yes, Christian regions of this country, I want to fit in. I want to be a conservative. But, you see, my Catholic upbringing just won't let me. It's impossible for me to ignore my dreams of equal opportunity for children's education and health; it's impossible for me to ignore my belief that poor people do deserve a break every now and then - breaks that I, myself, took advantage of when getting my college education; it's impossible for me to ignore the unfair practices of big business as the economy sinks into a quagmire. I have asked family and friends to please convince me that right is right, but to no avail. The logic just doesn't make good sense to me. So I continue to search for good, logical conservative argument...argument that is unbiased, unprejudiced, and Christian in nature. Through this and other venues, my search will continue.