The Wisdom of Mrs. Fischer

Oh boy oh boy oh boy do I love Simcha Fishcer. She blogs. She writes for the National Catholic Register. She raises a troupe of kids. She wears pants. I'd like to give some sort of caveat, like: "I don't always agree with her, but I find her compelling" but the truth is, I usually do agree with her, and don't find her compelling, I find her hilarious and filled with common sense. Like:

+ Also, some men never think twice about marriage or babies until they find themselves 90% of the way there with the right woman—and then they step up and amaze everyone. So what you see when you’re dating is not necessarily exactly the same as what you’ll get when you’re married. And man and women grow and improve during the life of a marriage, too. The truth is, it’s kind of a crap shoot. We can make reasonable choices, but much about relationships is unpredictable... --Should I Marry Him

+ "I’m not, as I mentioned, especially hung up on men opening doors, specifically. But the idea that men do some special things for women, and women do some special things for men—sounds like a plan to make life tolerable." --The Art of Getting Hysterical About Gender


+ "Poverty saves you from foolish expenditures (unless you’re foolish enough to go into debt over things you don’t need): never once have we tasted the bitterness of buyer’s remorse as we survey the bill for the wrong kind of premium cell phone, useless time share condo, regrettable L-shaped leather couch in sea foam green, or one of those luxury alligators. Thanks, poverty!" --The Blessings of Poverty

+ "Only people with a mental illness would truly believe that you can achieve anything. People who actually get things done are the people who look at themselves and say, “Okey-doke. There are some things I’m good at, and many thousands more things that I am and always will be utterly unqualified to do. Starting tomorrow, my job is do the least amount of thrashing around and wasting of my parent’s tuition money as possible, while I figure out the difference between my very few strengths and my billions of weaknesses.

"'Then, I need to figure out if there’s any possible way I can do what it turns out I’m good at, and also be a decent human being. If possible, it would be wonderful if the things I’m good at, and which allow me to be decent, are also things which will earn me a salary.'

"And after you have that conversation with yourself, and preferably after you come up with a better plan than scrawling “FIX LIFE” on your memo pad, then you can go out drinking with your buddies.

"Because here’s the deal, you poor deluded masses of inchoate ambition: Freedom is for something." --My Dear Graduates

And don't miss a jewel of a piece, which is so fitting for us at TMS, What is a Catholic Feminist?

Linkfest

I've got a whole pile of links waiting to be posted, so here you go:

Neat analysis of the first of Titian's famous Noli Me Tangere (above) paintings shows that originally Christ was dressed as a gardener, and his back was turned to Magdalene. Read more here.

It was once looked down upon to have a career. Then it was bad to not have a career and have lots of kids. What are we supposed to think anymore? Virginia Postrel discusses this in the WSJ. Related: Is the male-female wage gap a myth? (via First Things)

We've quoted and discussed much of Kay Hynowitz's work before. Here's a interesting interview from earlier this spring about her controversial new book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Turned Men into Boys. Related: Read her WSJ excerpt from the book.

Don't blame Ambercrombie if your girls dressing sluttily. The blame starts with the parents who fund them. So argues Pia de Solenni. And while I tend to agree, I don't think they really account enough for the profound influence of advertising and peer pressure. Related: One-third of clothes marketed to young girls are "sexy" according to a Kenyon College Study (via The Atlantic).

Since we've all been a bridesmaid way way way too many times, I wanted to suggest to you ladies this cool new service from bridesmaid company Dessy. Called New Maid you can send in your old bridesmaid dresses, and they will give you a coupon for 30% to 50% off one of their lovely LBDs. Which you really can wear again.

James Matthew Wilson has some thoughts on college administrations counseling students to live chastely.

And, after all that heavy stuff, here's a little fun via the webcomic xkcd:

Clearing the Desk Linkfest

Sorry for my extreme silence on the blog. Life has been busy. But I've piled up a big list of links to share with you all, and am finally together enough to post them. I am so glad Julian brought up the Kay Hymowitz article, and will write my thoughts about it shortly. But I wanted to clear the decks first of all these piled up links. The final 3 have something to do with the Hymowitz article, too.

NOBODY GETS MARRIED ANYMORE by Gerry Garibaldi, City Journal:

Here’s my prediction: the money, the reforms, the gleaming porcelain, the hopeful rhetoric about saving our children—all of it will have a limited impact, at best, on most city schoolchildren. Urban teachers face an intractable problem, one that we cannot spend or even teach our way out of: teen pregnancy. This year, all of my favorite girls are pregnant, four in all, future unwed mothers every one. There will be no innovation in this quarter, no race to the top. Personal moral accountability is the electrified rail that no politician wants to touch.

ZIONIST SECT MARRIES GAY MEN TO LESBIAN WOMAN, by Yair Ettinger, Haaretz via First Things:

Rabbis from the religious Zionist community have launched an initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women - with some surprising successes.

...Etti and Roni, both religious, were married five years ago. Though they were honest with each other about their sexual orientations from their first meeting, to the outside world, they portray themselves as a normal heterosexual couple. Today, they have two children, and are thrilled with the results.

"It's incredible," they wrote. "Six years ago, we didn't think we would ever be this happy. We thought everything was black, that we'd lost our chance of a normal life. But today, things are good for us. There are gaps, but that's true in every case. And we fill them with the great love we give to and receive from our children, and also enjoy the simple human love we give each other, such as any two people can give and receive."

SLACKING AS SELF DISCOVERY by Rita Koganzon in The New Atlantis:

Extrapolating primarily from the statistics on the increasing age of marriage and childbearing in the United States and refusing to lament them, Arnett argues forcefully that emerging adulthood is a positive development. Free from external constraints (and often supported financially by their parents), twentysomethings have the opportunity to try an array of temporary jobs, relationships, educational paths, and residences to find which of these are most to their preference. In winnowing down the options, they are also able to “find themselves,” a discovery that will serve them well as adults, assuming they ever decide to become adults. Armed with the self-knowledge gained from a decade of working at Starbucks, joining the Peace Corps, and sharing a basement studio in Brooklyn with four other emerging adults, those at the end of emerging adulthood will better make the family and career decisions they had been putting off, resulting in a future of greater life satisfaction and stability.

...If this all sounds a bit confused, fluffy, and New Agey, Robin Marantz Henig, the author of the Times Magazine piece, has Arnett’s studies and vague neuroscientific speculation about brain maturation to back it up. Emerging adulthood, she argues, isn’t merely a description of the way a narrow sliver of affluent and well-educated people are choosing to spend their twenties, but a seismic shift that will have political consequences.

THE POWERLESSNESS OF THE SINGLE WOMAN by Drs. J.R. Bruns and R.A. Richards II, in Psycology Today:

These same forbidden themes of women's desire for marriage and their frustrations with men and dating have been box office magic in recent "Chick Lit" movies like "Bridget Jones Diary " and "Sex In The City". Feelings of fear, powerlessness and alienation are safely released as long as it is in fiction or pictured on the silver screen.

It turns out that today's liberated women want to marry. The problem, as Whitehead points out, is that the social infrastructure that was designed to help young women meet marriageable men no longer exists. Once upon a time the American courtship rituals of the Senior Prom and sorority formals accomplished their task of getting young men and women paired off. That era disappeared along with platform shows, bell bottom pants and mood rings.

Since many women are pursuing marriage after they have left high school and college with their pool of available men, these single women must take on this chore by themselves. Instead of dating and mating with men they grew up with or at least shared classes with, many are now dating and mating with strangers.

This new system is tailor-made for the mirage man. He doesn't even have to promise young single women to go steady to achieve his short term goals. He either "hooks up" or is "joined at the hip." The "hook up" is friends with benefits, meaning sex without commitment. The other option is "joined at the hip", where a couple that doesn't know each other very well commits to a sexual relationship and spends all their time together. Neither hooking up or being joined at the hip leads to many strong relationships that can weather the storms of life...

SEX IS CHEAP by Mark Regnerus in Slate:

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad.

ON DATING NICE CATHOLIC GIRLS by Max Lindeman on Patheos:

I was approaching carved-wood status, though not quietly, when I met—really met—my first nice Catholic girl. It was at a vocational discernment retreat. I was standing on the monastery porch, peering through the French doors toward the living room, wondering whether I should bolt now and apologize later, or vice-versa. I heard tires on gravel. Turning, I saw a girl step out of a Honda wearing a tight pair of jeans. They were not, I hasten to add, skinny jeans; they were cut '80s-style, high at the waist.
When the girl faced me, I saw that her glasses, too, were cut in the style of the Reagan Revolution: square, in every sense. But her legs—timeless. Perhaps her ensemble seems to spell out a mixed message? Not for me. I read: I am beautiful, but either don't know, or don't care.

Why, you could be my vocation, I thought, as she skipped past me, smiling.

It's moments like this when I love the Church. The world condemns bolts of magical thinking as lunacy. The Church dignifies them as the beginning of discernment. In I went.

What Women Want

Breast Cancer Awareness Month Comes to an End. Let's Reflect.

I hope you will take time to consider the following article by Jenn Giroux from today's Zenit new source. I re-post here in full, because it needs to be heard! And spread the word to the women you love!

Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?
By Jenn Giroux

CINCINNATI, Ohio, OCT. 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards … it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth.

That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.

We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?

For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.

Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.

For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).

This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.

Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college.

The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?

The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.

The difference is the dose

So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?

In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.

Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.

The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage of Komen for the Cure giving $7.5 million back to Planned Parenthood in 2009. This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.

October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.

* * *

Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information go to hliamerica.org.

Radical Feminism + Motherhood

This article, written by Rebecca Walker, the daughter of feminist writier and author of The Color Purple, Alice Walker, is a real eye-opener.

"How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart" tells of Rebecca Walkers joy in having a son, her mothers hateful dismissal of her grandson, and the backwards childhood of the daughter of a feminist icon. It is fascinating, hard, sad, and revealing:

But the truth was I was very lonely and, with my mother's knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

Now I simply cannot understand how she could have been so permissive. I barely want my son to leave the house on a play-date, let alone start sleeping around while barely out of junior school.

A good mother is attentive, sets boundaries and makes the world safe for her child. But my mother did none of those things.

Although I was on the Pill - something I had arranged at 13, visiting the doctor with my best friend - I fell pregnant at 14. I organised an abortion myself. Now I shudder at the memory. I was only a little girl. I don't remember my mother being shocked or upset.

...I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It's helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it's caused for my contemporaries?

...The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

Wow. Read it all here. (HT: TMS reader Paul)

Babies, the Pill, and Infertility

I have a theory. A theory about birth control and infertility treatments. I cannot tell you how many women I know who have been on the pill for about 10+ years, recently got married, and have now decided to get off the pill and try for a baby. And they cannot get pregnant. Their brains have simply stopped telling their bodies to ovulate. That is SCARY. So, they go to an infertility doctor and get put on another pill just to get pregnant. I cannot say this is true for everyone, but my anecdotal evidence leads me to suspect that a little more (well ok A LOT more) research needs to be done to assess the effects of prolonged birth control use on womens' fertility. I have a hunch that the results will be devastating. Thoughts?

Photo here

More Comments on Our Brave Women

Yesterday I linked to an enlightening series on women in the military, probably highlighted this week because of Memorial Day. The articles are a bit old at this point, so I'm hoping they publish more soon. I find this topic particularly fascinating, primarily because I dearly love a young woman who is serving in the Army. I don't know anyone who has worked harder mentally, physically, or emotionally to accomplish all that she has in the past few years.

I don't really want this to turn into a conversation about whether or not women should be in the military, but rather a conversation about some of the meaty material that the NYT provides us with. The Magdalene Sisters have already begun to explore the role of women in the workplace, and what this series offers is a glance into an incredibily demanding place of employment and service.

I find the third video here really interesting. I can't imagine what it's like to have to prove oneself physically by having to push oneself to make the male requirements, which are undoubtedly strenuous for males. I also appreciate her insights into dealing with death, consoling a unit, and finding meaningful work after her tours of duty.

One thing that Sergeant Bumgarner speaks to is the constant fear and vulnerability of being a woman on base with men. I can imagine a general sense of fear in another country and I can obviously imagine fear when engaged in combat. But the fact that women fear their own brothers in uniform, and the fact that MOST cases of sexual assault go unreported, AND the fact that women (even the married ones) fear getting pregnant is really grostesque to me and very contrary to the thing which our armed services are asked to protect and fight for -- true human liberty. This seems to be the next big frontier for women in the military...freedom to be protected and as protect others.

Women at Arms

This looks like a really interesting series. Busy beginning of the week, but I'll post on it, I promise! Maybe we can read it together, sisters?

Beating Breast Cancer

When I was in high school I participated in a 5 K race on Mother's Day that supported breast cancer research. My friend, A, had several relatives who were trying to beat or who had beaten breast cancer, and it seemed like a worthy cause. I remember the beautiful race through Philadelphia, feeling united with thousands upon thousands of people for a good cause.

About 8 years later, I know someone personally who is trying to beat breast cancer, and the treatment is absolutely wicked. She's a tough cookie though, and seems to be pulling through well. Her prognosis is great, and for that I'm grateful.

The month of May brings much breast cancer awareness with it, and I find it fitting since it is the month of Our Dear Lady...why wouldn't we support women? But the more I read about our culture, the less hopeful I am that we're going to beat it (or at least help prevent many cases) with our current policies and educational strategies. Something needs to be done!

Let's take the Susan G. Komen organization for starters. The most notable group in the movement to cure breast cancer donates a significant amount of money to Planned Parenthood. Sure, it's done in the name of mammograms and breast health services, but from what I've read, there is nothing stipulating that any money goes directly towards those services. Once the money is in PP's hands, they are free to allocate it however they deem appropriate. Now, it's bad enough that the money is going to PP, but the fact that research supports a pretty strong correlation between abortions before a full-term pregnancy and the onset of breast cancer (in addition to the use of oral contraceptives and hormones during menopause) cannot be ignored. Therefore, the largest organization committed to eradicating breast cancer is contributing to an organization that can actually provide "services" which can cause breast cancer. When I found this out, I was horrified. Here's a really great video which explains it all.

In addition, the "recommendations" in the new health care bill encourage doctors and women to wait until age 50 to get mammograms instead of starting at at 40. Thank goodness for the American Cancer Society which is refuting this and circulating the invaluable, life-saving recommendation that women at 40 get yearly check-ups.

So, what's a pro-life, pro-woman person supposed to do? The first step is education. Tell women about the link between abortion, oral contraception, and hormones and the onset of breast cancer. Secondly, contribute to organizations who are really trying to eradicate this cancer from society. These organizations pledge not to fund abortion facilities or research that is destructive to nascent, embryonic life.

Let's get to it!

"Womaning" Up

Oh, if only we had all of the time in the world to think about the philosophical and theological meaning of masculinity and femininity. I think we Magdalene Sisters and our readers have done a fine job thinking it through amidst our busy lives, and I'm sure there is more to come.

I've been trying to mull over these things during the busy school days as I watch young women who are about to graduate and go off to college. My "mother bear" instincts kick in, and I want to protect them from the trials they will no doubt encounter, but I also realize that my heartaches and growing pains only helped me to understand my Lord and His call for me even better. Those years between 18 and 22 were incredibly formative for me. I entered an adolescent and came out a woman (a young woman at that, but still, much different than when I had started).

My lofty hope in my job is to contribute to the transformation of our culture by instilling in young women during their adolescence a clearer idea of femininity. This is my response to John Paul II"s call for women to transform the world through our work.

However, as I am continuing to learn, great books, beautiful artwork and film, and fruitful philosophical discussions are really only about a quarter of the things that impress teenage girls in the classroom (a quarter seems to be generous in fact). My life, my example, carries more weight in their education than I had ever really considered. I do not say this out of pride, but rather out of awe, I think. I often forget that as a teenager my female teachers (well, the one that was rather young) had an impression on me not in the classroom per se, but in our discussions outside of class and in all that I learned about the way that she carried herself in relation to others.

While I consider the importance of my example in addition to the discussions we've had on men "manning up" in our culture, I'm becoming particularly intentional about "womaning" up in my own life. I should not expect from men what I myself am not willing to work on -- be it my manners, what I say and how I say it, etc. Whatever I am asking of men, they also should be asking of me (with regard to manners and virtue, not necessarily that which pertains to masculinity or femininity in themselves). In short, I'm inspired and intentional. In fact, I am working with three other women in an apostolate of a similar nature.

I have been re-reading The Privilege of Being a Woman for my book club (which, by the way, it all centered on femininity and the feminine soul) and have been meditating on the following:

God has indeed created women to be beautiful. Their charm, loveableness, and beauty exercise a powerful attraction...

Let us "woman up" and use this power only to draw people to a greater knowledge of the One who made us to be so.

"What Would Mary Do?"

Such is the title of the cover story on the latest edition of Newsweek. I knew when I saw the cover that the story would not be good. But, I wanted at least to see the latest and greatest cultural commentaries on the issues going on within the Church. So, I read it - it is written by Lisa Miller, and I can assure, does not do much credit to her writing or researching skills.

The headline of the article begins shockingly: " A woman's place is in the Church." Wow. A statement like that could get you butchered by some feminists. I think as a general rule, women don't really like to be told where their place is, even if by a fellow woman. Wouldn't you say, ladies? The article posits that the Catholic Church is nothing but a good ole boy's club, and that is why the recent scandals have come to take place. If women don't get to be priests, well, then, the whole Church will simply crumble. (We know better of course, as Christ promised us that even the throngs of Hell would not prevail against it). Miss Miller goes on to say that the problem with the Church is that it is stuck in a pre-modern era, one that does not value as she puts 'the supremacy of the individual.' She even goes so far to say that 'we in the West' don't 'get' Church leaders. And they don't 'get' us. Did someone fail to give her a simple history lesson wherein she should have learned that 'we in the West' have been formed by the Church? I was shocked at such scanty journalism. To be honest, I am shocked that the editor actually published such, well, to be frank, crap. Aren't we sick of being indoctrinated with this junk in our news? I am.

Miller claims that unless women are allowed to be ordained as priests, the Church will become less relevant to women, and they will leave the Church, "taking their children with them." Really... I mean really? Is that the best solution she can offer? The stats in the article are simply hearsay, and the sources she draws upon are the Gospel of Thomas - sources that are not even considered authoritative. She does not even mention Mary, except on a few remote points. Very poor work, indeed. So, what would Mary do? Well, Lisa Miller does not tell us, but Scripture tells us that she would point us in the direction of her Son, and gently tell us, "Do whatever He tells you." Let's hope that all of us start listening a little bit better.

Julian's Thoughts on Rejecting a Suitor

Thanks, Agatha, for a link to Miss Manners and her ideas about rejecting a potential suitor. It's one of the hardest things to do, isn't it? And I think it's something that can create unnecessary drama for women. Goodness, I have a lot to say about it, but I'll keep it concise.

There is no easy way to tell someone that you don't have any romantic interest in him or that you don't share his intentions in your interactions. I've been on both the receiving and the rejecting end for about 9 years now, and I don't think the process of rejection gets any easier with time. Sure, it varies in difficulty depending upon your interest, how well you know someone, what his pursuit has entailed, etc. But there is just no clean and tidy way to say, "Well, I don't like you that way."

In my experience, the worst kind of rejection (at least from the P.O.V. of the receiving end) is the "fade away": a slow and seldom lack of communication from the man. Time gets longer between each contact from him, and you eventually realize that you have been initiating the communication while he merely responds. It takes a few weeks before you realize that he is not interested...perhaps this is your naivete or denial, but regardless, it's a prolonged agony and period of uncertainty that could have been considerably shaved down if he were a bit clearer.

That being said, I am guilty of the "fade away," and it is something that I have been conscientiously trying to stop doing. If a man's intentions are very clear, or even kind of clear, I have resolved to be very honest with him, in as gentle a way possible. It's hard to do without feeling guilty, but I do think we women owe men an honest response to their courage in pursuing someone. We save them time, uncertainty, and money. Now, I think the forum for honesty will depend upon whether your contact has been on the phone, face-t0-face, or through email, but the message of appreciation for their pursuit but honesty in one's feelings has to be clear. I think every women can pull this off with grace and charm (and with the help of a little prayer before doing the deed).

My dear, dear brother, once put it this way to me: "You'll know who you want to wind up with when neither of you would ever think of rejecting the other person." He's oftentimes too practical and very candid, but I think he's right.

Oscars Addendum

Good coverage, Agatha. But I cannot let you get away without acknowledging possibly the most supremely beautiful woman in the biz:

Women and/in the Oscars

Katherine Bigelow on the set of her Academy Award nominated film The Hurt Locker

Tomorrow night is the annual five hour Hollywood film orgy known as the Oscars. With ex-spouses James Cameron and Katherine Bigelow the front runners for both Best Picture and Best Director, there's been lots of talk about the role of women in Hollywood.

Most shocking of all was a recent article on Salon arguing that Katherine Bigelow is a sheep in wolf's clothing. Her film The Hurt Locker is a war movie made by a woman--therefore she is a woman playing at being a man:

Looks to me like she's masquerading as the baddest boy on the block to win the respect of an industry still so hobbled by gender-specific tunnel vision that it has trouble admiring anything but film making soaked in a reduced notion of masculinity.

.

Her article and argument are taken apart on Jezebel:

It's true that war films have always been an excellent way to get the Academy's attention, though they've also been a good bet at commercial failure. But why should telling the stories of wartime only be a man's provenance? Isn't the U.S.'s engagement in Iraq women's business too?

And let's be clear here: Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron aren't dismissed as unserious merely because they're women making movies about things that supposedly matter to women. It's also because they're seen, fairly or unfairly, as frothily commercial objects, made primarily for passing pleasure. (If we're splitting hairs, I personally didn't find Avatar "serious" and think it should also be seen as a primarily commercial enterprise, but then again the Academy didn't ask me. ...nowhere is there any indication that she's anything but incredibly passionate about both the substance and the creation of The Hurt Locker, or that she's suppressing some sort of innate femininity.

Meanwhile, DC blogger Amanda Hess discusses the argument that the acting awards should be de-segregated. Her conclusion is interesting:

I bristle at the unnecessarily sexist distinction between great male actors and great female actors. But as onerous as a “Best Female Director” category would be, I know that if that category had existed 80 years ago, Hollywood would have actually been forced to support real “women’s pictures” all the way down the line, and today’s great female filmmakers would not be staring down an 80-year legacy of being left out of the show.

This idea of un-sexing the acting Oscars has been floated before, but it seems terribly wrong-headed to me. First of all it rests on the false assumption that the male actors are perceived to be better than the female ones. I don't know anyone who would say this. I don't even know how one could begin to argue this. I looked up the male and female acting categories in Wikipedia. Both Claudett Colbert and Clark Gable won in 1934 for It Happened One Night, and deserved it! Who can say that Joanne Woodward was better in Three Faces of Eve than Alce Guinness in Bridge over the River Kwai in 1957. But ten years later in 1967 both Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter and Barbara Streisand in Funny Girl were much more memorable than Cliff Robertson (who?) in Charly (what?). And in the last fifteen years: the best performance of 1998 was certainly Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful over Gweneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. In 2006? Definitely Helen Mirrien in The Queen, though Forrest Whittaker was amazing in The Last King of Scotland.

All this is to say: best performer might be a fun conjecture, and even a good addition to the awards, but it misses out on the more fundamental aspect of an actors person, their sex.

Even if we allow for a difference between sex and gender (which I don't), let's note that three women have been nominated for cross-gender roles (Cate Blanchett, Felicity Huffman, and Hilary Swank)--but no men have. Frankly, Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan was brilliant. I don't know any male performers that could have taken on that role with such daring and played it so convincingly. (I haven't seen, and have no desire to see, the other films.)

For an actor, sex and gender are a crucial element both to the way they take on a role and to the character they play. Obviously sex is an element in every artists work, because it is integral to our being. But it matters much less that a woman directs a film about a seemingly male subject (war) than that she does it well. Loosing oneself entirely in a role, as Blanchett did, so that the viewers forget entirely who is playing the role, and see only the character portrayed--that is a mark of truly great acting.

I haven't yet seen The Hurt Locker, so I can't speak to the content of the film, but the argument that women should be awarded for "women's films" (aka romantic comedies) is preposterous. (That being said, if a women created a "romantic comedy" of It Happened One Night calibre, I'd be first in line to cheer her on in the Oscar race!) And I can't speak to the acting nods this year, since I've only seen two of the films thus far (An Education and Julie & Julia). Streep would deserve a best all time Oscar for her portrayal of Julia Child, had it been put in a better film (thanks, Ms. Ephron).

Perhaps it's fitting that we end with Julia Child. Her life is, indeed, a testament to the relevance and irrelevance of sex in entertaining: that she was a woman gave her the opportunity to pursue cooking and then the initial audience of housewives. But she was also the first female celebrity chef and therefore broke ground. Furthermore behind the scenes stood her supportive collaborative husband, Paul. She was a phenomenal woman, a great chef, and a find human being--and I don't see why we can't praise her for all three.

(Programing note: we'll be doing an Oscar night Fashion Roundup on Monday...so tune in!)

A Response to the Glass Ceiling

Thanks, Agatha, for a thought-provoking beginning to a discussion on women in the workplace. I enjoyed the article links and went over to the NYTimes article which Jezebel linked to. I only have one thought about the matter right now (as I'm very sick), and that's that in the attention is being paid to the dearth of females at the top of the Wall Street chain, but not necessarily in other entrepreneurial arenas.

And a growing number of women run investment portfolios at college and prep school endowments. The Harvard endowment, the largest in the United States, is managed by Jane Mendillo.

But in the heart of Wall Street, the aggressive environment on the trading floor is often cited as a reason that women are rare at the top. Others cite the dearth of women to aid in career networking.

Whatever the reason, ascending the ladder is much harder for women, said Bruce C. Greenwald, a professor of finance and strategy at Columbia University Business School.

“It is more difficult for women to come back because the environment in financial institutions is generally more hostile to women,” he said. “This culture has developed over a very long period of time, and it has been exacerbated as the firms’ emphasis has shifted from traditional investment banking to sales and trading, which is an even more macho culture.”

I can't help but wonder if it is exactly this "aggressive" forum that is in stark contrast to authentic femininity. John Paul II asks us to enter the workforce in order to humanize the affairs of the world. I wonder though, given the financial collapse and the rise of uncapped greed, if rising to the top of this work is something that women should venture into even if it were possible or if it is something that men will inevitably box them out of (and perhaps with misguided intentions, might work for the best?). It seems that the forum would have to change in order for women to work there really effectively. Maybe women should be the ones to change the forum?

It seems I only have more questions!

The Glass Ceiling

I want to share with you a fascinating article from Jezebel Online Magazine. Do you read Jezebel? I'd encourage you all to do so. There's a lot of crap, I'll grant, and a lot of stuff I find very wrong-headed, but it certainly has its finger on the pulse of modern women. Modern secular women, that is. Anyway, in this article author Latoya Peterson discusses many recent articles that look at the lack of women in executive roles on Wall Street and in the business world.

It's an interesting article, and worth perusing; it puts the blame on culture which I think is fair, but not nuanced enough. Yes, our culture still hasn't figured out that balance between equality for women in the workplace and encouraging our natural inclinations towards motherhood. But it's not an either or question: it's a both and answer.

That is: women of equal merit should have no barriers to earning the same salary, to obtaining the same positions, etc. as men do. But, society also ought to support the choice to be a mother. Nor should it put motherhood in opposition to careers (and both sides do this!) This is a huge problem, and one I hope to start discussing more on the blog because, as a young women who doesn't have motherhood in her immediate future, and is trying to make a life for herself (and that necessarily means a career), I do have to grapple with these questions, and often.

But I don't have an answer today. But its something I want to begin discussing pretty regularly on the blog. In the meantime, lets roll up our sleeves and get to work.

UPDATE: Sorry gals, here's the article.


+ + +
Speaking of women in the workplace--though the FOX show House, M.D. is almost totally unrealistic--one could do worse than modelling oneself after Dr. Cutty, Dean of Medicine, and an all around tough-as-nails-won't-get-pushed-around administrator, and yet still has the heart of a women. In a recent episode, they showed the whole day from her perspective. "5 tom 9" was the best episode of this season, and a real treat to watch:

Carrie Bradshaw and the Feminists

I didn’t really tune into Sex in the City until it was in syndication on TBS. I’m glad too, because I can’t stomach the vulgarity of the full HBO series. TBS’s edits made the show much more palatable to me.

All the same, I followed news of the show while it was running. It fascinated me because a) it had captivated several generations of female viewers and therefore seemed to have its finger on something we yearn for; b) as a TV series it had the time to dive into the characters and show whether these four very different women really could have it all; and c) well…I did love the clothes.

When I started watching the show, I was intrigued. It was daring, carefree, and women centered in a way no other show had been before—and no show has really been since. And it did try to broach significant issues for women—affairs of the heart as well as of modern culture, connectedness, etc. But time and again Carrie picks the selfish route, the writers used Sex as shorthand for a genuine relationship, and I got tired of all those crop tops SJP wore. And while in the final episodes we see four women who are coming to terms with their lives (3 of whom living selflessly—for their families, their children, or in Samantha’s case, learning to depend on another—the movie took that all away and turned what little power there was in the series into commercialism and shoe porn.

Because pop-culture often breeds strange bed fellows, I was fascinated to learn that many feminists are also rejecting the ideal Carrie Bradshaw has to offer. Via First Things, I learn that: “even the feminists who paved the route on which Carrie Brandshaw treads in her Manolo Blahniks are growing disturbed by the consequences of the sexual revolution. A veritable cottage industry of books and articles is now being produced by Friedanesque, first wave feminists, wringing their hands over what their movement has devolved into.”

One such writer is Cassandra Jardine of UK’s Daily Telegraph, who says:

Walter, for those not up to speed on the feminist canon – and who is, these days? – wrote The New Feminism, published in 1998, which delighted in the progress that had been made towards an equal society. ''Here's feminism as phoenix, as blazing torch lighting the way to a new century,'' wrote Michele Roberts in a breathlessly enthusiastic review. Now all that optimism has turned to dust. Living Dolls analyses the increasing sexualisation of feminity and the extent to which young women are led to believe that their bodies are their only passport to success.

Far from relations between the sexes flourishing emotionally and physically, against a backdrop of mutual respect, understanding and equality, a generation of young girls is interpreting liberation as the right to behave like top-shelf models. These women, interviewed by Walter, are also committed to no-strings sex, celebrating one-night stands as notches on their designer handbags. For them, STDs are almost a badge of honour, eating disorders commonplace and men who talk of love and commitment are sneered at for "going soppy"

What eventually turned me off Sex and the City was the fact that ultimately the lives these women lead are selfserving and unfulfilling, because they are centered on personal pleasure and desire--especially Carrie, who tried to be introspective and ended up being whiny.

It is fascinating to me that feminists are disappointed in the same way. Do you get the same feeling? Have you read anything similar? Discuss!

Let's Talk About Sex...in its Historical Context

This past week, Dawn Eden, author of The Thrill of the Chaste, wrote an article for Headline Bistro in which she defends John Paul II's Theology of the Body as something that is not "new" or "radical," but rather exactly what the pontiff said himself -- a meditation on Humane Vitae and 2000 years of the deposit of faith. In my opinion, this is a really critical insight by Miss Eden, one that no doubt other theologians share:

Truth be told, there is something “new” about John Paul II’s teachings on marriage and sexuality, but it is not the newness of radicalism, revolution, drama, or daring. To borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton, the theology of the body is new because it is part of a Catholic faith whose “very antiquity preserves an attitude of novelty.” Its newness is that of ancient truths shining ever bright in the face of a world that is “passing away” (1 John 2:17). And it is very much needed in this age—because we have forgotten the wisdom of our fathers.

As Eden reminds us, if our view of human sexuality weren't there from the beginning, then it is merely something that was recently "discovered," and is therefore up for question as legitimate a claim of faith. Perhaps this is one of JPII's hidden gifts to us -- while we go back to Genesis to find the roots of our sexuality, we can tap into a more recent 2000 year-old meditation in Christ's Church on the use of the gift of sexual intercourse.

Eden's article got me thinking on the importance of examining the TOB not only in light of documents and catechesis on human sexuality prior to JPII's audiences, but the context in which he was writing it. JPII wrote it between 1979 and 1984, when some of the repercussions of the sexual revolution were really beginning to rear their ugly heads. But what kind of meditation do we need now in 2010? We are a few generations past this historical context, and are in need of an address about our sexuality that pertains to a hyper-sexualization of nearly every human activity in culture and daily life as well as an idealizing of human sexuality within the Church itself (or how some of the readers of the TOB are leading us to believe). My fear is that young Catholics are going to be again left disappointed in the theological but also practical use of their sexuality both before and within marriage. I don't really have the answer, other than to say that we could use some young theologians, alongside the "wisdom of our fathers" to seek the Truth today.

Julian's Dating Forecast for 2010

The Magdalene Sisters are no strangers to the world of dating. We've written about the art form, discussed potential mates, recounted one of our successful stories that will soon end in marriage, explored the male/female relationship, and kept a log of many mishaps (mostly me!).

I think part of the task of intentionally living a new year to it's fullest potential includes thinking back about the previous year(s) and crafting an attitude for approaching the new one. My attitude towards dating in 2010 has very much changed as I enter the second half of my twenties. I am no longer operating under the Dr. Suess Syndrome (as I previously described). While I think the natural tendency in dating should be to consider each person as a potential mate, sometimes dating is just dating -- going out to an event, learning the art of conversation, enjoying being treated like a lady, and interacting with a variety of men from all different backgrounds and with all different goals. I don't think it has to be stressful or filled with drama. While it would be nice to meet a good match, I am grateful for my sisters' push for me in my singleness to be very open to the will of God in every moment, which includes every set up, every date, and every encounter with the opposite sex. It's actually a very liberating time for me, no doubt because of grace.

One thing I do think is critical for me is stimulation in conversation. When conversation is forced, I get really frustrated. Does anyone else find that in Catholic dating circles very often conversation stays on theological or political issues? While these things are of course critical and important, and do tend to form someone's identity, I really appreciate someone who can move me beyond those topics, or at least move in and out of them during conversation. Even though I am Catholic, I also have a wide variety of interests -- music, sports, humor, pop culture, etc. I really appreciate when a man wants to explore those things with me. It's so easy (and sometimes tempting I think), in the Catholic dating circle to stick to the "go-to" topics, but I think it's also very limiting. I want to be challenged to grow in ALL facets of my life, and to be introduced to new things as well.

I am sure that 2010 will be filled with many more musings on the topic, no doubt humorous. But this year, I intend to live this maxim of St. Gianna:

The secret of happiness is to live moment by moment and to thank God for all that He, in His goodness, sends to us day after day.