Facing the Facts

I've come across a number of very compelling pro-life videos recently, and I'm planning to post some of them here over the next week or so. I figure that even if I don't draw a lot of attention to them I'll boost the number of times they are linked by at least one. And that's not a bad thing.

Feminists for Life has put together a team of speakers who bring a diversity of life experience to bear on the abortion question. A few days ago, the organization posted this video on its website and on Youtube. It is to be the first in a series of such videos. The speaker, Melissa Ohden, is an abortion survivor.

Momnibus

I suppose a post on the theme of maternity is de rigeur for today, so I've dug up (not difficult, as the press has been saturating us with Mom-stories for the past week at least) a few articles that may be of interest.

A new book ironically titled The Feminine Mistake has been getting some reviews recently. I haven't read it yet, but based on the reviews it seems its premise is that women take substantial risk in giving up paid employment in order to be full-time mothers. Below is an excerpt from a CNN.com review:

"Something is very wrong with the way American women are trying to live their lives," the late Betty Friedan wrote in "The Feminine Mystique," her groundbreaking 1963 book attacking the idea that a husband and children were all a woman needs for fulfillment.

That book helped launch the modern women's movement. But more than four decades later, writer Leslie Bennetts is trying to sound a very similar message. In "The Feminine Mistake" -- the title's no accident -- she argues that many young mothers have forgotten Friedan's message, embracing a 21st-century version of the 1950s stay-at-home ideal that could imperil their economic future as well as their happiness.

Needless to say, the book isn't going down smoothly with everyone -- especially mothers who've chosen to stay home with their children.
[...]
Bennetts says she never intended to issue the latest salvo in the "Mommy Wars"... she's surprised by the reaction.
[...]
Bennetts says she merely wanted to present factual evidence that a woman takes great risks when she gives up economic self-sufficiency -- risks she may not be thinking of during those early years of blissful, exhausting parenting. Divorce. A husband losing his job. A husband dying. All of those, Bennetts warns, could be catastrophic for a woman and her children. And if the woman decides she'll get back to her career later, once the kids are ready? Stop dreaming, Bennetts says -- a woman takes a huge salary hit after a relatively short time of being absent from the work force -- that is, if she can get back in at all.

Reactions from some of those stay-at-home moms--including blogger Jen Singer of MommaSaid (who acknowledges the economic risk, but feels Bennetts neglects the value of child-rearing,) --follow. Likewise does a statement of support from an employed mother who was glad for the second income when her husband was injured on the job, but also feels outside employment conveys benefits beyond financial security:

[Anita] Jevne always enjoyed having a world outside the home to be part of. "You're part of a community," she says. "You're giving something." That's the second message Bennetts says she's trying to impart -- that there's a crucial sense of self-worth to be gained outside the home.

Bennetts also points out that affluence affects who can and who can't "afford" to stay at home, suggesting that it is a sign of wealth. Blogger Singer, above, objects that her characterization of at-home moms is limited to and by this view, though Bennetts argues otherwise:
"The benefits of work were really clear at all levels," she says.

Bennetts seems unsure of why she has generated such a stir:
"Women are so defensive about their choices that many seem to have closed their minds entirely."

As employed women don't seem to be the ones arguing with her, one has to conclude that the closed-minded, defensive types come from among the stay-at-homes --thank you very much, Ms. Bennetts. I think she overrates that "sense of self-worth" that is found only in the workplace, moreover, while forgetting that self-worth is a thing that comes from within, when one knows one has done good work, never mind where.

I am actually of two minds about this controversy, though my status as a 20-year veteran of the hearthside might lead some to wonder why. The answer is that I am --ought to be-- well aware of the risk involved. It is true that women who give up paid employment run a certain risk of being suddenly left in precarious circumstances; I've seen it happen for all the reasons cited above. It is also true that it makes little economic sense for a woman who has five or six figures invested in a college or graduate school education to refrain from recouping that investment. Were simple economics the only factor at play, Bennetts would get little argument from me.

The problem is, if there are going to be kids--and last time I checked that was at least a reasonable likelihood for most couples in the 16-40 age range--somebody's gotta raise them. They won't raise themselves. While that job does not always fall to the distaff side of the household, it generally does. That lactation thing could be a factor, and there's little chance anyone will hear me arguing against that.

So, assume that you have a couple, and some kids. They have a choice: farm out the child care and go on about their business, or make some arrangements for at least one parent to be in charge of that detail at all times. Is this going to be an economic loss? Yes and no. As the authors of a book I read years ago (I think the title was What's a Smart Woman Like You Doing at Home?) maintained, there are inherent costs in working that reduce, and in the case of a small salary, may render negligible, the income from a second job. There is day care, first and foremost (and if you think the ability to stay home is closely tied to household income, please note the disparity in day-care arrangements available to the affluent, and those available to the hourly wage earner.) There are transportation, food, and in most jobs, work apparel costs. There are some tax disadvantages as well. So while it is probable that dual employment holds some economic advantages for the family besides that of buffer in the event of unexpected setback, these advantages may actually --in strict economic terms-- end up being less than you'd expect.

Now, factor in the non-financial variables to the problem. There are the earnest desire of the parents to do a good job raising children, the desire for family closeness that can be disrupted when parents and children don't see each other at all for more than half their waking hours, and the desire of parents to bring up their children according to their own lights. (A few months ago I happened across a blogger who complained bitterly that her day-care provider had banned "gun" play. While I don't see brandishing a stick and yelling "bang! bang!" as harmful or unsual in a little boy, either, I did find myself put off by her apparent failure to realize that the day-care provider had a perfect right, where health and safety of her charges were not affected, to make the rules in her own home. I also wondered why, if she found the situation so intolerable, she didn't just vote with her feet.)

There is a certain convenience inherent in having one parent at home as well--somebody is always available for medical appointments,school meetings, afterschool activities, and minor emergencies. If the employed spouse's job requires long or irregular hours (as has been the case in my house for years) the value of a full-time at-home parent (who may also in that case assume additional household jobs that might have fallen to the employed spouse under less demanding work conditions)increases exponentially.

While there may be risks for the woman who eschews paid employment for the nursery, these risks can be mitigated. I can't guarantee my hubby won't accidentally wander into the path of a truck tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't skip town with the cutie in the next cubicle tomorrow. Raising the children we've brought into the world is a team commitment; reneging on that responsibility--or cutting off the nonearner unprepared-- would be supremely dishonorable.

I don't accept the claim that only affluent women can afford to stay home, either. While compared to, say, most of the third world, the most modest American households are affluent, many at-home mothers I have known have not been, by American standards. Many Americans have become so accustomed to having a high standard of living that they have lost all concept of the difference between "needs" and "wants." We are not affluent by a stretch, and we accepted a long time ago that some things and activities were superfluous if we were going to be able to keep me at home. Being at home doesn't invariably equal not generating income, furthermore. Providing child care is only one of a number of ways moms I've known have subsidized their "time off" and stayed in touch with the adult world. Others have taught music, done taxes, sold product, and written freelance magazine articles. Finally, while results may vary with the individual, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has always struck me as a particularly good reminder that taking a few years off to raise one's babies need not be a career-scuttler.

So, does Friedan's clarion call still ring true? I think it's a teensy bit overstated. Women have employment choices today, limited by their skills and personal ambitions. I doubt many women in our society accept homemaking as their lot in life with no recognition of the other possibilities out there. As for Bennett's concern that at-home mothers might not be considering the down side of their choice, I think that she underestimates their decision process. While career choices shouldn't be made blindly or with blatant disregard for economic realities, economics alone shouldn't govern life choices. We'd have an excess of miserable and incompetent doctors, lawyers, and financiers if they did. Mothers, and sometimes fathers, can make a reasoned decision to set aside the paycheck in deference to nobler pursuits. It's foolish to dismiss that option out of hand while the young of our species continue to need the intensive long-term care essential to functioning in our complex society.

*****
The Mom Salary Calculator works out the annual salary, adjusted for location, that a full-time at-home mother would earn if paid the going rate for the various jobs she does. The 10-job list actually missed a few I could have claimed this week alone, having worn by turns my 7 Santini Brothers Movers hat (when I hauled Hon. Daughter #1's stuff back from college), My Standardized Test Administrator Hat, and my Greyhound Busman's hat (when I subsequently hauled Hon. Daughter home).

*****
It's been said of the gangsters of various ethnicities that the common denominator among them was that they all loved their Mommas. This AP story would seem to bear that out.

*****
The strange, sad tale of the woman who launched Mothers' Day, from May's Smithsonian magazine.

Lessons From Herstory

It doesn't seem to have aroused much media interest yet, but it looks like there
has been a move to resurrect (nationally) the Equal Rights Amendment. This wouldn't be such a big deal except that the apparent intent of this move is to enshrine such practices as fully funded abortion on demand as inalienable human rights. I'm refraining from further comment on this right now because I haven't read up much on what's going on. I think it bears repeating, however, that Alice Stokes Paul, who drafted the original ERA, strongly opposed abortion as "the ultimate exploitation of women." What would she think of this?

Equality for women is a sham when some women are "more equal than others." Have we risen out of exploitaition in order to become exploiters ourselves?

*********
A few weeks ago I posted a biog of Mary Wollstonecraft by Cat Clark writing for Feminists for Life (see link above for more biogs.) Today I'm following up with Clark's biography of an unsung heroine of the female suffrage movement who, like her sisters in the movement, was resolutely pro-life. She is, in fact, known mainly because of her gutsy citizen's arrest of a man seeking to procure an abortion for his mistress. Her story:

Dr. Charlotte Denman Lozier (1844-1870), “wife, mother, scholar, physician, and woman,” made a big impact in her short life.

According to an obituary in The Revolution by former co-editor Parker Pilsbury, Charlotte Denman took charge of caring for the younger children of her family after her mother’s death when Charlotte was twelve. At fifteen, she graduated high school.

Desiring to study medicine, she became a student at the New York Medical College for Women, from which she graduated with distinction and where she was appointed a professor. While there, she successfully argued that the clinical privileges and benefits of Bellevue Hospital should be open to women medical students as well as men. Charlotte Denman also met her husband, Dr. Abraham Lozier, son of the college’s founder Dr. Clemence Lozier, during this time. They married in 1866.

Medicine and family were not Dr. Charlotte Lozier’s only concerns. Like Stanton, Anthony, Eleanor Kirk, and other early American feminists, she was a passionate defender of Hester Vaughan, a woman wrongly accused of infanticide. Through their efforts, Vaughan was exonerated. Dr. Lozier also served as the vice president of the National Working Women’s Association, and made The Revolution available to patients in the waiting room of her office.

Among all her admirable qualities and accomplishments, however, one act stood out more than others on the pages of The Revolution. The original story appears under the title “Restellism* Exposed”:

Dr. Charlotte Lozier…was applied to last week by a man pretending to be from South Carolina, by name, [Andrew] Moran, as he also pretended, to procure an abortion on a very pretty young girl [identified as Caroline Fuller] apparently about eighteen years old. The Dr. assured him that he had come to the wrong place for any such shameful, revolting, unnatural and unlawful purpose. She proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render, at the proper time, and cautioned and counseled her against the fearful act which she and her attendant (whom she called her cousin) proposed. The man becoming quite abusive, instead of appreciating and accepting the counsel in the spirit in which it was proffered, Dr. Lozier caused his arrest under the laws of New York for his inhuman proposition.

The Revolution then published extracts from articles in the New York World and Springfield Republican. The former clarified that “procuring of a miscarriage [is] a misdemeanor” despite “the frequency of the offence of ante-natal infanticide among the most respectable classes of society.” The latter agreed that the law “has long been practically a dead letter,” and added that Andrew Moran attempted to bribe Dr. Lozier, “offering to pay roundly [$1000] and shield Mrs. Lozier from any possible legal consequences” should Ms. Fuller die. Lozier refused the bribe. The Republican ’s report said the police took both Moran and Fuller, but Fuller was fortunately discharged. Against critics who claimed Lozier violated medical confidentiality, according to the World, “Dr. Lozier… insists that as the commission of crime is not one of the functions of the medical profession, a person who asks a physician to commit the crime of ante-natal infanticide can no more be considered his patient than one who asks him to poison his wife.” The Revolution editors closed the story with this wish:

May we not hope that the action of Mrs. Lozier in this case is an earnest of what may be the more general practice of physicians if called upon to commit this crime, when women have got a firmer foothold in the medical profession? Some bad women as well as bad men may possibly become doctors, who will do anything for money; but we are sure most women physicians will lend their influence and their aid to shield their sex from the foulest wrong committed against it. It will be a good thing for the community when more women like Mrs. Lozier belong to the profession.

It has been suggested that Dr. Lozier’s compassionate response to Caroline Fuller, when Lozier “proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render,” was strengthened by the fact that Dr. Lozier was herself pregnant with her third child.

Tragedy struck a month later. Dr. Lozier was injured in an accident and began to hemorrhage. Her daughter Jessica was born prematurely, at just seven months, and Dr. Charlotte Lozier died soon after.

A few weeks later, Paulina Wright Davis, Stanton’s new co-editor at The Revolution, recalled:

[Dr. Lozier’s] recent action, prompt and decisive, against a high-handed crime cannot be too much commended. She chose to bear reproach and bitterness, rather than a stain upon her conscience…. Her real strength did not reveal itself in the brief [meeting] we had with her; it was not till she came out firmly to stay the prevalent sin of infanticide that we knew the woman in all her greatness.

Her sense of justice would not allow her to let the wrong-doer escape the penalty of the law, while at the same time she pitied and tenderly cared for the victim. We have been amazed to hear her denounced for this brave, noble act on the ground of professional privacy. It is said she had no right to expose the outrage of having one thousand dollars offered to her to commit murder.

The murder of the innocents goes on. Shame and crime after crime darken the history of our whole land. Hence it was fitting that a true woman should protest with all the energy of her soul against this woeful crime.

The spirit in which Dr. Charlotte Lozier “proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render” lives on in Feminists for Life’s mission to eliminate the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions.

*"Restellism:" "Madame Restell" was the pseudonym of a notorious New York abortionist of the 1800's. She was so widely known that her "handle" became synonymous with the practice itself, although she was by no means the only practitioner of her day.

still busy...

...below is a very good short biog of Mary Wollstonecraft authored by Cat Clark of Feminists for Life (see note below.) It is part of an email tutorial series the organization offers members. Feminism is historically pro-life: for more profiles of ahead-of-their-time women who espoused a pro-woman, pro-life worldview see this link or the articles listed below.

Early British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was a revolutionary thinker who sought to become “the first of a new genus,” a new kind of woman. Her life, though short and tumultuous, was characterized by an Enlightenment-inspired passion for reason unusual among women of her era.

Historically, many people have been more interested in Wollstonecraft’s unusual personal life and associations than her writing. Raised in a financially unstable home dominated by a violent, alcoholic father, she was no stranger to hardship. Later relationships would also prove difficult, as when the father of Wollstonecraft’s first child abandoned her with the infant in France in the midst of the French Revolution (1789-1799). But Wollstonecraft’s vision of a social order founded on reason and women’s education would become her lasting legacy.

Though denied educational opportunities beyond the superficial schooling allowed to girls at the time, Wollstonecraft loved to read and yearned for intellectual life. Dissatisfied by the restricted career choices then available to women, she made the radical decision to support herself as a professional writer, something very few women of the time could do.

Wollstonecraft’s career choice, and especially her decision to write about political and philosophical issues, was not merely unconventional, it was perceived as “unwomanly” and “unnatural.” She, on the contrary, would argue that both women and men should be educated rationally, allowed to exercise their natural abilities, and held to the same reasonable standards of behavior, because women share the gift of reason and have the same innate human value as men.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, her most famous work on these themes, was a remarkably cutting-edge book in 1792, arguing, for example, that girls and boys should be co-educated and that women and men should share parental responsibilities.

Wollstonecraft also presented abortion and infanticide as negative consequences of moral double standards and women’s submission to sexual objectification and exploitation by men:

“Women becoming, consequently, weaker, in mind and body, than they ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being taken into account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom do so with impunity. [emphasis added]”

In 1797, Mary Wollstonecraft died from complications following the birth of her second child, also named Mary. “And like her mother,” Feminists for Life President Serrin Foster has pointed out, “she became a great writer. Using her mother’s philosophy, she wrote what has become the greatest novel about what happens when the laws of nature are violated. The book is entitled Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.”

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman became an inspiration for later generations of feminists. Susan B. Anthony serialized it in her own newspaper, The Revolution, and Anthony’s personal copy of the book resides in the Susan B. Anthony collection of the Library of Congress.

Related articles:

Herstory: Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797, by Mary Krane Derr

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman Reviewed by Elise Ehrhardre

Cat Clark is author of "The Truth About Susan B. Anthony: Did One of America's First Feminists Oppose Abortion?" the feature story in the Spring 2007 issue of The American Feminist,® and Herstory on Pearl Buck and has served as a past editor of The American Feminist.®

a really quick book review

Book: Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. 1999 Basilica Press.

Subject Matter: Especially handy if it's your dumb luck to be frequently hit up with anti-Catholic arguments from your acquaintances. Perhaps a bit too smart for your average anti-Catholic, but definitely useful against the moderatedly well-schooled variety. Topics covered include assorted papal primacy issues, reportedly heretical popes from the Middle Ages, what Pius XII was really doing during the Holocaust, and sedevacantism. Thus Madrid pretty much covers all the bases and arms the reader against assault from both the anti-Catholic flank and the More-Papist-Than-the-Pope flank.

Style: Thorough, if a little more than it needs to be in spots. Pretty readable, although a few sections and some of the longer quotes left me glazed over after a while. A little trimming in places would probably have been a good thing, but it's probably better to saturate the reader than to leave out something vital.

Tone: Generally positive. Just a wee tad snide in a few spots. Madrid seems to have long experience debating people who make the arguments covered in this book, and I'm sure the temptation of a tart one-liner is sometimes too much to resist, but it does stand out in an otherwise "just the facts, ma'am" treatement of the subject.

Recommendations: Good for those who often find themselves in debates with anti-Catholics, if the discussion ever makes it to papacy issues. Also informative if (like me) you were raised woefully ignorant of Church history and doctrine.

**********
And since a holiday item is de rigeur for this blog:
[UPDATE: Oh, it looks like D got one up already. What the heck!]
Here Kathleen Parker offers astute (and darn funny, if you enjoy a good double entendre) commentary on the Vagina Monologues. Must-read for anyone who, like myself, has wondered what this--for lack of a better analogy--apparent exercise in navel contemplation has to do with either good drama or fighting violence against women. An excerpt:
Ensler's V-Day, unlike the lowly valentine, isn't a small gesture. It is an institution on many college campuses, a global movement and a multimillion-dollar industry aimed, at least initially, at stopping violence against women and girls.

No one can argue against such a noble cause, even if it does mean pretending that talking publicly about one's privates is a sign of intellectual vigor. But let's be honest as long as we're being open: The subtext of the monologues is implicitly anti-male -- misandrist messages pimped as high art.

For anyone left on the planet who doesn't know what the monologues are, they're a series of soliloquies in which characters wax indelicately about their delicates...

One can read Ensler's book in about two cups of coffee -- or two stiff drinks, if women rhapsodizing about their inner sanctum isn't your cuppa tea.

***********
On a more somber note, we here in Georgia lost one of our own yesterday: Congressman Charlie Norwood, to cancer. Congressman Norwood represented his district with quiet efficiency, and a minimum of showboating. He was reliably conservative, and stood up for the needs of his district. Best of all, I always got a response from his office whenever I contacted him, and periodically received updates on issues even if I hadn't petitioned him. Now, that's what I call representation.

May he rest in the Lord.

this 'n' that

One more update on Wake Island from Forbes.com. 70% of buildings damaged, plus water supply and power grid; runway intact but missing lights.
********
Query: So if they're the Non-Aligned Nations, why are we the 'bogeyman?' (This is a purely rhetorical question, and yes, I do know that the term 'Non-Aligned' has to do with the Cold War.)
********
Courtesy of Steinem, Fonda, and some others, a women's talk radio network is in the works. This must be a huge relief to Jeanine Garafolo, who might actually have a shot at remaining employed.
...as Steinem describes it in a Reuters interview, the current medium is "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated."

The new network "has a different spirit. It has more community. It's more about information, about humor, about respect for different points of view and not constant arguing"
[...]
...Greenstone hopes to attract male listeners and may even have some male talk show hosts. [Thus differentiating it from what is currently available how?]

Seriously, though, I'm heartened to hear that information, humor and respect for different points of view will have a place in this endeavor. In the interest of supporting this new and different spirit, may I recommend regular appearances by Serrin Foster or Sally Winn of Feminists For Life, or perhaps speakers from the Susan B. Anthony List? Or maybe somebody from an aborted women's group (sorry, they're getting to be so many I haven't got time to track them down right now. I'm not sure whether to cheer or cry about that.)

Or maybe someone like, say, Star Parker--bringing diversity, working-class realism, and a radio talk show background!

Nah, I thought not.

A few reads

Nat Hentoff deplores the lack of public attention to the Darfur genocide. With the world focused on flare-ups in other areas, God only knows where this will end.

When the violence began, it was Muslims targeting Christians. Now, it's Muslims targeting Muslims who happen to have darker skin and Subsaharan features. (Oh, did I mention the oil?) I'd really love to see some of those theorists who assert the unity of all Islam to explain this one.

A letter exchange between Luana Stotlenburg, an activist who now regrets her abortions and the editors of Ms. Magazine.

feminine genius, well-armed with irony, relates a case of side effects from the contraceptive patch, while the manufacturer looks the other way. There's something about these ladies' writing style that I like!

The Ironic Catholic launches an Iron Theologian competition and posts the first installment if a list of '100 Ironic Reasons to be Catholic.' One of her commentors was Sister Mary Martha, whom I decided to check out and have thus far found pretty funny. Like some other people around here, she couldn't seem to resist social commentary on Mel Gibson's troubles, either.

Mrs. Darwin at DarwinCatholic discusses the moral status of the tarot deck and other occult paraphernalia and It put me in mind of some issues I've been thinking about (and discussing) recently, but that's for another post.

I did recall that back when I was a plaid-skirted second grader at Catholic school, we had a number of donated board games on the cloakroom shelf for rainy-day recess use. It was the first time in my life I'd ever seen--or heard of-- a Ouija board (who in the Sam Hill let that one into the building, I wonder? I remember the Sisters being a little more on the ball!) Anyhow, nobody summoned up any spirits or created a need for a consultation with an exorcist (wouldn't that have gone over well? Our diocese wasn't taking any orthodoxy prizes as it was, even then. Well, especially then. It was the late '60s...but I digress.) A number of the boys, however, who had a little knowledge about the mechanics of the thing, found an entertaining use for it:
Small,nerdy-looking necktied Catholic Schoolboy:
Ouija Board, who is Pattie in love with?
(very brief pause)
M...A...R...K...
For some reason, the mediums (media? medii?) in the movies always seem so much more laborious in their use thereof. Was it youthful energy, or did some of those guys have an in with the spirit world?...