I have never had an abortion. That does not make me a better person than a woman who has had an abortion. It means, if anything, I have never needed an abortion.
On the other hand, I unashamedly took birth control pills as a married woman for three years before we decided to go for it and try to have a baby. I also relied on birth control between babies, and had a surgical procedure called a tubal ligation at the birth of my second child. So ended my reproductive years.
I have suffered what was probably a miscarriage as a teenager, alone in the world with no hope of caring for a child on my own. I spent a full day agonizing in prayer for the welfare of my possible child (I just realized I my period was late), talking with God and trying to come up with the best plan possible in case I was in fact pregnant. A very heavy, painful period started that night, with severe cramping and clotting. In medical terms, it was likely a "spontaneous abortion".
What do you think of when you hear the word abortion? A gruesome surgical procedure that involved viciously dismembering a sentient terrified child? That's what the pro-life movement has been promoting for years. Medically, though, that only applies to late term surgical abortions- procedures outlawed now in most states. It's illegal in my state.
I have called myself pro-life for so long, longer than some of my readers have been alive. And yet I always have meant pro-life in the purest sense of the term; wanting life and good for mother and child. In wanting life and good for both mother and child, that means invariably that in some cases abortion is the right choice to make.
Let's look at the word abortion first. My staunchest pro-life friend claims that birth control pills are abortificants. Well if taking birth control pills equates to having a chemical abortions, I am definitely pro-abortion! Like most technologies, including advances in transportation, information technology, the medical technological breakthrough of the birth control pill is a huge advance for society. Not only is it the single best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies in unmarried women, it is a huge blessing in many marriages. People can put off pregnancy until they are ready, emotionally, physically, financially and socially. It's a great blessing that God has given humanity the wisdom to create, if you want to get religious about it. And save the stories about the very few people who feel birth control pills caused them some real harm. In the same way that stories of people trapped in their wrecked cars by wearing a seat belt won't (and shouldn't!) stop other people from wearing seat belts, one person's problem with birth control pills shouldn't factor into anyone else's decision to give them a try.
I, like most sane people in the world, do not consider a zygote a fully human sentient separate person. It's one cell. For several days, the cell divides but the resulting cells do not yet differentiate. It is when this blastocyst is a mere eight-celled ball that in vitro sampling occurs. This is important to remember for later. This is also the stage (between eight and sixteen cells- none of them differentiated at all) at which research on human stem cells is proposed. Remember this. There is no tiny little person whose organs are being harvested, a la the pro-life movement's fictions. Eight to sixteen cells- you need a microscope to see a blastocyst. Pictures in textbooks are taking with microscopes and magnified many times.
As the blastocyst develops, it forms into two layers, one of which will become the placenta, the other of which will begin to take the shape of a person. It does not become a person overnight. It begins to take the shape of a person. At eight weeks it starts to look more or less human, and the basic prototissues from which the organ systems will develop are formed. The name is changed from embryo to fetus, and the eight week fetus is ONE AND A HALF CENTIMETERS long. That's it. If you miscarriage at this point, you will not see anything in your menstrual flow but blood clots, one of which could be what would have developed into a person given enough time and good health of mother and fetus.
I wish I still had my textbook, so I could give page numbers, but the title was Hole’s Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology (2009) and all this information is in the last chapter, which was about human growth and development. This is all very important to me because it matters what people mean when they use the word "abortion". If you are calling birth control pills "abortion" then you are an extremist and we have no common ground. If you are against in vitro genetic testing and/or stem cell research on the basis that it constitutes "abortion" then you are either uninformed and envisioning the destruction of tiny people (a la Horton Hears a Who) with thoughts and feelings of their own- which is NOT the case- or you are an extremist and we have no common ground.
Another term I would like to define is "pro-life". To me, this means pro-people, wanting the best possible outcome for all persons involved. This naturally means that the mother matters every bit as much to me as any child she may be carrying. There is no other honest way to define "pro-life" though few pro-life people are truly pro-life anymore. They are anti-abortion, and in many cases anti-woman. Much of the time, the same people demanding abortion be made totally illegal are also the people wanting to prevent government assistance for child care, health care and food/shelter/clothing needs for single moms. These people are not at all pro-LIFE, they are religious zealots who want to force the rest of the United States to live by their religious code of moral conduct and blame all the chaos and pain that will result as "the will of God", i.e. "not their problem."
Because I am truly pro-life, this means there are some abortions that I will support. Here are a few scenarios where I think abortion is the right thing to do:
In the interests of the child:
a) In vitro genetic testing and destruction of embryos carrying any genetic code that will result in a short, tortuous life for that child: Tay-Sachs, Duchennes muscular dystrophy, and the like.
b) Also, surgical abortion as early as possible when amniocentesis and genetic testing show the same genetic code in a naturally conceived pregnancy. At this point in technology, the earliest an amniocentesis can be done is ten weeks. It can be used as a diagnostic tool up to twenty weeks. Twenty weeks then is the absolute latest date the need for this type of compassionate abortion could be diagnosed. I say the earlier the better, and I hope that new technology will lead to earlier tests becoming available.
In the interests of the mother:
a) Spontaneous abortion, commonly called a miscarriage, has never been considered anything other than an unfortunate fact of life. Yep, so-called "pro-life" legislator has gone that far: Pro-life legislator wants to criminalize miscarriages
b) In cases of rape and incest, and again the earlier the better. A raped woman who seeks medical attention immediately will likely be offered emergency contraception. No one but the most radical would consider that an abortion, but if someone considers birth control pills abortions then they will qualify this as a crime against humanity as well.
c) Ectopic pregnancy ectopic pregnancies mayo clinic . Believe it or not, so called pro-lifers wanting to outlaw all abortions include the procedures that would save a woman's life in this no-win situation. Home school advocate Doug Phillips calls for the death of women in this situation, though he does at least want to honor them as martyrs when they die of this entirely preventable tragic death.
And where do we classify the abortions sought by terrified women of all ages who have neither the means nor the will to support themselves in pregnancy, much less the life of dependent child? People like to point to adoption as always the answer in these situations, a la the movie Juno, but the teen in that movie had supportive parents and access to healthcare. Not all teens have those luxuries. I have met several grown women, mothers at the time, who had abortions as teens and did NOT regret the decision. I can only assume they made the right decision then.
I don't know where to classify the women I know who have had abortions when they were in their thirties, forties and fifties. Personally, they did society a favor by not reproducing, as the women I am thinking of were not very good mothers to the children they already had. Life for such children would be far from good, living with that DNA and family heritage. Others may very well be great mothers to the children they already have, but know for a fact that they could not cope with the pregnancy or the addition of an infant to an already stretched thin household.
Personally, I have no problem with early abortions and concede that their are some really good reasons at times that make abortion the most true "pro-life" response. I would love to see the need for surgical abortions eradicated. as earlier and earlier diagnostic tests help women with unwanted or tragic pregnancies make possible the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first few weeks of pregnancy. That would be ideal.
I would love to see birth control accessible to all women of reproductive age who are or plan to soon become sexually active. Young women need to appreciate the amazing capabilities of their bodies and know how to manage them for good health for themselves and any future children they want to conceive. We owe our daughters full disclosure about their bodies and their options.
I don't think any victim of rape (whether by incest, stranger or acquaintance rape) should be denied emergency contraception or if necessary surgical abortion. I hope these women get help right away, making the need for surgical abortion unnecessary. However under no circumstances do I believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapists child. Some brave women may choose to do so; no woman should be forced to do so.
Parents who are facing the heart-breaking reality that their conceived children will be born only to suffer horrible and eventually die should have the right to choose abortion, in the best interests of the child. Testing should be done as early as possible, the earlier the better, to avoid surgical abortion.
Elective abortions should remain legal, but I would love to see them limited to the first sixteen weeks, long before there is any possibility of a sentient thought or separate survival on the part of the fetus. As I wrote earlier, I would love to see women make these decisions as early as possible, though recent efforts to limit abortion to five weeks are ridiculous. Those legislators know that they are effectively outlawing abortion, which is their true intent.
I truly thought that once partial birth abortion was outlawed, and late term abortions no longer legal, that we could all settle down to a life of peace. People truly wanting to end abortion could do so by helping pregnant women with the needs of pregnancy and child-raising. Creating a culture where mothering is promoted by law and supported by tax dollars seems like the logical way to help end abortion. Another positive way to end the need for abortion is to make birth control available to all women who want it (including minors) and teaching women how to use it effectively. You can't end the need for abortion without taking these steps.
Simply making it illegal won't help at all. But it is easier than actually helping, which is why it is so popular I guess.
So there it is all laid out: abortion and me. Let the flaming begin.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Feminism and Me
I grew up in the seventies. The feminist movement was very much a part of the social context I was living in, even way out in the sticks of the Great Plains. All in The Family was forever making patriarchal men look like the joke they actually are. One Day at a Time and Alice gave us a realistic view of what being a single working woman was like at the time, while Mary Tyler Moore and Rhoda presented to us the ideal of all life could be for a single working woman. Betty Friedan and Erica Jong were on our book shelf. I was reading "Diary of a Mad Housewife" and Redbook magazine in middle school. Helen Reddy was belting out "I am woman, hear me roar..." from the radio and record player.
Many of the messages were mixed. It's great to be a woman, but it really sucks to be a mother. It's great to have sex, but it really sucks to be pregnant. You can do anything you want, but if you choose to stay home and love on your kids you will go insane. You can do anything you want, but if you WANT to stay home and love on your kids you are a cowardly, dependent, woman-child. Look at Edith Bunker- your husband won't respect you, society won't respect you, and you'll get all vaque and clouded in your thinking. Smart women do not stay home and raise children. If the man is keeping women down, then children are the tools he uses.
Feminists will often deny what I'm about to write, but then the movement can't learn from it and move on toward it's higher objectives of equal power for women in society. So here's the big scoop, the reason for the backlash that brought on home schooling and patriarchy among other things. You ready?
We who were daughters, children during the seventies, got the message. The message we got was this: we were hated. Children are an obstacle to get around. Children suck. Caring for children is low, low, low on the feminist's list of things she might want to do with her time. There is nothing lower than child care, except maybe house keeping. We were a hindrance to our mothers' "higher" aspirations.
(This could even account for why so many view abortion solely in terms of cruel, selfish women "getting rid of unwanted children". My generation feels this acutely in our inmost being. In my experience, this is rarely the reason a woman chooses abortion. Women who choose abortion rarely do so flippantly, and it is often a heart-breaking decision based on compassion, for those who bother to research it IRL. Still, to a generation who grew up knowing we were considered an unwanted inconvenience to our mother's aspirations, it is easy to believe that this is the only reason women seek abortion. "Pro-life" propaganda exploits this to the hilt.)
Now my own problematic situation was further complicated by my mom's personality disorder. She would have been a mess to live with no matter what philosophy had been popular during my childhood. I have written on the blog that the only way my own childhood could have been worse was if my mom had been a home-schooling SAHM. That's because she would still have been completely self-focused and uninterested in meeting the needs of anyone's heart but her own. NPDs are just that way.
But the feminist movement is culpable in that they agreed with her that children were a pain in the butt and caring for them, both physically and emotionally, was beneath her and a waste of her time and life.
That is the fatal flaw in feminism, the way I see it. The idea that childcare is lowly and demeaning and not for smart woman is the real reason for the backlash against feminism that has filled churches across America and actually resonated with the hearts of both men and women.
We were those children.
We were those children, the ones considered unworthy of our mothers' time and talents. We were those children, the ones despised and looked down on as mere hindrances to our mothers' "true ambitions". We read it, heard it when our mothers' talked to other adults over our heads, and certainly felt it in the way our mothers' treated us. For some of us it was mere disdain at having to meet our needs. For others it extended to real rejection, persecution, neglect and abandonment- all in the name of a woman's "liberation".
Liberation from what? To a child growing up in the seventies it was clear to me that the liberation women wanted was liberation from the obligations of mothering. Feminists hated children, and hated mothering. Right along with the male workforce, women stated that child care was meaningless drudge for the lesser capable among us. There's a reason child care is still one of the lowest paid and lowest respected occupations among us.
And so I became a very different (and in my mind) more authentic kind of feminist- one who embraced her body and it's amazing capacity to create and nourish new life. I determined that not only would I use my incredible ability to bring forth life and nourish it from my body, MY children would be worth all of my time and talents. I determined to make an art and skill out of raising my children, in defiance of the way my mother and her generation had continually said we children were worthless crap.
Much of the rest of the feminist message I did and still do embrace. Equal rights? Yes. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. The right to control her own body? Yes. But every time I start to think I can actually call myself a feminist, I run across disdain for my chosen career of SAHM and I think to myself,"Damn, they still think I am a worthless piece of crap. Eff you, feminism!"
How I wish it wasn't that way. I wish feminism could have room for those who embrace their reproductive capabilities. I wish feminism loved children, and were demanding honor and commensurate financial recompense for those who nurture, teach and mentor them- i.e. parenting and child care. I keep waiting for feminism to grow up to the point that they see that children and caring for children are intrinsically honorable and worthy, but I keep getting disappointed.
I always run into the feminist who loudly proclaims her disdain for SAHMs and children. It never fails. The woman on stilettos at my husband's office who looked down her nose at my children like they stank when we came up to see where Daddy spent his days? I would loved to have beat the holy sh** out of her skinny ass that day and I could have easily. His coworker who lived in our neighborhood and asked what I did, who responded to my proud declaration that I home schooled with a malicious "Oh, that's right. You don't DO anything."? I hope your husband leaves you, your kids grow up hating you, and you die alone and unloved like you deserve. (Yes, that falls short of loving your enemies, I know. So sue me.)
Last year, I picked up an awesome feminist magazine, Skirt, and I was really getting into the articles. They even featured a woman who was starting her career at fifty after staying home to raise her children, and they portrayed this in a positive light! I was so excited. Had feminism finally stopped hating children and denigrating those who loved them? My heart started to race with hope.
But alas, it was not to be. Shortly thereafter,in the same magazine, came the article from a woman complaining about how children are always demanding something (how dare they?), always have some sort of noxious substance oozing from their bodies somewhere, and how that particular author could never understand why someone would willingly carry a parasitic creature in her womb for nine months and then get stuck caring for it for the rest of her life?!? YUCK!
When I hear these ugly sentiments about children and mothering expressed, there is no way I cannot take it personal. I was that child!
Feminism that truly embraces the female body and ALL of its capabilities? Count me in! Equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, the right to control what happens to your own body? Hellz to the yeah! I would love to see a feminism that elevates the status of pregnancy and child care to the valued status it should be, as women who choose this are shaping the attitudes and ethics of the next generation. What could possibly be more important than that?
The feminism I see, though, still resents the functions of the female form. Rather than elevating the status of children and those who care for them, the feminism I see disdains these traditionally female roles and only honors social roles traditionally open to men. Any function in society that is clearly woman only- pregnancy or nursing- is considered icky and disgusting by feminist women in solidarity with the men they really wish they had been born.
Every time a feminist puts down pregnancy, child birth, child care and child mentoring (i.e. parenting) she is not only saying that she doesn't believe her children or potential children are worth her time, she is saying that all of us born to feminists are/were undeserving of our mothers' time and talents. If child care is so lame and icky, then those women who choose to care for children are losers. That message is undeniable.
And THAT is the weakness in feminism the patriarchy exploits! The prey on the hurt and resentment of the generation brought up hearing that they were a waste of a woman's time. The also honor the parts of our lives that we women embrace that traditional feminism mocks- pregnancy, nursing and raising children. It should not be this way.
When will feminism open her arms and embrace children? When will she stop despising women who understand that raising the next generation IS a noble and worthy pursuit? If feminism was our champion, the patriarchal religious establishment would be worthless to women.
Wouldn't it be awesome if feminists valued SAHMs and home schooling moms? It would totally rock if feminism was demanding that society value these traditionally womanly roles with the same value society ascribes to traditionally manly roles, like hard physical labor. Surely raising the next generation is more important in the long run than constructing new houses?
Alas, on another forum I frequent, I have recently heard the same old, same old feminist drivel from younger voices. Caring for children isn't rewarding, and people who say it is are lying! (No, we're not. Some of us actually do like it. Sorry to disappoint- again. But then since I started out one of those children myself, I guess I have always been a disappointment to feminism. Sigh.) Truly smart woman avoid pregnancy and parenting. Sucks to read that this is still the feminist party line.
The other part of feminism- you can be and do whatever you want- still nurtures my own heart as I set out to start a career midlife. I do believe, as Helen sang, "if I have to, I can do anything. I am strong. I am invincible. I am woman." If only feminism would open their hearts to include children and caring for children, and give traditional women's roles the honor they deserve, patriarchy would dry up and blow away in a generation. I hope to help build that kind of world myself.
Peace and good will, SS
Many of the messages were mixed. It's great to be a woman, but it really sucks to be a mother. It's great to have sex, but it really sucks to be pregnant. You can do anything you want, but if you choose to stay home and love on your kids you will go insane. You can do anything you want, but if you WANT to stay home and love on your kids you are a cowardly, dependent, woman-child. Look at Edith Bunker- your husband won't respect you, society won't respect you, and you'll get all vaque and clouded in your thinking. Smart women do not stay home and raise children. If the man is keeping women down, then children are the tools he uses.
Feminists will often deny what I'm about to write, but then the movement can't learn from it and move on toward it's higher objectives of equal power for women in society. So here's the big scoop, the reason for the backlash that brought on home schooling and patriarchy among other things. You ready?
We who were daughters, children during the seventies, got the message. The message we got was this: we were hated. Children are an obstacle to get around. Children suck. Caring for children is low, low, low on the feminist's list of things she might want to do with her time. There is nothing lower than child care, except maybe house keeping. We were a hindrance to our mothers' "higher" aspirations.
(This could even account for why so many view abortion solely in terms of cruel, selfish women "getting rid of unwanted children". My generation feels this acutely in our inmost being. In my experience, this is rarely the reason a woman chooses abortion. Women who choose abortion rarely do so flippantly, and it is often a heart-breaking decision based on compassion, for those who bother to research it IRL. Still, to a generation who grew up knowing we were considered an unwanted inconvenience to our mother's aspirations, it is easy to believe that this is the only reason women seek abortion. "Pro-life" propaganda exploits this to the hilt.)
Now my own problematic situation was further complicated by my mom's personality disorder. She would have been a mess to live with no matter what philosophy had been popular during my childhood. I have written on the blog that the only way my own childhood could have been worse was if my mom had been a home-schooling SAHM. That's because she would still have been completely self-focused and uninterested in meeting the needs of anyone's heart but her own. NPDs are just that way.
But the feminist movement is culpable in that they agreed with her that children were a pain in the butt and caring for them, both physically and emotionally, was beneath her and a waste of her time and life.
That is the fatal flaw in feminism, the way I see it. The idea that childcare is lowly and demeaning and not for smart woman is the real reason for the backlash against feminism that has filled churches across America and actually resonated with the hearts of both men and women.
We were those children.
We were those children, the ones considered unworthy of our mothers' time and talents. We were those children, the ones despised and looked down on as mere hindrances to our mothers' "true ambitions". We read it, heard it when our mothers' talked to other adults over our heads, and certainly felt it in the way our mothers' treated us. For some of us it was mere disdain at having to meet our needs. For others it extended to real rejection, persecution, neglect and abandonment- all in the name of a woman's "liberation".
Liberation from what? To a child growing up in the seventies it was clear to me that the liberation women wanted was liberation from the obligations of mothering. Feminists hated children, and hated mothering. Right along with the male workforce, women stated that child care was meaningless drudge for the lesser capable among us. There's a reason child care is still one of the lowest paid and lowest respected occupations among us.
And so I became a very different (and in my mind) more authentic kind of feminist- one who embraced her body and it's amazing capacity to create and nourish new life. I determined that not only would I use my incredible ability to bring forth life and nourish it from my body, MY children would be worth all of my time and talents. I determined to make an art and skill out of raising my children, in defiance of the way my mother and her generation had continually said we children were worthless crap.
Much of the rest of the feminist message I did and still do embrace. Equal rights? Yes. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. The right to control her own body? Yes. But every time I start to think I can actually call myself a feminist, I run across disdain for my chosen career of SAHM and I think to myself,"Damn, they still think I am a worthless piece of crap. Eff you, feminism!"
How I wish it wasn't that way. I wish feminism could have room for those who embrace their reproductive capabilities. I wish feminism loved children, and were demanding honor and commensurate financial recompense for those who nurture, teach and mentor them- i.e. parenting and child care. I keep waiting for feminism to grow up to the point that they see that children and caring for children are intrinsically honorable and worthy, but I keep getting disappointed.
I always run into the feminist who loudly proclaims her disdain for SAHMs and children. It never fails. The woman on stilettos at my husband's office who looked down her nose at my children like they stank when we came up to see where Daddy spent his days? I would loved to have beat the holy sh** out of her skinny ass that day and I could have easily. His coworker who lived in our neighborhood and asked what I did, who responded to my proud declaration that I home schooled with a malicious "Oh, that's right. You don't DO anything."? I hope your husband leaves you, your kids grow up hating you, and you die alone and unloved like you deserve. (Yes, that falls short of loving your enemies, I know. So sue me.)
Last year, I picked up an awesome feminist magazine, Skirt, and I was really getting into the articles. They even featured a woman who was starting her career at fifty after staying home to raise her children, and they portrayed this in a positive light! I was so excited. Had feminism finally stopped hating children and denigrating those who loved them? My heart started to race with hope.
But alas, it was not to be. Shortly thereafter,in the same magazine, came the article from a woman complaining about how children are always demanding something (how dare they?), always have some sort of noxious substance oozing from their bodies somewhere, and how that particular author could never understand why someone would willingly carry a parasitic creature in her womb for nine months and then get stuck caring for it for the rest of her life?!? YUCK!
When I hear these ugly sentiments about children and mothering expressed, there is no way I cannot take it personal. I was that child!
Feminism that truly embraces the female body and ALL of its capabilities? Count me in! Equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, the right to control what happens to your own body? Hellz to the yeah! I would love to see a feminism that elevates the status of pregnancy and child care to the valued status it should be, as women who choose this are shaping the attitudes and ethics of the next generation. What could possibly be more important than that?
The feminism I see, though, still resents the functions of the female form. Rather than elevating the status of children and those who care for them, the feminism I see disdains these traditionally female roles and only honors social roles traditionally open to men. Any function in society that is clearly woman only- pregnancy or nursing- is considered icky and disgusting by feminist women in solidarity with the men they really wish they had been born.
Every time a feminist puts down pregnancy, child birth, child care and child mentoring (i.e. parenting) she is not only saying that she doesn't believe her children or potential children are worth her time, she is saying that all of us born to feminists are/were undeserving of our mothers' time and talents. If child care is so lame and icky, then those women who choose to care for children are losers. That message is undeniable.
And THAT is the weakness in feminism the patriarchy exploits! The prey on the hurt and resentment of the generation brought up hearing that they were a waste of a woman's time. The also honor the parts of our lives that we women embrace that traditional feminism mocks- pregnancy, nursing and raising children. It should not be this way.
When will feminism open her arms and embrace children? When will she stop despising women who understand that raising the next generation IS a noble and worthy pursuit? If feminism was our champion, the patriarchal religious establishment would be worthless to women.
Wouldn't it be awesome if feminists valued SAHMs and home schooling moms? It would totally rock if feminism was demanding that society value these traditionally womanly roles with the same value society ascribes to traditionally manly roles, like hard physical labor. Surely raising the next generation is more important in the long run than constructing new houses?
Alas, on another forum I frequent, I have recently heard the same old, same old feminist drivel from younger voices. Caring for children isn't rewarding, and people who say it is are lying! (No, we're not. Some of us actually do like it. Sorry to disappoint- again. But then since I started out one of those children myself, I guess I have always been a disappointment to feminism. Sigh.) Truly smart woman avoid pregnancy and parenting. Sucks to read that this is still the feminist party line.
The other part of feminism- you can be and do whatever you want- still nurtures my own heart as I set out to start a career midlife. I do believe, as Helen sang, "if I have to, I can do anything. I am strong. I am invincible. I am woman." If only feminism would open their hearts to include children and caring for children, and give traditional women's roles the honor they deserve, patriarchy would dry up and blow away in a generation. I hope to help build that kind of world myself.
Peace and good will, SS
Friday, June 24, 2011
Don't Want To Jinx It
Not too long ago I made a post entitled "No News is Good News". So yes, dear readers, the fact that posts these days are few and far between is mostly good news.
But I have an internal time goal, and if that goal is met without a noteworthy scary incident, I will give a full accounting of all these non-posted days/weeks. =D
I started EMDR again with a new therapist. My educations is progressing satisfactorily (all As so far). My daughter and I talk almost every day. My son and I definitely talk every day (haha) as he is still home schooling, about to finish his junior year.
My husband and I are doing well, hence the "no news". He is still in EMDR, and it seems to be working very well. He is happy at work. He watches Joel and Kathy on DVD a couple times a week. He works out after work at least three days a week.
Father's Day came and went with no problems. My son, husband and I had a great day together. We went to lunch and then shopping for a Father's Day gift for my husband. We did not show up at my father-in-law's house as he originally ordered. (However we scheduled for a visit next month. This could trigger trouble. I am taking a "wait and see" approach.)
So, there's a little taste of what no news means around here these days. Peace and good will to all, SS
But I have an internal time goal, and if that goal is met without a noteworthy scary incident, I will give a full accounting of all these non-posted days/weeks. =D
I started EMDR again with a new therapist. My educations is progressing satisfactorily (all As so far). My daughter and I talk almost every day. My son and I definitely talk every day (haha) as he is still home schooling, about to finish his junior year.
My husband and I are doing well, hence the "no news". He is still in EMDR, and it seems to be working very well. He is happy at work. He watches Joel and Kathy on DVD a couple times a week. He works out after work at least three days a week.
Father's Day came and went with no problems. My son, husband and I had a great day together. We went to lunch and then shopping for a Father's Day gift for my husband. We did not show up at my father-in-law's house as he originally ordered. (However we scheduled for a visit next month. This could trigger trouble. I am taking a "wait and see" approach.)
So, there's a little taste of what no news means around here these days. Peace and good will to all, SS
Monday, June 20, 2011
Secular Mission Trip
I am proud to announce that my son is going on a secular mission trip.
There will be no prayer letters going out, though I do help everyone who loves him/me/his family/humanity will pray for him.
There will be no support letters going out; all the money spent will come from our savings and his hard work. I consider it a charitable donation, and part of the vaunted title "tithes and offerings" but there will be no tax deduction. The word church or ministry does not appear on the checks we are writing, so oh well.
If he shares the gospel with anyone while he is there, it will be sincere and Spirit led, as a natural part of the life he will be living as a stranger in a strange land. His faith, as a part of his personality and way of life, will be the only Bible he will take with him everywhere he goes.
The purpose of his trip will be to cater to the needs of "the least of these", the little ones whose angels always appear before the Father in heaven. He is going to honor them with his time, share his skills in English, and treat them with the dignity and sincere interest that Jesus himself has for them.
He will gain no religious credit for going. We have only told family that we were already communicating with regularly. It's a whole new way of caring for the world community than the one with which I have previously been associated. I am very excited for him, and for me.
So for all who pray, he will be living with a host family in a Caribbean nation for the month of July. In the mornings he will work in summer camp, co-teaching with another volunteer wherever they assign him- sports or English. Together he and his teammate will be responsible for ten day campers.
On about half of the afternoons, he will also volunteer in a medical residential facility for special needs kids, in whatever capacity the facility decides is needful. I'm guessing games and stories, but maybe construction. That part of the trip is not defined yet.
On Fridays they will take the summer camp kids on a field trip to cool places they have never been, historical sites and museums and the national zoo.
The unscheduled afternoons he will go to the beach, and have language classes/culture classes in the evenings for all the volunteers. Sundays are spent exclusively with the host family, where I am sure he will get to experience the tribe of Christianity with which his host family is aligned.
So that's the news. He leaves early July, gets back in early August. Pray for him! Pray that he will be useful, and the love of God will clearly show in his character and actions. Pray for his safety, and the safety and learning of all those campers and special needs kids. And pray that this experience will promote good will and understanding between all: host family, camp staff, residential home staff, organization staff, and all those volunteers from English speaking nations.
Thank you internet friends, for all your kindness and good will.
There will be no prayer letters going out, though I do help everyone who loves him/me/his family/humanity will pray for him.
There will be no support letters going out; all the money spent will come from our savings and his hard work. I consider it a charitable donation, and part of the vaunted title "tithes and offerings" but there will be no tax deduction. The word church or ministry does not appear on the checks we are writing, so oh well.
If he shares the gospel with anyone while he is there, it will be sincere and Spirit led, as a natural part of the life he will be living as a stranger in a strange land. His faith, as a part of his personality and way of life, will be the only Bible he will take with him everywhere he goes.
The purpose of his trip will be to cater to the needs of "the least of these", the little ones whose angels always appear before the Father in heaven. He is going to honor them with his time, share his skills in English, and treat them with the dignity and sincere interest that Jesus himself has for them.
He will gain no religious credit for going. We have only told family that we were already communicating with regularly. It's a whole new way of caring for the world community than the one with which I have previously been associated. I am very excited for him, and for me.
So for all who pray, he will be living with a host family in a Caribbean nation for the month of July. In the mornings he will work in summer camp, co-teaching with another volunteer wherever they assign him- sports or English. Together he and his teammate will be responsible for ten day campers.
On about half of the afternoons, he will also volunteer in a medical residential facility for special needs kids, in whatever capacity the facility decides is needful. I'm guessing games and stories, but maybe construction. That part of the trip is not defined yet.
On Fridays they will take the summer camp kids on a field trip to cool places they have never been, historical sites and museums and the national zoo.
The unscheduled afternoons he will go to the beach, and have language classes/culture classes in the evenings for all the volunteers. Sundays are spent exclusively with the host family, where I am sure he will get to experience the tribe of Christianity with which his host family is aligned.
So that's the news. He leaves early July, gets back in early August. Pray for him! Pray that he will be useful, and the love of God will clearly show in his character and actions. Pray for his safety, and the safety and learning of all those campers and special needs kids. And pray that this experience will promote good will and understanding between all: host family, camp staff, residential home staff, organization staff, and all those volunteers from English speaking nations.
Thank you internet friends, for all your kindness and good will.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Missionary Kid Abandonment Centers aka 'boarding schools"
Why on earth do religious workers believe there are special rules, or rather special exemptions, that apply to them? No where in the Bible does it ever once say that there is a lesser standard for people with good religious intentions. In fact, the last time I looked it said they would be "under the greater condemnation", i.e. scrutinized and held to a higher standard.
Religious workers should welcome that scrutiny. They should expect that scrutiny. It should be pretty obvious going in to that career field that if you are going to go claiming God told you to do this or go there or say these words, you will be held to a higher standard.
One of my HUGE beefs with the career field of fundamentalist missionaries is the child abandonment they practiced, nay demanded, because of their high-falutin' airs that their career was more important to Jesus than the hearts of their children.
Or in other words, their obedience to their interpretation of the command "go into all the world and preach the gospel, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you" seemed so grand and noble in their eyes as to exempt them from keeping the command they were supposed to be teaching: love one another as I have loved you (John 13:34).
This same Jesus, who welcomed the little children and told us to do so- this same Jesus who recommended we endeavor to emulate the simple, completely dependent trust of little children (Matthew 18:2, Mark 9:36-37,Mark 10:13-15, Luke 9:47-48, Luke 10:21, Luke 18:15-17)- this same Jesus who warned the disciples to treat children well ("do not despise one of these little ones") because "their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:10-11)- this Jesus of whom the Bible teaches, NEVER commanded or called anyone to practice child neglect and abandonmentso they could be freed up to do religious work.
How do you convince yourself that could even be a possibility?
Pride, pride and more pride about being called to make so great a sacrifice, no doubt.
The only trouble is that it was not their lives they were sacrificing to the call, but their children's lives.
In some cases that would be literal. For most, it was "merely" their spiritual, emotional, and psychological well being. It's pretty easy to sacrifice other people's well-being. It doesn't hurt you much at all, maybe a twinge of conscience now and then.
I have complete compassion for missionary parents duped by their cult leaders into believing that God demanded this sacrifice from them and their children. I have heard of parents crying in anguish over the cruelty of this practice.
But for every missionary parent who still wants to claim they did the right thing, SHAME ON YOU!!
Your children's lives were not yours to sacrifice!
I hear much pro-life noise from the same quarters, about the sacred responsibility of motherhood. Does that only apply to the child in utero? Is not motherhood/parenthood, a lifelong calling and vocation?
Jesus wanted to gather the Jews in Jerusalem under his wings like a mother hen. Why is that maternal instinct missing or stifled in the women who claim to represent Jesus in foreign fields?
God is represented by Jesus as a loving Father. What does that mean if Christian fathers send their children away? That our Father God is also unconcerned with us once we have been alive a few years? Why would any Indian want the white man's "father God" when Christian fatherhood is distant, remote and unconcerned?
And why would any tribal person see God's sacrificing His Son as any big deal? The missionaries, who represent God, don't care for their children much. They send them away as a matter of course. Giving up something you don't care much for is no big deal.
Who thought this practice of separating children from their families "in the name of Jesus" was ever smart? They didn't think too deeply about the issue apparently. The practice of sending their children away cheapened their whole message to the tribal peoples in more than one way.
And the message to their children? Well, that's the worst part of all. We know that in a child psychological development, everything that happens in the world is their doing. It's all their fault, if you will. Logical explanations don't dent this belief in a young child's heart.
These are the sorts of messages that filter through a young MKs heart when he first arrives at boarding school:
My parents sent me away because I'm no good now that I'm older.
The kids in the dorm make fun of my tears and call me names because my feelings are repulsive.
God sent me here because He loves the tribe more than me. I'm just in God's way.
If I complain, God will send the tribe to hell, and it will be my fault.
I'm stupid because I can't get my chores done right.
I hate myself for being so stupid that I am late/in trouble/in the way/unloved.
I just finished Rob Bell's book Love Wins, and mostly the author merely reminds us over and over again of Who Jesus Is. He never says there isn't a hell, though he poses many questions about scripture and what is actually recorded there and he speculates about the nature and duration of hell in light of Who Jesus Is.
But it was Jesus who said that drowning would be preferable to the punishment awaiting those who offend little ones who believe in Jesus. Sounds like hell to me! Yikes!
All those missionary parents made double sure their children believed in Jesus. Too bad they didn't make double sure not to offend them as well.
Religious workers should welcome that scrutiny. They should expect that scrutiny. It should be pretty obvious going in to that career field that if you are going to go claiming God told you to do this or go there or say these words, you will be held to a higher standard.
One of my HUGE beefs with the career field of fundamentalist missionaries is the child abandonment they practiced, nay demanded, because of their high-falutin' airs that their career was more important to Jesus than the hearts of their children.
Or in other words, their obedience to their interpretation of the command "go into all the world and preach the gospel, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you" seemed so grand and noble in their eyes as to exempt them from keeping the command they were supposed to be teaching: love one another as I have loved you (John 13:34).
This same Jesus, who welcomed the little children and told us to do so- this same Jesus who recommended we endeavor to emulate the simple, completely dependent trust of little children (Matthew 18:2, Mark 9:36-37,Mark 10:13-15, Luke 9:47-48, Luke 10:21, Luke 18:15-17)- this same Jesus who warned the disciples to treat children well ("do not despise one of these little ones") because "their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:10-11)- this Jesus of whom the Bible teaches, NEVER commanded or called anyone to practice child neglect and abandonmentso they could be freed up to do religious work.
How do you convince yourself that could even be a possibility?
Pride, pride and more pride about being called to make so great a sacrifice, no doubt.
The only trouble is that it was not their lives they were sacrificing to the call, but their children's lives.
In some cases that would be literal. For most, it was "merely" their spiritual, emotional, and psychological well being. It's pretty easy to sacrifice other people's well-being. It doesn't hurt you much at all, maybe a twinge of conscience now and then.
I have complete compassion for missionary parents duped by their cult leaders into believing that God demanded this sacrifice from them and their children. I have heard of parents crying in anguish over the cruelty of this practice.
But for every missionary parent who still wants to claim they did the right thing, SHAME ON YOU!!
Your children's lives were not yours to sacrifice!
I hear much pro-life noise from the same quarters, about the sacred responsibility of motherhood. Does that only apply to the child in utero? Is not motherhood/parenthood, a lifelong calling and vocation?
Jesus wanted to gather the Jews in Jerusalem under his wings like a mother hen. Why is that maternal instinct missing or stifled in the women who claim to represent Jesus in foreign fields?
God is represented by Jesus as a loving Father. What does that mean if Christian fathers send their children away? That our Father God is also unconcerned with us once we have been alive a few years? Why would any Indian want the white man's "father God" when Christian fatherhood is distant, remote and unconcerned?
And why would any tribal person see God's sacrificing His Son as any big deal? The missionaries, who represent God, don't care for their children much. They send them away as a matter of course. Giving up something you don't care much for is no big deal.
Who thought this practice of separating children from their families "in the name of Jesus" was ever smart? They didn't think too deeply about the issue apparently. The practice of sending their children away cheapened their whole message to the tribal peoples in more than one way.
And the message to their children? Well, that's the worst part of all. We know that in a child psychological development, everything that happens in the world is their doing. It's all their fault, if you will. Logical explanations don't dent this belief in a young child's heart.
These are the sorts of messages that filter through a young MKs heart when he first arrives at boarding school:
My parents sent me away because I'm no good now that I'm older.
The kids in the dorm make fun of my tears and call me names because my feelings are repulsive.
God sent me here because He loves the tribe more than me. I'm just in God's way.
If I complain, God will send the tribe to hell, and it will be my fault.
I'm stupid because I can't get my chores done right.
I hate myself for being so stupid that I am late/in trouble/in the way/unloved.
I just finished Rob Bell's book Love Wins, and mostly the author merely reminds us over and over again of Who Jesus Is. He never says there isn't a hell, though he poses many questions about scripture and what is actually recorded there and he speculates about the nature and duration of hell in light of Who Jesus Is.
But it was Jesus who said that drowning would be preferable to the punishment awaiting those who offend little ones who believe in Jesus. Sounds like hell to me! Yikes!
All those missionary parents made double sure their children believed in Jesus. Too bad they didn't make double sure not to offend them as well.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Home school marriages?
I haven't blogged for awhile, and even thought about just deleting this account. I believe that most of my readers have given up and gone away by now. I don't blame them. And it's okay by me. Subconsciously, maybe that's what I wanted anyway.
I am not changing plans. My plan has been to keep plugging away at my education, and hoping/praying for my husband's emotional/spiritual healing and growth. I'm not giving up on that. I don't need to be lectured about how rare it is for abusive men to change. I already know that. My husband has already put way more effort into change and growth than the huge majority of abusive men ever begin to invest. And he is continuing to push forward and seek growth and healing. As long as he is putting forth the effort, I am going to be supportive.
I started CNA classes last week. That is the next step in meeting the prerequisites I need for the school I plan to apply to next January. I have really enjoyed it so far; much more pleasant than I thought it would be. There are some really sharp people in class with me. I feared that because a high school diploma is not required, that I might be in class with people of lesser ability. Instead, there are two college graduates, another SAHM returning to the work force, a young immigrant who has already conquered a second language- some really sharp cookies. I am very pleased and actually looking forward to spending the next twelve weeks in their company.
The forums at Fanda Eagles have really been helpful to me. Lots of MKs have emotional "bombs in the brain"; my husband is not alone. Some of them have seen their marriages fall apart. Others have come to recognize the abuse for what it is, are getting treatment for the PTSD and are walking through the healing process as partners. I am grateful for their support and prayers.
On the other hand, I have recently heard about yet another home school marriage failing. Another man has abandoned his (now middle aged) wife and children, just walked on out them all to go and make a better life for himself without all that responsibility. His formerly young, beautiful and accomplished wife is now older, lacking in recent work experience, heartbroken and left with the responsibility of trying to heal the broken hearts of her adolescent and pre-adolescent children.
There are no adequate words to express the cruelty of this scenario.
So I was wondering, anyone else out there know of home school marriages failing? How many home school moms are being abandoned: first emotionally, finally physically?
I know personally of half a dozen over the past five years, and I'm not even very well-connected in home school circles anymore! Plus I can think of just as many marriages in which the men are detached at best (which is a form of abuse in itself) and there is clearly no mutually loving supportive relationship going on between husband and wife.
What is up with that?
Any ideas, anyone?
Does home schooling help, hinder, or have no effect on a marriage?
I can go to No Longer Quivering and find out what happens to women and children when the women leave an abusive home schooling situation; that is if patriarchal religion was a factor in that break-up. But what happens when men walk out on their families? What happens to these women abandoned?
And what happens to these men? Does society favor them? They suddenly have more money, freedom from responsibility to the women they once agreed to support while she home schooled the children, freedom from responsibility to their own children (which in reality had probably been all on mom for some time before they left), and they are still marketable on the romance circuit. Middle-aged women are past their physical prime, going through or nearing menopause, have been focusing all their energy on their children's welfare instead of building a career, and are most likely being slandered as angry bitches for expressing the pain and anger of being betrayed by the person in whom they had put all their trust.
How many home school marriages end this way?
I am not changing plans. My plan has been to keep plugging away at my education, and hoping/praying for my husband's emotional/spiritual healing and growth. I'm not giving up on that. I don't need to be lectured about how rare it is for abusive men to change. I already know that. My husband has already put way more effort into change and growth than the huge majority of abusive men ever begin to invest. And he is continuing to push forward and seek growth and healing. As long as he is putting forth the effort, I am going to be supportive.
I started CNA classes last week. That is the next step in meeting the prerequisites I need for the school I plan to apply to next January. I have really enjoyed it so far; much more pleasant than I thought it would be. There are some really sharp people in class with me. I feared that because a high school diploma is not required, that I might be in class with people of lesser ability. Instead, there are two college graduates, another SAHM returning to the work force, a young immigrant who has already conquered a second language- some really sharp cookies. I am very pleased and actually looking forward to spending the next twelve weeks in their company.
The forums at Fanda Eagles have really been helpful to me. Lots of MKs have emotional "bombs in the brain"; my husband is not alone. Some of them have seen their marriages fall apart. Others have come to recognize the abuse for what it is, are getting treatment for the PTSD and are walking through the healing process as partners. I am grateful for their support and prayers.
On the other hand, I have recently heard about yet another home school marriage failing. Another man has abandoned his (now middle aged) wife and children, just walked on out them all to go and make a better life for himself without all that responsibility. His formerly young, beautiful and accomplished wife is now older, lacking in recent work experience, heartbroken and left with the responsibility of trying to heal the broken hearts of her adolescent and pre-adolescent children.
There are no adequate words to express the cruelty of this scenario.
So I was wondering, anyone else out there know of home school marriages failing? How many home school moms are being abandoned: first emotionally, finally physically?
I know personally of half a dozen over the past five years, and I'm not even very well-connected in home school circles anymore! Plus I can think of just as many marriages in which the men are detached at best (which is a form of abuse in itself) and there is clearly no mutually loving supportive relationship going on between husband and wife.
What is up with that?
Any ideas, anyone?
Does home schooling help, hinder, or have no effect on a marriage?
I can go to No Longer Quivering and find out what happens to women and children when the women leave an abusive home schooling situation; that is if patriarchal religion was a factor in that break-up. But what happens when men walk out on their families? What happens to these women abandoned?
And what happens to these men? Does society favor them? They suddenly have more money, freedom from responsibility to the women they once agreed to support while she home schooled the children, freedom from responsibility to their own children (which in reality had probably been all on mom for some time before they left), and they are still marketable on the romance circuit. Middle-aged women are past their physical prime, going through or nearing menopause, have been focusing all their energy on their children's welfare instead of building a career, and are most likely being slandered as angry bitches for expressing the pain and anger of being betrayed by the person in whom they had put all their trust.
How many home school marriages end this way?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Finals Coming Up
I would love to post on a couple of subjects, but school beckons. I have a week off next week between semesters and hopefully I can post then. Live loved, SS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
