Motherhood Challenged?

The recent events of the mother who was kicked off of the airplane makes me want to complain, and also write something on my blog, especially since I've run out of other things to talk about.:)

Just focusing on the practical standpoint, does anyone have the right to tell a women how and when she should feed or not feed her child? What could justify such a thing? The child was 22 months -- a little older than some, but by no means unheard of for a child still breastfeeding; 1-2 years is generally the norm. Moreover, I've seen many a child throw a hissy fit when they are covered when they are trying to nurse, and I've seen woman become much more exposed in the process of trying. The mother probably knew this, but probably didn't feel it necessary to tell the stewardess this because, frankly, it was none of the stewardess' business.

But the stewardess has at least a point. I'm not arguing that women should flaunt without any scruple or discretion (modesty should always rule, when practical). Moreover, some people can handle "exposure" better than others. Period. Even for other woman, too much information can be unpleasant. It is important, regardless of ones beliefs, to respect others, and behave accordingly. It's simply common courtesy.

However, even when a woman is discreet when she is breastfeeding, is an objection to it still justified? This leads to a more serious, and telling, question.

We live in an era where there are few people who enter into marriage not having seen the naked body of the opposite (and same) gender first hand, or at least in a graphic movie. You go to the beach where woman who look more provocative covered in flimsy and stringy material than they would if they were sunbathing in the buff. I have had guy friends tell me how disturbed they were when, going to the pool, they saw virtually everything because the woman's barely existing bathing suit was barely staying on. People make sex-tapes of themselves, and then watch the sex-tapes of others (regardless of their consent). Woman are told not only to accept the fact that men "need" porn, but we are encouraged to encourage them to pleasure themselves with it. I remember being 16, riding in an airplane, and traumatized by a woman next to me who was reading Cosmo, pausing on the most graphic pages so she could study them thoroughly (I doubt she would have been kicked off if she refused to stop reading it). Why, then, does a woman have to be "courteous" and cover herself up in front of people who regularly stare at breasts (and more!) for the sake of both arousal and entertainment?

If you think about it, of all the sexual organs of the body, the breast is the only one that is actually beautiful, or at least it is the least offensive. But it isn't the sight of a "sex" organ in public that offends. It is because our culture has sexualized the breast to the extreme, and therefore the sight of a child being fed from the breast is disturbing. Breastfeeding is a purely natural act; and it is the convoluted perception of sexuality that causes us to be disturbed when see a pure and innocent child gaining nourishment from something that, in society's mind, has become so perverted.

What not to do while driving.

I don't recommend this . . .

The Irony of Piety

It's funny when you actually decide to buckle down and attempt holiness. You say, "God, do whatever it takes to make me overcome this or that flaw, to do my duty, to go wherever I need to go in life. God, point me in the right direction, and I'll follow."

And then he puts you in a position where you have two choices: accept God's Will and be at peace, or reject it and be miserable. He's making it easy for you. He's showing you the right direction. He's actually quite clear about His intentions. It's the moment you've been waiting for. Why, then, does God have to drag you kicking and screaming?

Piety seems easy, but only so long as we are in control of our own piety. Thing is, true piety has nothing to do with us doing anything. It has to do with completely letting go, and following. We ask God for the grace to love Him, and to abandon our will to His, but we don't pay attention to the fact that we are often asking for the grace because want to be in control of our pius actions so that we can take credit for them.

That's why we often choose misery and anguish over simple acceptance of God's Will. We know that accepting God's Will will bring us peace, but we have such a tight hold on our desire to be in control that we will essentially throw a temper tantrum. We're like the little girl who won't eat her mashed potatoes, even though she is fully aware that by not doing so she will not get her jello. It doesn't even matter whether or not she likes mashed potatoes. But someone is telling her what to eat, and how to eat it, and that is the bone of contention.

Often we complain about God not being clear, not showing us exactly where we should be; then He does, and we say "Sorry, wrong answer God, try again. I want You to tell me where I should be, but I reject your current analysis of what I should do, and I want a new one."

We ask for piety, but we forget what we're asking for. He always answers when we ask; ironically, it's the fact that He answers that causes us to object.

Santa Therese di Lisieux, prega per noi.

Snow

As winter approaches, poets often like to take the time to reflect on the beauties and mysteries of the earth in winter as it sleeps beneath a blanket of snow. Not going into the lack of original thought that usually goes into such accolades, as a Virginian, I have a slightly different take on this lovely season.

Perhaps it was because I had actually taken the time to enjoy autum, unlike in previous years where I was either more concerned with work or with school (I still work, but I've recently learned to ignore that fact), but the bare trees took me by suprise. For all intents and purposes, it's winter.

By winter, I don't mean the winter that you see in movies like "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers," with lovely blankets of snow that keep us home and force us to notice it and enjoy it.

I'm talking about a Virginian winter. Sometimes cold, sometimes hot, so no matter how well you plan you will inevitably find yourself dismantling or adding to your outfit throughout the day. And the trees! A nudist colony is an ugly sight in the human world, and it's an ugly sight in the natural world too. In our post-fallen state, all of the created world, not just man, should simply not be left naked. Animals have fur for a reason. People wear clothes. That is because nakedness is such mass quantities will always be unappealing, and that's all there is to it.

Snow is there to cover what cannot cover itself. Modesty makes beautiful what is ugly. And then it should melt just as the leaves come out, so we never have to be left with the ugly naked trees. Of course, that's when Virginia decides that it's a good time to dump a blizzard on us. Right when we're tired of the cold, i.e. in March when it's supposed to be getting warm, it snows. Pretty, right? But then it melts just enough; what doesn't melt looks dirty, and what does melt freezes, making driving something that only daredevils should do.

It's a good thing that Virginian winters have Christmas is all I've got to say. And the ACLU wants to take that away from us too. They should live in Virginia for a winter before saying whether or not we should be allowed to have something to look forward to in this dreary season.

I love Virginia. It's just that 24 winters in a row have taken their toll, and the time had come to vent.

The White Stag returns

When all is said and done, it's always important to remember that there is still some magic in the world.

The Art of Waiting

But, gentle friend, for love and courtesy
Lie further off; in human modesty,
Such separation as may well be said
Becomes a virtuous bachelor and a maid,
So far be distant; and, good night, sweet friend:
Thy love ne'er alter till thy sweet life end!
~William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream


This is always a tricky subject, and I'm not sure how to introduce it without sounding preachy, judgemental, etc. I've never really been tested, so I'm the last person to judge. Anyhow, here goes:

I always thought that it would be very difficult for me to marry a man who had lost his virginity. This is not to say that it would be a determining factor; if I loved him, I could look past it, and I could not in good conscience look down on him and resent him for it. But it would be difficult. Once you sleep with someone, that person forever has something with you that no one can ever take away. The idea of another woman walking around, carrying with her something that should absolutely and rightfully be mine, the one thing that I have a God-given right to selfishly refuse to share seems too much to give.

But then I thought about if I married a widow, and somehow that didn't bother me at all (now, if the man is one of those guys who makes himself into a widow, that's a whole other story . . .). I wondered why.

Perhaps wanting to marry someone who hasn't been with anyone else is more than just a selfish desire to get there first and claim your territory. It's because when sex is a gift, it is always the "first" time. When a spouse dies, the gift does not die. She had a right to him, and now his new spouse has that right. She is giving his new spouse the right to be with him. It therefore lacks the distasteful quality of him having had a lover to whom he wasn't married. She may regret it -- she may be a saint now -- but the fact remains that she has what never should have been hers. She owns what belongs to you alone, and you will never get it back. Society tells us that we should spread our seed, and have as much experience as possible before settling with one person; but anyone who believes this is kidding himself. The more that is scattered, the more that is lost, and the less you will have to give to the one who your meant to be with until death.

Frankly, I'm not sure what my vocation is, so this whole thing may not even be relevant to me.

Please say a Hail Mary for vocations!

In Defense of Art, Diversity, and Catholicism.

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace."
Oscar Wilde

One of the more interesting arguments against Catholicism, from an artistic perspective, is that in living by a single truth, diversity is limited. But what about the alternative?

If you believe that there is no God, no objective truth, how is infinite diversity possible? Even the abyss of the universe is finite. And the answer isn't simply to do what hasn't been done. If art is simply pushing the limits and doing what no one else has done, you're being original without being creative. Art becomes limited to the created world, by the created world.

In the converse, when art is meant to more than entertain, when it reaches towards objective truth, towards God, it is appealing to something that is infinitely more vast than the created universe. God is infinite, and He Himself is an artist. When art moves toward God, there will necessarily be elements in it that would be impossible to achieve by appealing to nature alone. Even when agnostic artists achieve some level of supernatural beauty, it is through the grace of God, not nature. With God, the possibilities, to be cliché, are endless.

On a completely unrelated note, Oscar Wilde rules. Pace a tutti!