Category Archives: Women

May 13, 2013 · 12:00 am

Moms Need Mentors Too

“I want my Mom!” No, that wasn’t the wail of a four-year- old. . . . It was the inner wail of a young mom with a two-week-old baby, two toddlers under three, and a husband heading out the door for an unavoidable business trip. For the first time in my motherhood, I had more children than hands and felt barely able to take care of myself, much less three very wonderful, but very dependent, children.

My mom, unfortunately, left the week before—headed home 542 miles away to her own family, my dad and my eight younger siblings. My mom needed to be home. I desperately wanted her with me.

It was a lonely moment.

But in my loneliness, I prayed. I asked God to help me find a fellow mom to learn from and lean on.  I hoped for a friend, but a wise friend, one whose footsteps I might follow on this journey of faith called ‘motherhood.’  God provided, all in His perfect time. I met an older mom who gently shepherded me through many a low point, sharing encouragement, wisdom, and, most powerfully, her gift of faith. At two other critical junctures in my life, additional “mentor moms” stepped forward, blessing me with perspective, encouragement, and practical help.

I didn’t have a label for these important women—I just knew I was grateful for their friendship and prayerful encouragement. They (as well as my own mom) made a tremendous difference to my mothering and my own spiritual growth.

A Heartfelt Need

Recently, I asked some blogger friends to pose these questions to their Catholic-mommy readers: “Would you be interested in a mentoring relationship with an older mom, and, if so, what qualities would you look for?”

The floodgates opened.

Mother after young mother posted a reply. Honest, emotional, and hungry, they shared how lonely and difficult motherhood can be. Our fast-moving consumer culture under-appreciates the intangible value of shaping a child’s heart and soul—and these mothers feel keenly that lack of support. In addition, these were Catholic moms, committed not only to raising their children well in secular terms, but also to raising them right in the eyes of God.

They need mentor moms. One young mom, Jenny, put it simply: “I would just love to have someone in real life to whom I could go to with questions or just for encouragement during rough times.” Patrice, a Catholic writer and mother, values a mentor’s sense of perspective and hope: “They can show me that I will live through whatever life stage I’m currently going through with my children.” Emily, an artist and teacher, remembers how overwhelming life seemed as a first-time mom. “In the beginning I was completely sleep-deprived and I just needed to have someone visit me and talk, maybe bring a meal and care about what was going on.” Mary Beth hopes for “someone who is . . . a few steps ahead on the journey of motherhood, someone willing to share wisdom they’ve gained on this journey, [and] who is faith-filled, encouraging, and has a bit of time.” Kate Wicker, a popular blogger whose writing encourages moms daily, summed it up: “What so many of us long for is maternal empathy.”

These moms yearn for basic mothering support, but within the rich context of their lives as Catholic mothers. Yes, they need practical help, but, as Emily says, “combined with prayer and spiritual wisdom.” For a mom like Christine, a mentor mom would build on the foundation laid by her own mother. “My mom was my first and greatest mentor. She shared with me her love for God and our Catholic faith.”

Very few women, though, seem to have their own moms, sisters, or grandmothers nearby. Even those who do, Antonina points out, don’t necessarily find support for a faithful Catholic life. ”We are either too far away from family or have made lifestyle choices that differ dramatically from their experiences, i.e. faith, home schooling, parenting.” Women who were mothered poorly, were not raised Catholic, or whose extended families embrace cafeteria-style Catholicism feel the need for a Catholic mentor mom most acutely. Tosha’s experience is typical: “My generation needs mentor moms! Many of us grew up in broken homes. Our mothers did not pass down any of the ‘female arts’ and homemaking skills that they took for granted. We are left with the Church to guide us and reading about raising a godly family in books and on blogs.”

Divorced Catholic moms face similar struggles—plus more. Lisa Duffy, who ministers to divorced Catholics through her excellent website (www.divorcedcatholic .com), finds that divorced Catholic moms want “what married mothers want . . . to be accepted, not judged, and loved. To not be excluded simply because they are divorced, to not be judged (because oftentimes they have fought valiantly to save their marriage and are divorced against their will), and for other women to be genuinely friendly to them, to listen patiently to them without having answers. Just to be interested and compassionate.”

Today’s young women struggle to raise not only healthy families, but also holy families anchored in Catholicism. They want to know how to:

● love their husbands and children more deeply and sacrificially

● pray and pass on the faith to their children

● raise happy, balanced children

● live the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality

● accept their trials, struggles, and mistakes without discouragement or resentment

● become holy, peace-filled moms

They are looking for something akin to spiritual mothering.

A Scriptural Solution: Titus 2:3–5

Elizabeth Foss, a mother of nine and an award-winning blogger, believes that mentoring “re-creates” the extended family culture, allowing experienced moms to pass on the vision, skills, and faith at the heart of Catholic motherhood. It is spiritual motherhood, rooted in Scripture: “Older women . . . are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited” (Tit. 2:3–5).

In addition, Elizabeth points out, mentoring younger moms is a practical way to build the culture of life, “helping moms create strong families that will nurture” life. Emily’s situation provides a case in point: “I want to have a second child. Yet without support, I am scared.” Lack of support for motherhood creates a ripple effect across the lives of women and their families.

So, if younger women are eager to learn, are “older women” available to guide them? I turned to experienced moms and asked. Darby, an active parish volunteer, replied: “I would love to be a mentor. I’m a mother of 4 and a soon-to-be first-time grandmother! My youngest is going off to college in the fall. . . . The empty nest is becoming a reality too soon!” Colleen, whose youngest is in college, recalls John Paul II’s teaching that “every woman is a mother whether she is married or single, with children or without.” Genevieve Kineke, author of The Authentic Catholic Woman, agrees. “We’re called to this. . . . Every woman should be assessing her experiences for the wisdom to be gleaned” and shared, when appropriate.

Some mature moms very naturally share their time and wisdom. For others, it’s not so easy. “That is actually one of the biggest challenges,” shares one mom, “to ask seasoned moms, who have their own busy lives, to sacrifice quality time for younger moms.”

Kate Wicker, who writes beautifully about the generous mentors in her own life, sees humility rather than lack of generosity as the limiting factor. “So many of us long to have a sister in Christ to mentor us; yet we see ourselves as unworthy of ministering to other moms.” Jenn, whose five children range from 2 to 14, interpreted her own loneliness as God’s nudge to serve moms foundering in isolation. “Instead of answering my pleas directly, God has [given me] a passion for assisting other women so they don’t have to ‘go it alone.’”

Genevieve, a seasoned mentor, reassures us that although “women worry about one more demand on their time . . . I find the blessings, rewards, and joys far outweigh the demands and the energy [spent].”

What Makes Mentoring Successful?

Both experienced moms and newer moms identify similar qualities for a successful mentoring-mom relationship.

Be an Example. Nearly all the younger women were drawn first by the veteran mom’s example. A woman mature in the love of Christ, kind and friendly to others, teaches others constantly—and inspires imitation.

Be Real. Megan, a Texas mother of five, cautions, “Young moms need mentors . . . but they need real ones. [Otherwise] the expectations are too high and these poor young moms are left wondering what is wrong with them.” Elizabeth Foss highlights the need to “share your failures, your foibles, for someone else’s benefit. It’s almost impossible to mentor if you’ve set yourself up on a pedestal as someone who never made a mistake.”

Be Humble. Genevieve Kineke notes, “Others will be put off if we think that we are better, smarter, holier. Besides, it’s not true!” Say “I don’t know” if you don’t. Be willing to learn.

Be Empathetic. Seek to understand—to meet her where she is—and help her grow from there. Listen well. And never dismiss the younger mom’s struggles as insignificant.

Be Patient. It takes time for a relationship to grow and for insights to bear fruit. Helpful friendships may move forward before anyone labels it a “mentoring” relationship.

Be Confident. Elizabeth believes that “women are afraid to mentor because they think, ‘I don’t have it all together.’ Ask yourself instead, ‘What’s worked?’ and reflect on that.”

Instill Confidence. A mentor’s goal is not to micromanage or control, but to encourage and guide. Affirm good intuitions and decisions; help her learn from experience.

Be Charitable. No need to air the dirty laundry (about husband, children, mother-in-law, and other women) under the guise of mentoring.

Be Prudent. Tread delicately when it comes to marriage issues, moral questions, and childhood wounds. Know your limitations— and defer to a priest or professional counselor when needed.

Be Open. Moral issues aside, there may be many solutions to a particular issue. Each family is different. Jenny urges mentors “to be open to new or different ideas. . . and to encourage what works. . . . [Do] not judge, but offer constructive, helpful criticism.”

Be Available. Mentoring does not require a 24/7 commitment, but, like other important relationships, it thrives on availability. It takes “consistent time, energy, and vulnerability,” observes one mom. Agree on frequency and mode of communication (phone, email, in-person).

Be Trustworthy. Like any good friendship, a mentoring relationship requires trust. Keep confidences confidential.

Create the Opportunity

What’s the best way for mentoring relationships to develop? DeAnn, a home schooling mom, suggests “a balance between forming natural relationships with people that you are drawn to and doing so through an organized means provided by a church or home schooling group.” Moms on both sides of the relationship seem to find relationships that develop organically, arising naturally from situations that bring moms of a variety of ages together, most appealing. This requires, however, that moms of all ages “tune in” to both needs and opportunities. Dawn, another homeschooler, observes that “more experienced moms in our group who could be a great source of wisdom . . . tend to ‘hang out’ with each other and not with the younger moms. . . . I think it’s just that they have more in common with each other. They may not be aware that some of us would really like to form mentoring friendships!”

Conversely, younger moms must be careful not to prejudge, ruling out a good mentor in favor of an illusory “perfect” one. “My ideal mentor,” says Melanie, “would be a woman whose personality is similar to mine. . . . On the other hand . . . sometimes a woman who is very different in personality and in life situation may still have much wisdom to dispense. Perhaps the people we wouldn’t choose for ourselves are the very women God would put into our lives to challenge us, to help us grow and change beyond what we can imagine for ourselves.”

So what situations might bring women of all ages together? Anything that meets the practical needs of moms and family life. Elizabeth Foss suggests anyone with a heart for mentoring consider making herself available to new moms. “Bring meals to a woman after a baby is born,” suggests Elizabeth, “and strike up a conversation, telling them ‘I remember when . . .’ Offer perspective.”

Any parish ministry offers possibilities. One pastor let a parishioner teach free aerobics classes at the parish so moms could attend with their kids. Older women came as well, and mentoring relationships were born. Similarly, in another parish, a grandmother who teaches Atrium to four-year-olds lingers to chat with moms as they pick up their kids. They, in turn, seek her wisdom on all sorts of topics.

Sacramental preparation creates prime opportunities for mature moms to connect with younger moms on a sustained basis. In some dioceses, baptism classes for new parents are taught by couples who remain in touch even after the baptism. Similarly, Amy from Minnesota finds that, although she is only 31, “people that have come to me as a ‘mentor’ noticed me mostly because I have volunteered as the confirmation teacher at our parish for 10 years and take those children as my own.”

Sometimes mentoring relationships begin right next door. Maryan remembers living with her husband in military housing, right next door to “a family of 6 kids. . . . Being away from my mom (who would be a natural mentor), I was so consoled to have Joan right next door to answer all diaper, first aid, discipline, and home schooling questions. . . . Her mentorship to me was invaluable.”

As Internet-connected lifestyles become the norm, moms are plugging in to mentoring opportunities online, discovering relationships through influential mom-bloggers or social media, like Facebook and Twitter. According to the latest stats, web-savvy moms typically log on at least three—and sometimes up to a dozen—times a day. No wonder that many Catholic women increasingly turn to these virtual relationships for advice, encouragement, and support. One woman shared, “The Lord has slowly worked to mold and soften my heart for motherhood, and I truly believe that [a momblogger] played a large role in that, even though we have never met. . . . In the conversation about mentor-moms, Internet friendships must be included.”

Similarly, Kate Wicker writes, “I continue to be grateful for the online community and how it has allowed me to connect so many godly women. . . . Finding the right fit for a mentor . . . is in some ways easier online. We simply have access to more moms with just a click of a mouse.”

“Perhaps the reality is that there are different types of mentoring relationships that suit different needs, and we might have several different women who mentor us in different ways at different times in our lives. For me,” writes Melanie, “there are some distinct advantages to an online versus a ‘real life’ mentoring relationship. I am an intensely private person. . . . I often find it much easier to write about my interior struggles than I would to voice the same sorts of concerns to a friend over coffee. It would take years and years to build up that kind of trust and friendship and, frankly, I need help now.”

Finally, ministries that focus on pregnant teens or underprivileged women clamor for women to volunteer as mentor moms. Colleen, who works with Birthright, encourages moms to be “solid role models for these women to move out of a lifestyle pattern their moms and grandmoms have lived and are handing on.”

Are Catholic mentor moms needed? Absolutely. Hungry hearts are waiting. Genevieve Kineke offers two final thoughts to women who wonder whether to serve as a mentor mom. First, “It’s because we’re not perfect that we can do this,” and second, “Be not afraid to open your heart to one more soul.”

We will never regret giving of ourselves to others. And to my own mom, and the moms who have given to me so generously over the years . . . I cannot thank you enough! Happy Mother’s Day!

A version of this article was first published in the May/Jun 2010 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine, under the title “Catholic Mentor Moms—How to Find One, How to Be One.”

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Prayer and Spirituality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , ,

March 2, 2013 · 2:58 pm

Girl Scouts Still Humming The Pro-Abortion Chorus

The Girl Scouts’ Law insists that Girl Scouts be “responsible for what I say and do.” When it comes to abortion, however, the Girl Scouts USA “says” the magic words that keep pro-life members in the fold (i.e. that Girl Scouts “does not take a position” on sexuality, birth control, or abortion).

What they “do” behind the scenes is another story.

GSUSA’s hefty brand power—and funding—continue to fuel the pro-abortion advocacy of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (“WAGGGS”). And the Girl Scouts have refused once again to take responsibility for that.

I recently exchanged emails with two Girl Scouts USA spokespersons, Joshua Ackley and Michelle Tompkins, asking them to clarify the Girl Scouts’ “no position” stance in light of WAGGGS’ leadership on the pro-abortion Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration (December, 2012). Their responses highlight GSUSA’s corporate unwillingness to take any actions to distance themselves from WAGGGS’ global advocacy for youth “sexual rights” and abortion—even though WAGGGS claims to speak for all its members, including GSUSA.

First, realize how radical the Bali Youth Declaration really is: it asserts “sexual rights” for youth (including 10 year-olds) on nearly every page and demands, over a dozen times, youth access to “abortion” or “reproductive rights” and services. It marginalizes families—decrying parental consent and “age of consent” restrictions in sexual and reproductive matters—and casts religious objections to LBGT lifestyles as “religious intolerance.” Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion chorus embraces the Declaration.

There’s more to know about the Bali Declaration, but what’s most relevant here are the architects behind its design.

The Declaration reflects the handiwork of the Global Youth Forum’s International Steering Committee, a group stacked with abortion providers and abortion-advocacy groups, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Youth Coalition.

Who else’s fingerprints are all over the Declaration?  WAGGGS.

WAGGGS was heavily invested in formulating the Declaration. Its leaders, including WAGGGS’ Senior Advocacy Coordinator, not only served on the Forum’s Steering Committee, but also worked for six months on the Taskforces that shaped the conference agenda, the resulting Declaration, and follow-up activities.  At the Bali summit, WAGGGS representatives facilitated breakout sessions and presented youth “recommendations” to the plenary sessions. Now WAGGGS promotes the Declaration and advocates for its implementation.

So that leaves the Girl Scouts with a problem.

In light of their officially neutral position on abortion, it should have been a no-brainer for the Girl Scouts to repudiate the radical, pro-abortion Bali Declaration. Or at least to clarify that WAGGGS’ does not speak for GSUSA when it advocates on sexual and reproductive matters, including the Bali Declaration.

GSUSA refused to do either.

GSUSA informed me that, “GSUSA does not have an official position on the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration,” and demurred further comment because “the lengthy declaration deals with very complex issues… [and] deserves a thorough review.”

There’s nothing “complex” about the Declaration’s aggressive push for abortion and youth sexual rights.

GSUSA reiterated that it “does not take a position on abortion” and asserted generally that, “all [WAGGGS] members reserve the right to have their own positions on certain topics.” But when I requested documentation that WAGGGS members “reserve the right” to differ on advocacy positions, GSUSA produced an off-point WAGGGS memorandum discussing programming decisions, not advocacy.

The WAGGGS memo states, “Member organizations engage with WAGGGS’ programmes in a number of ways, from helping develop and piloting them, to integrating them into their national programmes, to not using them at all.  As a membership organization, it is entirely at the members’ discretion what programmes they use and how they are implemented.” This “discretion” clearly applies to program implementation not WAGGGS advocacy. WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are adopted and implemented on behalf of the entire organization. (See below.)

(Incidentally, the WAGGGS document supplied by GSUSA also falsely claims that, “There are many issues WAGGGS does not have a position on, including abortion; nor does WAGGGS have a partnership with Planned Parenthood International.” For GSUSA to put forth this document while discussing WAGGGS’ and IPPF collaboration in Bali and WAGGGS’ open support for abortion and youth sexual rights is laughable.)

A Damning Silence on Abortion

My email to GSUSA underscored WAGGGS’ strong support for the Bali Declaration—including its abortion advocacy—and asked, “If the Girl Scouts USA does not support the Youth Declaration, or portions of it (please specify), will the GSUSA publicly repudiate WAGGGS’ claim that it speaks for 10 million members, including Girl Scouts USA, in its advocacy for the Youth Declaration?”

GSUSA spokesperson Joshua Ackley replied, “Regarding how we use our voice, GSUSA will use its voice in a fashion that we believe constructively contributes to the conversation. We have in the past and we will continue to share our positions with our sister organizations in WAGGGS.”

In other words, “No.”  The Girl Scouts will not publicly disavow WAGGGS’ pro-abortion actions. Instead, it hums along with the pro-abortion chorus.

It’s not hard to see why.

The Girl Scouts USA and WAGGGS have a long history of interlocking financial ties, brand alignment, and collaborative activities. (And GSUSA’s leadership team syncs well, ideologically, with WAGGGS’ advocacy positions.) GSUSA wields outsize influence in WAGGGS because of its status as founding member, its membership (GSUSA’s 2.3 million girls members constitute nearly one-fourth of WAGGGS’ “10 million” members), and GSUSA’s contributions of money, resources, and talent.

The Deputy Chairman of WAGGGS, for example, is USA representative Sapreet Saluja, who rose to leadership through U.S. Girl Scout Councils. The Girl Scouts’ New York headquarters plays host when WAGGGS delegates advocate at the U.N. for abortion and sexual rights. And GSUSA money flows generously to WAGGGS: GSUSA pays over a million dollars annually to WAGGGS for its “membership quota” and leans on young girls, from Daisies to Ambassadors, to donate to WAGGGS through “World Thinking Day” fundraisers and Juliette Low Fund contributions, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars for WAGGGS’ coffers. Girl Scouts USA also supports WAGGGS through a private foundation GSUSA created expressly for WAGGGS, funding world centers that offer WAGGGS seminars and teach girls to ‘take action’ for adolescent sexual and reproductive rights.

Actions Speak Louder

No Girl Scout in America could miss the closeness of the relationship between GSUSA and WAGGGS. That close relationship, coupled with WAGGGS’ ardent advocacy for sexual and reproductive rights and the Girl Scouts’ refusal to disown WAGGGS’ handiwork (the Bali Declaration) raises some questions: does GSUSA do anything to prevent its brand power, funds, and resources from supporting WAGGGS’ global advocacy for sexual rights and abortion? Corporate responsibility demands as much. After all, GSUSA stakes its relationship with families and churches on the credibility of its promise to ‘take no position’ on sexuality and abortion.

The bottom line: Beyond its thin disclaimer (GSUSA “does not take a position”), GSUSA appears to do nothing to ensure that the funding, brand reputation, and practical support it provides to WAGGGS are not used to support WAGGGS’ pro-abortion and sexual rights advocacy.

GSUSA: The Silent Gorilla

WAGGGS routinely claims that its advocacy represents the voice of all its members—not a subset. For example, in July 2012, World Board Chair Nadine El Achy highlighted the advocacy of “WAGGGS delegates at [the U.N Conference] Rio+20” who “represented each one of our WAGGGS members: YOU - in this process.” (The WAGGGS delegates at Rio lobbied for “sexual and reproductive health rights.”)

According to its World Conference reports and World Board statements, WAGGGS embraced “a new image and new positioning” in 2008, embarking on a global advocacy “agenda.” WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are framed by its World Board, confirmed during worldwide Conferences (with GSUSA present and participating), and referenced in annual statements. They are promoted on behalf of the entire membership, not Balkanized subsets.

The Girl Scouts know this.

In its communications with me, GSUSA could not offer any instance when WAGGGS qualified its sexual and reproductive rights advocacy by stating that it only represents 7.7 million members (10 million general membership minus 2.3 million GSUSA girls) on issues related to sexuality and reproduction.

It has never happened. And it won’t, because GSUSA is the silent gorilla in the room when WAGGGS speaks at the UN or at global events. It’s a gorilla with financial heft (GSUSA’s budget is twenty times the size of WAGGGS’  budget) and chummy connections to the Obama administration, whose global agenda supports abortion and family planning worldwide.

If GSUSA really objected to being included under the WAGGGS’ advocacy umbrella, which promotes sexual and reproductive rights on behalf all  “10 million” members, GSUSA lawyers would lock down WAGGGS’ representations in a heartbeat, to protect the Girl Scouts’ costly re-branding efforts.

So I asked spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins if GSUSA had ever asked WAGGGS to ‘cease and desist’—to stop representing itself as the voice of its entire membership, including GSUSA, when WAGGGS advocates for sexual and reproductive rights. I also inquired whether GSUSA sought assurances from WAGGGS that “no funds which GSUSA provides to WAGGGS (whether as its membership quotas, World Thinking Day contributions, proceeds from merchandise sales, training and travel fees) shall be used to support WAGGGS advocacy on sexual and reproductive rights.” Finally, I asked whether GSUSA had taken its own steps “to ensure that GSUSA funds do not end up supporting WAGGGS’ advocacy” for abortion.

GSUSA bobbed and weaved. Spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins first replied, “This is going to take quite a while to review because it gets into the bylaws of WAGGGS and many other areas.” (Note: I checked. WAGGGS by-laws don’t apply.) I clarified that my question was factual: whether GSUSA has in fact made any requests or instituted any structural measures to ensure that GSUSA does not fund WAGGGS’ abortion advocacy.

GSUSA’s response: those questions are “under review.” And GSUSA is in no hurry, because, “we have quite few things on our plate right now and resources are limited.”

The reality is this: GSUSA has not once objected to WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sexual and reproductive issues, nor to WAGGGS’ claims to represent its entire membership, including GSUSA, on those issues. They refuse to disown even WAGGGS’ most radical pro-abortion efforts (e.g., the Bali Youth Declaration). And they continue to fund and support WAGGGS’ global megaphone, as it amplifies “progressive” messages promoting adolescent abortion and youth sexual rights.

They will do nothing to impede or even distance themselves from WAGGGS’ pro-abortion, pro-contraception, “sexual rights” advocacy.

Those GSUSA assurances that it “does not take a position” on abortion and birth control? Lip service.

I’m really not surprised that GSUSA won’t make a serious effort to ensure that its assets, reputation, and financial contributions are not used to support WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sex and reproduction.

But I am astounded that pro-life families—and sponsoring churches—are willing to go along with that.

Share

13 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

February 23, 2013 · 9:20 pm

Reeva, Oscar and the Feminist Lie

Their relationship was short. And fatal.

Last week the sports world was stunned at the arrest of “the Blade Runner,” South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius, for the murder of his beautiful girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.  Pistorius, whose legs had been amputated below the knee in childhood, gained fame competing in track during the London Olympics against able-bodied athletes.

While the full facts have yet to unfold, this much is certain:  Reeva is dead and Oscar did it. And her death is a tragic lesson in the perils of intimacy too-soon.

Hours before her death, Reeva tweeted coyly, “What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow? #get excited #ValentinesDay.” She expected a sexy sleepover with Oscar, followed by a “day full of love,” not a violent death.

In the wee hours of their Valentine’s morning, Oscar shot Reeva four times. Her skull was fractured and police found a bloody cricket bat at the scene. Although Oscar claims he shot Reeva because he mistook her for a robber, police have charged him with premeditated murder. News reports suggest that Reeva’s friendship with another man might have triggered murderous jealousy in Oscar.

The murder is shocking enough. Reeva was stunningly beautiful and, by all accounts, kind and intelligent. A 30-year old law grad, she gained celebrity as a lingerie model and reality TV contestant. Her life was precious to family and friends.

But the context of the murder is disturbing too. Oscar and Reeva had begun dating in November—three short months before her death. Sparks of intense attraction, fueled by the aura of celebrity, ignited a ‘relationship’ in a flash. They quickly became physically intimate.

Like many, if not most, young women her age, Reeva put herself in a vulnerable situation, willingly: she became sexually intimate with a man she hardly knew.

How, after all, could she really know Oscar’s history, much less his character, in the space of a few months? Sure, she could learn the basics in ten minutes on the Internet. She knew he was a sports hero, a national favorite who gave back to his fans and his country. On Twitter, he encouraged disabled kids and veterans and tweeted inspirational Scripture verses. He professed his faith, saying, “Christ makes all the difference. He aids me in all my struggles…” And, ironically, Oscar declared his solidarity with abused women, retweeting, “Girls and women need to be valued, respected, and feel safe, not only at home but also in public spaces.”

Interesting stuff, perhaps.  But public information is no substitute for the test of time when it comes to understanding another’s character, personality, or morals. With more time, Reeva might have learned what Oscar’s friends already knew: that he had dated numerous women, not necessarily one at a time, and had displayed raging anger and a pattern of domestic violence in other relationships.

But instead Reeva lived by the gospel of female empowerment, standing on a platform of sexual freedom. For sophisticated young feminists, women’s empowerment includes the right to pursue casual sex—the power, as Hanna Rosin wrote in The Atlantic, to enjoy “sexual adventure without commitment.”

Whether it prompts a one-night hook-up or a scorching love affair, the feminist lie that left Reeva so vulnerable is this (in Rosin’s words): ”Women benefit greatly from living in a world where they can have sexual adventure without commitment or all that much shame, and where they can enter into temporary relationships that don’t get in the way of future success.

Feminists perpetuate the myth that casual sexual relationships signify female agency and independence. Ambitious women manage their “sexual careers,” eschewing time-consuming relationships in favor of commitment-less sex and “temporary intimacy” (an oxymoron, surely). Later, when it’s convenient, these women might make room in their lives for a committed, long-lasting relationship, though not necessarily marriage.

Oscar clearly supported the feminist script. His “complex love life” was a revolving door through which women came and went—a succession of ‘empowered’ girlfriends ‘benefitting’ from temporary sexual adventures and truncated relationships.

It’s the great feminist lie. And it makes women more vulnerable than ever.

Sex without commitment hurts women. Worldwide, “intimate partner violence” occurs more often in women who cohabit than among married women. A 2012 Child Trends analysis of relationship violence found that 52% of young adult cohabiting couples experienced some form of relationship violence, ranging from threats or shoves to injury-causing outbursts. And in U.S. high schools and colleges, condom giveaways and Plan B vending machines co-exist with programs, rallies, and bumper stickers decrying “dating abuse.”

Perhaps Reeva didn’t know that sexual activity itself lowers a woman’s instinctive, protective barriers. Oxytocin released during intercourse increases a woman’s trust in and sense of bonding with her partner—good for married couples but risky for women in casual relationships. Reeva wasn’t stupid—she’d been in an abusive relationship before. But she was blinded by her own empowerment, blinded by the false intimacy that sex-too-soon begets.

So Reeva was vulnerable: barely clothed, sexually willing, but locked in the fortress-like estate of a man who kept his character hidden and guns exposed.

I sometimes ask young women whether, after a first date, they would turn over their debit card and pin number to the man and invite him to help himself. They’re appalled. “No way.  I don’t know what he’s going to do.  He might steal all my money or spend it on something stupid.”  I follow up, “Even if you’re very sexually attracted to him? Would you give him the debit card and pin number after three dates?  A month?” Not a one would grant financial access or presume a man trustworthy so quickly.  But young women willingly grant quick access to their bodies, trusting their emotions, safety, and reproductive future to a sexual partner they barely know. Aren’t women’s lives, integrity, and wellbeing worth more than their bank accounts?

Reeva struggled with those very contradictions. According to friends, Reeva was “very passionate” about “women and empowerment” and was set to give a testimony of sorts on Valentine’s Day. She had suffered from a previous sexual relationship gone bad, and blamed that abusive relationship for her “loss of self-worth.” She wanted to encourage students to be empowered, to  “make your voice heard” and to hold onto the truth she belatedly discovered, of her “value in this world.”

It’s a crying shame that Reeva did not get the chance to deliver her message. But it’s even more tragic that she did not see her value apart from the feminist myth of sexual freedom. Perhaps young women will see in her life—and death—the lesson that Reeva herself missed.

 

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Lessons Learned, Relationships, Sexuality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

January 27, 2013 · 11:58 pm

Abortion Stories: A Priceless Cup of Coffee

“It’s freezing out. Why don’t you c’mon in for a cup of coffee while you wait?”

The tall woman waiting alone outside the Germantown abortion clinic shivered. She’d taken a taxi to the clinic, and arrived early, a good half-hour before it opened. Standing, pacing, stomping her feet to stay warm, the tall woman stole a glance across the parking lot, towards the voice. It was a “sidewalk counselor” from the pro-life pregnancy center across the way, and she was gesturing to a warmly lit, friendly office. The tall woman’s fingers were already stiff with cold, and she wrapped her coat tighter around her belly.

The cold won. “All right. Thanks.”

Moments later, she was inside the pro-life pregnancy center, warming her frozen fingers as she gripped a steaming cup of coffee.  Little by little her story came out.

She was three months pregnant and suddenly homeless. Her father was in jail and the baby’s father was unreliable. She was twenty-something, had one child already, and no job. Her own mother would tell her to get an abortion, if she knew, but her mother was knee-deep in troubles of her own.

Abortion seemed like her only option. The tall woman knew nothing about the clinic’s abortionist, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, nothing about his chilling defense of partial-birth abortion, and nothing about the women who had suffered serious complications, even death, from his abortion ‘care.’ Those issues meant little compared to her own overwhelming troubles.

But over coffee, and warmed by the volunteer’s compassion and energy, the tall woman changed her mind about the abortion. An hour and several phone calls later, she had a place to stay, a doctor’s appointment, and transportation.

In the following months, the volunteers became the tall woman’s support system, driving her to prenatal appointments and dropping everything to be there during childbirth. They helped her find a job and child-care and shared her worries and joys. These days, the tall woman stops by for coffee and conversation when she can, and even spent a morning doing sidewalk counseling outside the clinic. She empathized with the women who found themselves at the clinic’s door. Cradling her one-month old son, she became the voice across the parking lot, urging vulnerable women to choose life.

 “Choose Life.”  It’s been the pro-life movement’s cry for decades. And yet Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, has left a gruesome legacy after 40 years: 55 million tiny lives extinguished—poisoned, dismembered, stabbed, and suctioned into pieces.

But “life” will prevail.

In fact, the abortion landscape has changed markedly.

  • Courageous state legislators passed record numbers of new abortion restrictions in 2012.
  • Few doctors do abortions anymore, with only four U.S. doctors hard-hearted enough to perform barbaric third-trimester abortions.
  • Americans cannot deny the humanity of the unborn child as new ultrasound technology captures their breathtaking images in the womb.
  • Better pro-life media and investigative journalism have shaped public opinion favorably: Eighty percent of Americans believe third trimester abortions should be illegal, and 64% say the same about second trimester abortions.
  • Young people are driving the pro-life bus, confounding pro-choice elites. It’s hard to demonize a generation that’s passionate enough to travel hours by bus, sleep on church basement floors, and brave chilly weather to raise their voices against abortion at the March for Life. And this pro-life generation understands “the pain that abortion causes women,” and cares as much about women as their unborn babies.

But as important as those factors are, the pro-life position will prevail for a deeper reason.

At heart, the pro-life movement is about people, its message intensely personal: “You are loved. You have infinite dignity and value. And we will care for you.”

Resonating deeply in the human heart, this is the truth that vulnerable women need to hear, for themselves and their babies.

It’s a message best delivered person-to-person—and young people know this. Their generation, halved by abortion, shares its stories, feelings, and experiences of abortion in intensely personal language and images, in social forums from Twitter to Snap Chat to YouTube and Facebook. It’s powerful and effective.

So too is the work of pro-life pregnancy centers. Years ago, as a law student, I was part of the first team of counselors at the Women’s Care Center, a crisis pregnancy center in South Bend, Indiana. The Center opened in a tiny, donated house right next to the city’s only abortion clinic. Our small group of volunteers worked in a spirit of prayer, with a clear mission: to welcome each woman who walked through our doorway, offering care and support even if she chose an abortion next door.

From one tiny house, offering simple pregnancy tests, practical resources, and loving attention, the vision took wing. The Women’s Care Center now has 19 different locations in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin and serves nearly 22,000 women annually. Abortion rates in those communities have dropped and Women’s Care Center clients deliver healthier babies than their peers.

Today, U.S. pro-life pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics nearly three to one (twenty-two hundred pro-life centers compared to 724 abortion clinics). And because successful pro-life pregnancy centers threaten the abortion industry’s profits, abortion advocates have sued (unsuccessfully) to muzzle or close pro-life centers.

Remember the tall woman, and the cup of coffee that changed her life?

Abortion will end, because pro-life volunteers really care whether a pregnant woman stands cold and alone in front of a gritty abortion clinic. And they care enough to offer not only an easy-pour cup of coffee, but also hours of dedicated time and resources throughout her pregnancy and beyond.

Will you help pro-life centers reach women like “the tall woman”?

Please consider a donation, large or small.  Because somewhere, standing in the cold, is another young woman who needs a good cup of coffee…and your support to do the right thing.

 

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Abortion, Fertility and Infertility, Health, Moms and Motherhood, Policy and Culture, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 8, 2012 · 11:34 am

Abortion: A Private Matter Between a Woman and Her…Vending Machine?

At Shippensburg University, female students who hook-up for drunken sex on Saturday will find it easy to dispose of just-conceived babies on Monday or Tuesday. A quick trip to the vending machine is all it takes.

Easy. Kind of like buying a bag of Doritos.

Women who wake up in unfamiliar beds or sober up and wonder,  “What were you thinking, girl?” needn’t worry much. Stride across campus, past the dining hall (grab a doughnut for later), and into the University Health Center. Flash a student ID and head to the vending machine in the “self-help” area. There, next to the cough drops and Mucinex, in discreet, feminine packaging, is Plan B One Step. No questions asked. Feed the bills into the slot, grab and go. Empowered with “choices,” these women pop the package blister, swallow the pill, and breathe easy.

Problem solved. Glad that’s over.

Only it’s really not.

Billed as “emergency contraception,” according to the package insert, Plan B inhibits ovulation and thus prevents conception.  But it also alters the lining of the uterus, preventing a newly conceived child from implanting in its mother’s womb.  Without implantation, that tiny human being cannot draw nourishment and will die. (Occasionally, Plan B fails and the pregnancy continues.)

In most cases, however, Plan B ‘succeeds.’

But ‘success’ is not pretty. Our Shippensburg student will have a one-in-three chance of heavy bleeding. And 13% of women who take Plan B One Step end up curled up in bed with nausea, abdominal pain, and fatigue. Worse, nearly one in ten women who use emergency contraception (compared to 2% of pregnancies in the general population) develop severe abdominal pain and require emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.

But no worries, this is a private decision between a woman and her vending machine.

(Maybe the Supreme Court should update that hallowed language about abortion being a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor, eh?)

Back in Shippensburg, it’s been a bad few days for the University’s PR team–one negative link on Drudge would keep anybody hopping—and they’re feeling a bit defensive. “We’re not the first” to make Plan B available on a college campus, they say.

But from a vending machine?

Has our culture so trivialized sex and baby-making that the ‘solution’ to an unintended pregnancy comes out of a vending machine? And the grown-ups in the room don’t even blink?

Shippensburg’s decision seems destined to create a campus norm of casual sex. But in its February 7th statement, the University asserted that it’s “not encouraging anyone to be sexually active. That is a decision each student makes on his or her own.”

But why offer students abortion-inducing drugs, right on campus? (Ironically, the University vending machines don’t carry condoms, the typical must-have accessory for promiscuous sex).

In a phone interview February 7th, Dr. Peter M. Gigliotti, Executive Director for University Communications & Marketing, said the university installed the vending machine “several years” ago after a student survey showed that 85% of students favored on-campus access to emergency contraception. He defended the decision, expressed surprise at the media coverage, and insisted that no one under the age of 17 has access to the vending machine. (By law, Plan B cannot be dispensed to anyone under 17 without a prescription.)

In Shippensburg’s public statement, Dr. Robert Serr, Vice-President for Student Affairs, also downplayed the disclosure and framed the issue as support for reproductive choice: “Reproductive services are a personal decision to be made by every man and woman. As such, the university is providing students with a medication that they can obtain legally elsewhere as part of their ability to make their own choices.”

Put differently, Shippensburg wonders, “What’s the big deal?”

That attitude is precisely the problem.

“Emergency contraception” dispensed from a vending machine is the perfect icon of our culture’s impersonal–and utilitarian–view of sex and reproduction.

The icon’s meaning:

  • Sex is no big deal. It’s entertainment. Condom malfunction? Fix the problem in less time than it takes to rent a Redbox movie.
  • Making—or destroying–a baby is no big deal either. Using ‘emergency contraception’ has the moral significance of taking a cough drop. (One button on the vending machine gets you Plan B, another gets you lemon-flavored cough drops.)
  • Convenience rules. Why bother with nine months of pregnancy—and 21 years of child-rearing–when freedom is just a vending machine away?
  • Like casual sex, abortion (even disguised as “emergency contraception”) turns a union of two into a solo event. No strings. Just another individual experience that requires “appropriate decisions.”
  • Repeat business is a given—the abortion industry depends on it. No one visits a vending machine just once.

To the women of Shippensburg University: wake up! What could be more lonely than heading across a cold Pennsylvania campus “the morning after,” alone, to rendezvous with a vending machine? It’s an automated ‘problem-solver,’ stoically dispensing drugs that not only kill your baby but also numb your heart.  All so you can go back and do it again.

That’s not ‘choice.’ It’s exploitation. And people who really care about you won’t exploit you.

Please, reach out.  Because you deserve better.

 

 

Share

1 Comment

Filed under Abortion, Contraception, Fertility and Infertility, Health, Policy and Culture, Relationships, Sexuality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 5, 2011 · 3:02 pm

The Sad Dance of Chaz Bono

Picture this: a female-to-male transsexual proudly dances with a woman partner in front of millions of TV viewers, competing with straight couples for the applause, approval, and votes of viewers young and old.

The show’s producer lauds the transsexual’s “courage” and “remarkably strong character.”  The transsexual, who declares himself* a “straight man,” and his LBGT supporters launch a media blitz to silence critics of the show, branding them “haters” and “stupid bigots.” Why? Because they won’t support this “positive role model” whose appearance will help “save lives” of vulnerable, transgendered teenagers.

It’s reality.

And it’s airing on the ABC reality show Dancing with the Stars this fall. The show scored big publicity last week when it announced that Chaz Bono, the transgendered offspring of the famous Hollywood duo, Sonny and Cher, would join this season’s TV dance competition. The show also will feature an openly gay contestant, Carson Kressley.

Chaz, who began transitioning from female to male last year, looks male (thanks to hormones), dresses and calls himself male, and has undergone breast removal surgery.  While he would like to add male genitalia, he considers the reconstructive surgery too risky. Besides, he feels like a male already, even without the proper equipment.

What’s he doing on Dancing with the Stars (DWTS), a show which the producer maintains is a “family show?”

Chaz says “America really needs to see this…” because of the “completely inaccurate stereotypes and thoughts that people have” about transgendered folks.

His bottom line? (No pun intended.)

“I want people to know that transgender people are just like everyone else.”

And if parents or families oppose his performance, preferring not to expose their children to the transgendered lifestyle?

They’re “haters.”

Well then, either most parents in America are “haters” or Chaz Bono–and his Hollywood friends–have got it wrong.

America does not “need” to see transsexuals pretending that their sexuality is a normal as the married husband and wife next door.  And they definitely don’t want their children to see it either.

A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics found that only 20% of American parents believe that it’s appropriate for children younger than 13 to be exposed to dialogue about alternative lifestyles. (Even higher percentages of parents would shield their children from images of alternative lifestyles.) The research found that, among both church-going and non-church-going parents, 32% believe the minimum age for exposure to dialogue about alternative lifestyles is 13-16 and an additional 29% of parents would wait even longer–until at least age 17. Further, 19% of parents believe such content is inappropriate for all ages. [Full disclosure: I coauthored the Pediatrics article with Iowa State University media research expert, Doug Gentile, Ph.D., and others.]

Parents: don’t be intimidated. You are not alone. It’s not “hateful” to affirm traditional male-female sexuality as natural and preferable to homosexuality, bi-sexuality, transsexuality, and the rest of the sexual smorgasbord. And it’s a good–not hateful–instinct to want to protect your child’s innocence.

This stunt—shining the spotlight on Chaz Bono as the first transgendered dance contestant (so we can pretend his new self is “just like everybody else”)–is the latest round in the same old game: Hollywood liberals arrogantly shove sexually dysfunctional people at viewers, insist that the public accept and approve of all “sexual minorities,” and then slap the label “hater” on anyone who objects.

Maybe to Hollywood producers, sexually confused and sexually deviant people really are “just like” the rest of…Hollywood. According to actor Corey Feldman, it’s an open secret that Hollywood’s number one problem is pedophilia. And Hollywood seems fascinated by sexual disorder masquerading as normalcy. Small wonder that DWTS producer finds Chaz Bono’s story “compelling” and “profound.” The LGBT community responded with verbal love strokes, hailing Hollywood’s decision as “a tremendous step forward for the American public to recognize that transgender people are another wonderful part of the fabric of our culture.”

Right.  Only if “culture” means the LGBT culture, with all its “wonderful” features like dungeons and fetish shows (popular exhibits in the “Erotic City” area of the L.A. Pride event. Maybe they’re saving that for next season’s “family show”).

It makes you wonder: do Hollywood types even know any regular parents? Or do they just ignore them?

Yes, transgendered people are equal in dignity to every other person. And Chaz Bono, female, male, or somewhere in the mutilated middle, should be treated with kindness and compassion. But let’s face it—anyone who feels compelled to mutilate his or her sex organs, with chemicals or surgery, because he or she feels like the opposite sex, has got some serious problems.

Chaz Bono’s story is heartbreaking. But heartbreak doesn’t make a role model. Nor does it make transgender-ism a condition to be celebrated.

Dancing with the Stars won’t showcase the backstory behind Chaz Bono because it tells of the misery that results when a child is left to raise herself. And the confusion that results when reality is defined by feelings, unmoored from objective reality, moral truth, or even the truth of one’s own body.

One particularly telling sentence in his memoir suggests the destructive inversion at the roots of Chaz’ tangled history: “As any child of famous parents will tell you, parents come first.” (p. 11).

And so they did for poor Chaz.

Sonny and Cher divorced when Chaz was four. She was a cute little girl named “Chastity” back then. Her nanny, Linda, became the “one person who gave me…warmth, safety, and attention.” (p. 10) As a child, Chastity traveled with Cher, who let her hang out with the show’s drag queens in between and after performances. (Good parenting, eh?)

After the divorce, Sonny began calling Chastity “Fred,” and encouraged her to hang out with him like “father-and-son.” (p. 16). By age 13, Chastity identified as a lesbian. And at fourteen, she was coached by an older lesbian—her mother’s friend–on “how to make love to a woman.” (p. 47). Shaped by instability—temporary homes, disruptive school changes, and her mother’s revolving cast of lovers—Chastity became a dysfunctional adult. She suffered through bad relationships, drug addiction, depression, unemployment, and personal confusion. Therapy from lesbian and transgendered therapists—surprise, surprise–compounded her confusion. Last year she embraced a transgendered identity and became “Chaz.”

So this fall, Chaz will dance his sad dance in celebration of who he has become.

And when the approval, votes, and applause prove to be but a temporary balm on his tortured soul… then what?

For Chaz’ sake, I hope someone in Hollywood introduces him not to the next, ‘best’ surgeon or therapist, but to the only Someone who can offer true healing and peace.

————————

  • Note: I follow the journalistic convention of using the pronoun that corresponds, at each stage, to Chaz Bono’s self-identified gender identity.

© 2011  Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

3 Comments

Filed under Children, Family, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Sexuality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

May 11, 2011 · 12:10 pm

Sudden Death. Life Perfectly Timed.

Mary Hamann

Sudden death.

The loss of a beloved friend, without warning, rips a gaping hole in the memory-rich fabric of life.

Mary Murphy Hamann, my college roommate, longtime friend, and one of the most cheerful people I’ve ever met, died on Good Friday in a remote village in Paraguay.

Her plan? To attend her daughter’s wedding there and meet the Paraguayan in-laws. But God planned otherwise.  Mary hemorrhaged unexpectedly from a hidden, life-threatening tumor, just one day before her daughter’s wedding.

Nothing could have saved her. Even if she’d been stateside, the end result would have been the same.  Her close-knit family–husband, four adult children, seven surviving siblings, in-laws, and dozens of nieces and nephews–reeled from the blow, in shock and grief.

But the days that followed found them steadied by the mercy of God’s grace and the hope born of faith.

It was her time.

I remember once, thirty years earlier, when Mary told me, “It’s time.”

Only then it was “time” to marry her high school sweetheart, Mike—a decision that seemed as ill-timed (to others) as her death now thirty years later.

Just 19 when Mike slipped the engagement ring on her finger, Mary married at 20. No shotguns involved, just a young couple in love and ready to team up for life. “He’s the one,” Mary told me, “It’s time.”

So she married and left school, taking a job that would support them both while Mike spent his last two years at Notre Dame.

The young feminists in our dorm sizzled with outrage. Clearly appalled, one driven engineer-to-be expressed her indignation—on Mary’s behalf–to me. “She’s got a 3.9! Why is she leaving school?  Why doesn’t he leave school so she can finish?”

Mary’s decision made no sense to the career-oriented, high-achievers of the 80’s. Forget the balancing act. Marriage and motherhood were obstacles to career success.

Some imagined a he-versus-she wrestling match over dominance and ambition, with Mary finally yielding.  Others carped that Mary’s conservative beliefs and traditional Catholicism must be at fault. “What a waste.” They lamented their friend’s all-but-certain future: talents undeveloped and opportunities lost, all sacrificed at the altar of marriage and motherhood.

Poor Mary.

“Poor Mary” never looked back.  Her sureness emerged from a prayerful heart intent on one question: ”What is the Lord’s will for me?”

The answer didn’t come instantly. She prayed for months, her rosary often slipping from her sleeping hand, down from her top bunk onto mine below. The Lourdes Grotto at Notre Dame held dozens of candle stubs lit by a young woman in search of God’s will. And her commitment to daily Mass—at noon or 5 pm—often meant the ultimate sacrifice for a college student: settling for the dregs of cafeteria food. Limp lettuce and rubbery burgers, at best. (One long-winded homily and she’d miss the meal entirely!)

God must have been tickled to see a young heart madly in love, but so willing to ask what He wanted. And Mary delighted in His answer—yes, marry Mike.

It was time.

More importantly, her question, “What’s your will for me, Lord?” wasn’t a one-timer.  It was the recurring theme of her life. (Mike’s life too, for that matter.)

And indeed, it’s interesting how life turned out.

Mary’s first job gave way to full-time motherhood, with one girl and three boys in quick succession. Unfazed by muddy feet and shoes gone AWOL, Mary’s contagious laughter bubbled over in daily life. As her peers got big jobs and even bigger signing bonuses, Mary changed diapers, hugged toddlers, and shrugged off thoughts of what-might-have-been.

Then, supplementing Mike’s teaching job, she resumed part-time work, often from home, with stints in copywriting, advertising, and political campaigns. In short order, resourcefulness paired with economic necessity and gave birth to a successful family business in marketing and communications.

Funny how God works.  As Mary followed the thread of God’s will, woven among family needs and life’s opportunities, her creative talents flourished, her professional skills sharpened, and her entrepreneurial spirit grew. She picked up the classes she needed, then came full circle, landing back at Notre Dame in a job she loved—Director of Communications in the Mendoza College of Business. For ten years, as her children moved into adulthood, she edited an award-winning magazine and played a central role in her husband’s successful entre into politics.

Even by feminist standards, it was a quality resume for a mom of four.

But her accomplishments aren’t the real story.

When Mary died, God didn’t read her obituary.  He read her heart.

That’s the story too easily missed. Her heart had grown more in love with Him over the years, not by adding up achievements but by asking that question, “What’s your will for me, Lord?”

It’s a question that I, for one, ought to ask more often.

Because that simple question—“What’s your will for me, Lord?”—purifies the heart. And our sincere (though surely imperfect) response to that question, over and over, defines a life well lived.

In hindsight, Mary’s life was not only well lived, but perfectly timed.

And so was her death. It was her time, because it was God’s time.  It’s the only way Mary would have wanted it.

© 2011  Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

16 Comments

Filed under Catholicism, Faith and Virtue, Family, Lessons Learned, Marriage, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Prayer and Spirituality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2011 · 8:50 pm

The Facebook Generation: Narcissism, Sexting, and the Decline of Empathy

Two recent stories suggest that a disturbing practice has found acceptance among teens and young adults: broadcasting the sexual misbehavior of their peers, especially girls, on a massive scale within hours. Photos preferred.

Is it just gossip, gone digital? “Mean Girls,” with a sexual twist?

I don’t think so.

Some commentators too easily dump these incidents into the overflowing bucket of cyber-bullying or dismiss them as teen-age drama, writ large. But these episodes deserve a second look.

A few months back, a Washington state eighth-grader named Margarite “sexted” a nude, frontal photo of herself to her new sort-of-boyfriend. Within weeks, their fledgling relationship died.

The photo lived on.

The boy sent it to another girl who captioned the photo, “Ho Alert!” and added instructions: “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” The photo instantly ricocheted, via text, from one social circle to another. Within hours, students from four different schools had ogled the sexter’s naked body and passed the photo on. The eighth grade girl was devastated.

The second situation occurred in the upscale suburbs of New York City. Someone created rankings of 100 allegedly sexually adventurous girls and boys from the surrounding school districts and circulated the lists using Blackberry Messenger.

One teenager (who claims he was not the original creator of the lists) quickly created a Facebook page called the “Westchester SMUT List” (“SMUT” meant “slut,” thinly disguised to evade Facebook restrictions), and posted only the girls’ rankings (including full names and descriptions of sexual activity).

Within hours, thousands of people saw the list. Over 7,000 of them “liked” the Facebook page that trashed the girls’ reputations.  And with one click, each of those viewers magnified the damage, publicizing the page instantly to his or her Facebook friends.

The sexual behavior of the 8th-grader and of the SMUT 100 (to the extent the reports are true) reads like an MTV script. And that’s certainly a huge problem.

But let’s switch focus, for a minute, from the girls to their enthusiastic “audience” of thousands. Their behavior may well reflect the bigger problem.

Consider the smut list. What does it mean when thousands of young people swarm, within hours, to the site of their peers’ humiliation? (Imagine piranhas in a feeding frenzy.)

And what drove seven thousand of them to click the “like” icon on the smut list?

Meanness, maybe. But narcissism is a likely suspect, too.

The Facebook generation shows an overwhelming desire for self-promotion, to weigh in, to be in the know. Want to be important? Dispense scandalous information.

The teens who “liked” the list not only didn’t care that others knew they’d seen the list and passed it on, they wanted others to know that they’d done so. Being among “the first to know” matters too. It’s a sure way to build social capital—be the source that sends others to the newest, most outrageous virtual place.

No shame, no hesitation, no reticence. In their narcissistic stampede towards Facebook fame and “firsts,” thousands trampled on the dignity and reputations of very real people. And they didn’t even care.

Why? Because, in a given moment, narcissism blots out both moral sense (do their consciences even register slander? detraction? cruelty?) and a sense of empathy. (Many ethicists believe that empathy is at the heart of morality.)

An empathic person in this case would grasp the pain, shame, and humiliation experienced by the girls on the list—and would never add to their misery by passing the information on, especially because it might be false. A narcissistic person would seize any opportunity, including the humiliation of others, to vault back into the center of attention.

Narcissism gave a good showing at the Westchester Smut List.

There’s a second factor at work here as well.

In today’s culture, sex is entertainment.  It doesn’t need to be either personal or intimate—a lesson the Facebook generation has learned well.

It’s not surprising, then, that these young people easily accept the idea that women are sexual objects. Depersonalized sex is everywhere, in ads, music videos, TV, movies, teen websites, and, of course, pornography. Immersed in it, they can’t help but be shaped by it as well.

Take, for example, the teens recently interviewed by The New York Times on the topic of sexting. For this sex-saturated generation, sexy photos become a strikingly impersonal part of the mating dance.

One girl puts it this way: “We see virtual images all day long, so if someone sends you a [naked] image, it loses the identity of the person. It’s just a picture.” A teen-age boy in the group added helpfully, “And usually the face is not in it.“

It’s the very definition of depersonalized sex: the most “personal” aspect, a face, is out of sight. But the naked body still titillates and makes the rounds, by cell phone and text.

And even when the photo does include the person’s face—as it did in Margarite’s case—her peers had already lost sight of the real person who would be mortified, shamed, and crushed with regret as they passed her picture along. She was just a body, grabbed, groped, and used as an object for pleasure (or humiliation) in the virtual space. Her reputation became a plaything as well.

Similarly, a teenage girl on a smut list is but a name—no one cares about her.  They care only to know what she’s willing to do with her body–or at least what others say she’s willing to do.

What’s missing is any sense that these girls are persons, not sexual objects. And what’s lost, among other things, is the privacy and space that would allow these adolescents to mature, repent, change course and begin anew. Instead, they’ve been humiliated on a grand scale, and will be haunted by the exposure for years.

On the plus side, at least the girls know they’ve gotten off track and need to change.

But their peers—the thousands steeped in depersonalized sex and searching for the next narcissistic shot at popularity—they have no idea how far off track they are.

And the real question for our culture is, “What are we going to do about that?”

© 2011 Mary Rice Hasson

Share

2 Comments

Filed under Children, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Relationships, Sexuality, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 1, 2011 · 4:11 pm

Girl Wrestlers: Boundaries, Faith, and False Equality

In high school, I ran cross-country—the only girl on the boys’ cross-country team. Running made me happy and I was good it.

But with no girls’ team at my high school, I churned up the hills with the boys’ team. The miles I’d run with my dad and brothers over the years made competing with the boys’ team as natural as running itself.  (And beating even a few male runners on the racecourse was, I admit, satisfying.)

So I get it.

I understand Cassy Herkelman’s athleticism and her desire to compete against the best athletes around.  I really do get that.

Cassy Herkelman, by the way, is a 112-pound high school girl, a freshman at Cedar Falls High School in Iowa. The problem, however, is that Cassy competes with high school boys in a sport where success depends on breaching all the natural boundaries of male-female physical contact.

She’s a wrestler.

And what I don’t get is her parents’ decision to let her aim her athleticism and competitive drive at the wrestling mat. I don’t get that at all.

Cassy and another girl wrestler, Megan Black, earned spots in this year’s Iowa State Wrestling Tournament for the first time. But Cassy’s first round match proved to be a test of faith and conviction rather than skill…for her opponent, at least.

Her scheduled opponent, Joel Northrup, was a promising young wrestler who finished third in last year’s tournament. But Joel withdrew from the match, handing Cassy a victory by forfeit.

Why did Joel refuse to wrestle Cassy and, with that refusal, end his title hopes?

Because his faith taught him better than to grapple violently with a girl, grabbing at her body parts for handholds, mentally focused on subduing her. He knew that the sports context didn’t make the contact less problematic. Joel’s strong character propelled him to do the right thing—forfeiting–even though it cost him a shot at the championship he’s worked towards all season long.

To his credit, Joel speaks well of Cassy and acknowledges her athletic talent.  But he goes on to say, “wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times….As a matter of conscience and faith, I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in [this] situation…”

Joel’s right.  It should never have come to this.

Even if dunder-headed school administrators lacked the common sense to keep girls from wrestling boys, the girls’ parents should never have allowed it. For the girls’ sakes as well as the boys.’

While wrestling moves aren’t overtly sexual and must conform to set rules, wrestling is a contact sport–an aggressive, body-on-body contest. Unlike the jarring, two-second contact of tackle football, wrestling entails sustained grappling, grabbing, squeezing, pressing, and even gouging. As the match progresses, opponents might end up lying on top of each other, wrapping their arms and legs around the other’s torso, or grabbing through the opponent’s legs to flip or pin the other.

“She can take it.”  I can hear the argument now.  But this isn’t a question about whether a girl is tough enough to physically endure those demands on her body.  Certainly an athletic girl can condition her body as well as a boy, and learn the techniques to deftly escape or take down an opponent.

Yes, girls can be fit, well-conditioned, competitive athletes. But that misses the point.

Throwing girls and boys on the wrestling mat together involves more than relative strength or skill level. Girls’ bodies are, well, girls’ bodies, different from boys.’ And that physical difference extends to the way they think and feel, as well as their natural inhibitions and inclinations. Our norms about appropriate physical contact are a way of respecting those differences.

Consider this: fifteen-year-old girl wrestlers, like Cassy, must allow a succession of fifteen-year-old boys (friends? strangers?) to handle their bodies roughly, intimately, aggressively on an open mat in front of a crowd, in an atmosphere of adversarial domination.  And, in order to win, they must respond in kind.

Do we really want a girl to shrug off this kind of contact? To overcome her innate emotional resistance to having her body handled roughly by random males? To accept an adrenaline-driven male grabbing her face, reaching through her legs and flipping her, pinning her? Or for her to grab a teenage boy the same way?

Do we really want our boys to put their physical aggression in high gear against a girl, “fighting” her, while they simultaneously experience her touches and grabs in sensitive areas?

For a boy and girl to wrestle each other requires each to make internal compromises–mental shifts to overcome the ingrained, rightful boundaries we have about how males and females should interact physically.

I believe it’s a good instinct for a girl to recoil from a stranger’s rough touch, especially in intimate areas, just it’s a good mindset for a boy to pull back from causing a girl physical pain or overpowering her in pursuit of physical dominance.

So what on earth are parents thinking, when they allow their son or daughter to wrestle an opposite-sex opponent? I just don’t get it.

Cassy Henkelman lost her subsequent matches and has been eliminated from the tournament.

She failed to win a medal.

But does she even know what she lost in the attempt?

(c) 2011 Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

3 Comments

Filed under Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Kids and Sports, Lessons Learned, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 6, 2011 · 3:47 am

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Abortion, and the Ravenous Nature of Evil

“Snip.”

That’s what I do to loose threads.  Or to a strand of hair that gets in my way.

It’s also what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies, according to news reports.

Snip, dead.

I don’t know about you, but “snip” seems to me like a pretty mild word to describe actions that warrant murder charges…and that doesn’t sit well with me.

But euphemisms aren’t the only thing that troubles me about the spin on this case–and it’s a horrible case, for sure. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist for over 30 years, was charged in January 2011 with eight counts of first degree murder: one count for the reckless death of an immigrant woman, 19 weeks pregnant, who was unmonitored and over-sedated during an abortion; and seven counts for the brutal killings of second trimester babies who were born alive during abortions. The grand jury report also details Gosnell’s routinely callous and dangerous treatment of his clients; it found evidence too that hundreds of babies older than the 24 week statutory limit were born alive, only to be killed by Gosnell and his employees.

In the weeks since Gosnell’s arraignment, pro-choice voices have argued around the case, grasping for a narrative that fits their worldview. Some pro-choice blogs paint Gosnell as a greedy, solo opportunist, a criminal “outlier” running a substandard clinic. Making wads of money by “chopping up poor women” who sought late-term abortions, Gosnell deserved prosecution, they say, but solely because he harmed women, “not the fact that he did abortions.”

One bad guy. One bad clinic.  That’s all.

But the “lone ranger” narrative is a hard sell to a public recoiling from the horror of murderous late-term abortions.

So one pro-choice columnist, William Saletan (Slate.com), has challenged pro-choice advocates with this question: “Is it OK to abort a viable fetus?”

Their answers reveal an extremism the abortion lobby has long sought to hide.

Four out of six pro-choice leaders answered with an unqualified “yes.” Viability doesn’t matter. Only unrestricted legal abortion would prevent women from feeling desperate–and desperation created Gosnell’s market niche. Their mantra: “trust women” to make the right decision. The ultimate moral value: autonomy.

One abortion provider, Ann Furedi, the head of Britain’s leading abortion service, admits up front that the baby is human from the moment of conception. She argues cogently that arbitrary age or viability restrictions make no sense.

“[A]re we really so shallow, so fickle, as to let our view on moral worth be determined by appearance? …Even if at five weeks we can only see an embryonic pole, we know that it is human. The heart that can be seen beating on an ultrasound scan at six weeks is as much a human heart as the one that beats five months later….from the time of conception, as soon as embryonic cells begin to divide, an entity with the potential to become a person is created…unless its development is interrupted or fails, it will be born as a child….is there anything qualitatively different about a fetus at, say, 28 weeks that gives it a morally different status to a fetus at 18 weeks or even eight weeks?”

It’s a startling admission—but ice-cold in its conclusion: though human, the baby is not a “person” and not entitled to any protections. In Furedi’s absolutist view, any solution a woman chooses—even death for a near-full-term baby—is a “moral” solution.

For now, pro-choice have rallied around the cause of ‘easy access’ to early abortion and emergency contraception as the way to avoid more cases in the Gosnell mold of late-term brutality.

It’s an untenable solution, given the humanity of the unborn child.

But it’s also a solution doomed to fail on its own terms: evil, given a foothold, only advances, never retreats.

And perhaps that’s one good that might emerge from Gosnell’s killings: a renewed sense, in our own hearts and souls, of the ravenous power of evil.

If we dismiss Gosnell as an aberration, one bad apple in a barrel of good abortionists, how do we explain the cascade of ordinary people tumbling out of this story who looked away when they saw his atrocities? Who stood next to him, helping, as he “snipped” babies’ spines? Or worse, followed his lead and committed the same despicable acts themselves?

But if we understand the mayhem in Kermit Gosnell’s clinic as a case study in the power of evil unleashed, we can make sense out of his own moral degeneration—the progressive cruelty towards women seeking abortions, the abortions on bigger, older babies, and the uninhibited killing of live-born infants as “standard procedure.”

In Philadelphia, evil arrived when Gosnell’s abortion clinic first opened for business, years before the second trimester killings began. As each baby arrived, nestled in its mother’s womb, and left—dead—bagged as medical waste, Gosnell’s heart hardened. Under legal cover, his conscience died a slow death too.  In fact, at his arraignment, he professed bewilderment that he was being charged in the babies’ deaths.

It’s not surprising, in one sense. A heart that embraces killing innocent human beings up to 24 weeks won’t flinch at killing at 25 weeks. And the flimsy legislative partition of viability has little hope of containing the evil unloosed by the doctor’s lethal, but legal, first trimester work.

Like poison gas, evil seeps under arbitrary barriers, gradually sickening those who remain in its presence, numbing their hearts and sedating their consciences. It corrupts the souls of those who tarry long in its presence—even ordinary people who perhaps mean well initially.

And that’s exactly what happened in this case. Gosnell’s employees watched, accepted, and embraced the evil–a marriage finally consummated as scissors pierced soft newborn skin. The grand jury report noted that, “Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings’…all the employees of the Women’s Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all.”

And what about us? We read numbers (24, 28 weeks), scientific terms (viable fetus), and euphemisms for killing (“snipping”).  We get used to them. They lessen our urgency and blunt our response to evil.  A few days pass, the story fades, and unemployment and tight budgets move to the fore.

I’m not one who favors gruesome pictures of aborted babies as a tool for public debate or evangelism—their indiscriminate use often causes more harm than good and lacks compassion towards women who’ve had abortions. But those of us who pray, work, and sacrifice for the sake of the unborn and their mothers sometimes need a visual reminder of what’s at stake.

Consider taking a look at the grand jury report in Dr. Gosnell’s case, downloadable here. It’s over 200 pages—but words can’t express what happened there.  Spend two minutes with the photos, however, and you’ll forget numbers and remember faces. And you’ll know why we’re fighting this battle.

And “snipping” will forever have a whole new meaning.

© 2011 Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

2 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Children, Contraception, Fertility and Infertility, Policy and Culture, Women

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,