The Mission and the Mistake

The Elizabeth Foss post discussion has mutated. I talked with Angel and The Emperor about it and we decided our fascination wasn't about our house (or your house) being clean or not. It's really about our understanding of what God is telling us and our specific missions as families and individuals. [Edit: the rest of this post is not actually about Elizabeth Foss! Her post just provided the jumping off point for the discussion. See the comments for more information.]

I think that when God gives us a clear understanding of what He wants us to do, we have a strong inclination to think it is what He wants everyone to do. God often tells us what He wants us to specifically do. God very rarely tells us what He wants everyone else to specifically do.

I'm not talking about general things like "Love each other" or "Thou shalt not kill." He's covered those things already in a nifty little book! Please don't interpret this as a diatribe against all external standards!

I'm talking about, as an example, knowing that God is a God of order, discovering how He wants you to reflect that order in your life (all good so far!), and then applying your discovery of God's plan for you to those around you. It's a bit like this logic: The Church is infallible. I am part of the Church. Therefore, I am infallible. :) That's great (except it's a terrible mistake).

Honestly, I think this error is the basis of the Mommy Wars. God has told me in no uncertain terms to stay home/go to work/home school/public school/whatever, therefore for anyone to do otherwise is wrong. But the gift (of knowing your mission) was to implement it in your own life and possibly to help others with a similar call.

I say possibly because, even if someone has a very similar call to yours, if you impose your call over theirs you are robbing them both of the joy of discovering that call and their natural unique growth in response to that call. But I think we fall into the trap of wanting the reinforcement of everyone doing it our way.

Angel also raised the point that, to avoid the mistake, the focus needs to be on God. Let's say that I have the insight that God is infinitely loving, nurturing, and creative and that my home school needs to reflect that. It is far better for me to write a post examining these attributes in God and then use examples of how I try to integrate that knowledge into my home school than for me to tell you that mine is The Godly Way to Home school. This gives you the gift of the insight and some practical ideas but let's you determine what (if anything) God would like you to do about it.

Baby Punishment

No, I am not punishing Oob! I am thinking of Barak Obama's comment that if either of his daughters ever "made a mistake," he would not want them "punished with a baby... or an STD."

Part of the sting of his words, I'm sure, is that I know 3 couples who are struggling with infertility, one of whom was just victimized by an adoption scam. Part of it is my own mother's struggle with more than a dozen miscarriages. Part of it is the sight of my own little fluffy crowned crane "punishment" crawling around.

Mostly it's the worldview contained in that statement. Laying aside the equating of pregnancy with an STD, laying aside the thought of planning the demise of your grandchildren while your own children are in grade school, I am most disturbed by the cultural idea that a baby, except under the most controlled conditions, is a terrible thing: an unrecoverable disaster, the ruination of your life, a terrible punishment for an innocent mistake. As if the conditions under which you became pregnant were random and unavoidable, like taking the wrong turn in a DC traffic circle.

When people ask me the standard questions: are they all yours, do you want any more, etc., I think they are asking essentially two questions: Did you have this many kids on purpose? Are you glad you did?

Senator Obama's comments crystallized my answer. This is how I feel about having 6 kids: I don't deserve it. The culture tells me, why yes, a college educated woman does not deserve the burden of a large family. It's a punishment for taking my religious views too seriously and refusing the enlightenment. Quite rich irony there, if they could see it. I don't deserve even one of my precious children, let alone six!

With each child I have seen more clearly exactly what it is that we are doing when, with the help of God, we create a baby. I see more and more the astounding miracle that each new person is, and the love and perfection of their being. Not just my children, every child. Not just children, every person no matter how they were created, loved into existence by God, each one a creature of unspeakable beauty. How could I ever deserve the privilege of helping to create a person?

But that's the thing about love, isn't it? You can never deserve love, you can accept love with humility and awe, and you can love with all your soul in return. My sadness for Senator Obama lies in this: if he can see a baby as a punishment, he has never really seen his own children.

A Short Tirade

HT to Danielle Bean for bringing this article to my attention. It's a long tirade against Angelina Jolie and other stars (and presumably ordinary women) who have large families. It's all a compulsion it turns out. They/we "collect babies" because they/we are really depressed. Oh yeah, and anecdotal evidence (do I have a statistician in the audience?) suggests "that children from large families don't fare as well..." To be fair they do have some opposing comments.

It's 4 pages long, but what got my goat was the phrase "collecting babies." The biggest problem with the world view presented by the article is a lack of understanding about what babies are.

Newsflash! Babies aren't items we can collect or own or even deserve. Babies are... small... young... people. People do not exist to satisfy our needs and wants. They exist to be loved.

Age Before Beauty

I don't know if you heard about this fashion search for models over 40. The lovely 25 year old at left was the winner. She's actually 43.

I have issues with this. To be fair, I have issues with the whole beauty industry, in part because it presents only one vision of beauty: a 25 year old, heavily made up woman, provocatively dressed, who has nothing to do with kids.

Ok, here we have a 43 year old, heavily made up woman, provocatively dressed, who actually has 3 kids, but looks like she doesn't. And she looks 25. So she's "beautiful."

I don't know anything about this woman, she may well be a beautiful person. I hope so.

I am irritated by the view of womanhood which equates beauty with sexual attractiveness and translates that to the worth of the person. It's a lie, an ingenious lie intended to turn you into a fountain of money in the pursuit of the fountain of youth. If you can't be worth anything unless you look 25, well, you can't look 25 for very long without help... Ka-ching!

I have often thought that the TV is the most expensive appliance you could ever own because, if you watch it, it will tell you over and over that you are unhappy with your life and unhappy with yourself. That's what it's designed to do. And, of course, it offers you salvation in the form of the stuff that will make you happy if only you buy the right: food, clothing, age defying wrinkle cream, or whatever. What, you thought it was for entertainment?

This model thing is the TV problem without even pretending to be entertainment!

The Truth requires a shift in perspective. Happiness comes from who and what you are in God's eyes. An extension of this, if you are married, is how you look in the eyes of your spouse (this is about more than externals, obviously). If we are being honest, how does it help a married woman to be sexually attractive to random men?

The big lie here is that if you only stay looking 25 (and how many women look like that at 25?), you will be happy. Really? Aside from the time and money, would you be happy? If you fit a particular standard of beauty, does it follow that you will be happy? How happy were you at 25?

25. That was before I had kids. I was happy then, but I am far happier now. I've grown in so many ways since I was 25. I've lived another 12 years and it shows. Late nights show. Six pregnancies show! Hours and hours of laughter show. I'm 37 and I probably look a little older.

The real irony for the beauty industry is this: I look into my husband's eyes and I see myself reflected and there I am very, very beautiful.

Adultification 2

There were some good comments on the first post:

I agree; many "safe" kid areas have become more "adult" of late, leaving fewer and fewer "safe havens" for kids' entertainment. I also agree that this comes from adults who haven't matured yet, partially due to the delay in/destruction of marriage, availability/encouragement of contraception, etc. (The Grand Emporer)

Well, it only makes sense since the kids can't vote and don't have any money so why not pretend they don't exist? (La Bibliotecaria Laura )

It's interesting, isn't it? I've heard people claim our culture is child centered because many parents give their children so much and enroll them in so many activities.

Which brings up another point: there also seems to me a variety of adultification wherein children's things are being done for adult reasons. I had a mom suggest my kids take up lacrosse because there were fewer kids competing for lacrosse scholarships in top colleges. My oldest was 8.

Another example would be over scheduling kids because the parents either are trying to live vicariously or make sure their kids don't "fall behind" in the perfection game. I'm not saying every soccer mom is doing this for vicarious thrills! I'm saying that kids should not be seen as extensions (or possessions) of their parents and that success isn't always defined by the ivy league.

Adultification

That's what I call it when adults take over something meant for kids and suit themselves by making it unsuitable for kids. The Transformer movie is a prime example. Heres what I think happened.

I think the adults liked Transformers when they were kids. Now, when they get to make a movie about it, they make the movie they would like to see: lots of violence, pretty scary, throw in a heavy dose of sarcasm and tight low cut clothing (on the girls, not the giant robots).

Another example would be video games. A cursory look at X Box magazine (in a barber shop) shows that they are not just selling games (heavy sexual content in the ads), and the games they are selling often contain "adult" (read impure and hyperviolent) content.

How about comic books? Not just for kids anymore? Try NOT for kids anymore! Immoral "heroes" reflect the desires of adults, not kids.

Heres my theory: Video games, comic books and other amusements are supposed to be primarily for kids. Not that an adult shouldn't be amused from time to time, but an adult should not have time for extensive video game playing (we can talk later about how much time kids should have for idle non constructive amusement.) The point is that childhood has been extended and idealized as a time of license: do what you want with no responsibilities and no repercussions. Why grow up and be responsible? Why have kids to ruin your fun? They might break your toys!

I think kids are being crowded out of childhood by adults who don't want to grow up. What do you think?