The Woman's Problem

Every night, my two-and-a-half-year old has to sit on my lap and cuddle with me for a few minutes before she will retreat to bed. Curled up in my lap, careful that she is not squishing the baby (I am somewhere around 35 weeks pregnant), her head resting on my bosom, she always says to me, “You’re home, Mama.”

Of course, this is a rather silly observation for her to be making at that time.  I will have already been home for a few hours, playing with her, reading her books, helping her with jigsaw puzzles, taking her to the potty, et cetera, before we finally sit down together to calm down before bed.  When I first get home from work around 5:15 pm, Toddler always yells, “Mama home!” and runs to me for a hug and kiss and begins showing me the toys she is currently playing with, or telling me about what is going on in the movie she may be watching.  Yet every night without fail, sitting on my lap she will quietly say to me, “You’re home, Mama.”

A few months ago—quite a few months; it may have actually been late last year—I read an article by a (apparently) Feminist working mother who attempted to identify “The Woman’s Problem” and suggested that, even though women *can* have it all, we might be more satisfied in our lives if we did not *try* to have it all, while still *doing* it all.  It was a lengthy article, I do not recall much of it, and I am far too disinterested to try to track it down for a reread. However, I recall the article being rather cyclical; getting close to—what I believe—is the root of “The Woman’s Problem” while never truly addressing the underlying issues or offering real solutions for this woman-specific dilemma.

That being said, I probably will not be able to identify the underlying issues and offer solutions myself.  As a woman, an emotional creature, and a Millenial, I have only personal anecdotes and opinions; my own preference for how I wish I could live my life and, recognizing this as my own personal preference, do not wish to impose it on anyone else who may have a different preference.  (Which, of course, truly separates me from Feminists and Feminism, as the entire movement originated on the notion that only a small group of women [the Feminists] knew what was best for ALL women, and went right ahead telling all women that they were unhappy and unfulfilled being housewives and mothers, and that they would only be happy and fulfilled by replacing the husband and kids with a career and a couple of cats.)

Anyway, let me just get straight to it: The (My) Woman’s Problem is Our (My) Inability to be a Mother in Today’s Society.

I do not know how many times I will have to say this: Nobody ever asked me if this is what I wanted. 

Nobody ever asked me if what I wanted was to spend 16 years of my life with my butt planted to a school desk chair, and the remaining years of my life with my butt planted to an office desk chair, while somebody else raised my kid(s) for me.

Had anybody at any time in my life asked me if that sounded like something I wanted, I would have told them to fuck off; to leave the traditional gender roles alone; that women have a good thing going for them not being expected to bring home the bacon; that staying home with my kids sounds like the best thing I could possibly be doing; and that being a mother is the most important job a woman could have.

Yet, here I am.  A 24-year-old college graduate working full-time while my mother watches my Toddler every day.  Here I am, my butt planted to an office desk chair, typing away on my work laptop, missing out on all those tiny, precious, irreplaceable moments with my young daughter.  Here I am, a “Liberated” woman considered “equal” to my husband, with an education and a resume, who can vote and run for public office and obtain nearly any job that a man can, but I am no mother—despite having children.

It is a little ironic (don’t you think?) that the one job nature dictates a woman to hold; the one job that women alone can have; the one job that literally secured our place in the history of humanity—that has historically demanded a woman’s security and protection, as a less “disposable” person than a man—is the one job that “Liberated” women have rejected.

We want to climb the corporate/legal/medical ladder, legislate and initiate policy change, investigate crime scenes and fight on the frontlines of battle.  But we don’t want to nurture our own children.  Somebody else can do that, we say. Somebody else with no vested interest in the well-being of the child.  Somebody else who’s getting paid for it, rather than doing it out of love and consideration.  But that ladder and politics and police work and military service?  Yeah, we’re not as willing to simply leave that to someone else the way we are with raising our children.

I know how it goes.  It’s very difficult to comfortably support a family on one income.  It’s even more difficult to deny our children all the fancy, high-speed, new-fangled toys and gadgets that they may fleetingly desire.  Not only do we want “it all”: the perfectly manicured lawn in front of a beautiful house in suburbia with upgraded kitchen and baths, and maybe a pool in the back; we also want to give our children “it all.”  Except, (again) ironically, a mother.  So if we must work to have “it all,” we might as well go big and pursue la crème de la crème of careers.  And going home is not an option.

And so, if you are like me and married young and started popping out kids before building up your career, you are stuck being a young working mom to young children who do not understand why you are sometimes too tired to play with them when you get home from work.  Still, though, if you are not like me and have instead put off starting a family for your career, I pity you.  If you took this latter route, then you are stuck being an older working mom to young children who do not understand why they never see you.  If you have opted out of having children all together, congratulations.  You will die old and alone, never experiencing true love.

I suppose it probably gets easier being a working mom as your children get older, start school; but right now, it is the worst.  Especially because not too long ago, I was a stay-at-home mom.  I was lucky with Toddler.  I got to stay home with her for almost two years.  Not for this new baby, though.  I’ll get my six weeks of disability, maybe a few more on Paid Family Leave, then it is back to the grind.  I remember Toddler being 6-10 weeks old.  I cannot possibly imagine being able to leave her all day to go to work.  I suppose this is why I am so bitter: because I know that in a few months, I will be in the position to leave my 6-10 week old baby all day to go to work.

So therein lies The Woman’s Problem.  We are not mothers.  We have rejected our biological calling.  We have forsaken our children.  And what are we getting in return?  Equality? Liberation?  (You can see my other posts for how I feel about that.)  I am 100% positive that women would be happier, healthier if the Liberation that we obtained resembled this:

Let me just ask you one thing:

Will your career be there for you to hold your hand while you lie on your deathbed?

Letter to My Senators

You and I both know that you could not possibly care less about the opinions of your constituents unless they are waving their wallets at you.  I know this for a fact because I have been writing to you regularly for the past six years—since I was 18 years old—and have never received so much as a stock response from you.

I am an American citizen, a voter, a constituent.  I watch the actions of my senators and representative on Capitol Hill closely.  I expect them to not only hear but heed the voices of the people they are meant to serve.

I was pleased to hear that the House of Representatives has once again approved a repeal of ObamaCare by a 34 vote margin.  However, I know that a vote by the House to repeal ObamaCare means nothing without the support of the Senate.

Because those of you on Capitol Hill failed to diligently craft this bill, appropriately read it, and carefully weigh its pros and cons—its irreversible, perhaps detrimental, effects—on everything from finding a doctor to keeping a job, premiums and the economy, before unconstitutionally shoving this non-tax tax down the throats of Americans—we have now had three long years to learn of the new law and prospect of its effects on our country.

Small and large business owners alike have expressed a fear over hiring due to the uncertainty of being able to afford their employees’ health insurance.  Others have crumbled under the financial weight of taking on lawyers and accountants to help guide them through compliance of the new law.  Many more have remorsefully cut their employees’ hours in order to avoid having to provide healthcare and thereby go into the red.

Religiously-run and affiliated hospitals, schools, and charities have voiced deep concern over having to violate their most basic moral principles in order to comply with a controversial aspect of ObamaCare.  They have warned that they may have to halt the services they provide, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and many more needy citizens and immigrants denial of those services.  They have filed suit after suit against the Obama Administration for violating their First Amendment rights.  My alma mater dropped its insurance services for students and faculty all together, rather than disobey a fundamental tenet of their dogma.

Individuals—the same American citizens who have been hesitant about ObamaCare from the get-go, who begged and pleaded with their representatives and senators to slow down, to read the bill, to act with prudence—are statistically more opposed to the new healthcare law than ever before.  According to recent Rasmussen polls, 55% view ObamaCare unfavorably, 59% favor free market over government-run healthcare, 72% favor individual choice for healthcare, and 35% say ObamaCare has hurt them while only 19% say that ObamaCare has helped them.

I have already seen a rise in my health insurance premium and my healthcare provider cited ObamaCare as the reason for the rate increase.

Even more problematic is the estimated cost of ObamaCare: some two trillion dollars.  Chump change, in comparison to our current national debt, but a staggering cost in comparison to what we were promised.  Additionally, our already overly-complicated tax-code will become even more complicated, resulting in burdening taxpayers with new bureaucrats and IRS agents—you know, the same IRS currently wrought with scandal over the targeting, profiling, and discrimination of conservatives, Jews, and Latinos. 

And let us not forget that Congress has previously discussed exempting themselves from ObamaCare.

Senator, it is pretty simple: if ObamaCare is not good enough for you, then it is not good enough for the American people. 

Everyone agrees that healthcare needs to be reformed, but ObamaCare is not the answer.  It must be repealed. 

Sincerely,

SLB

Letter to the Local Paper (and Every Other Media Outlet)

To Whom It May Concern:

I find it utterly deplorable that when I typed in "Kermit Gosnell" into your newspaper's website search bar, I was told via automated web message, "Your search - Kermit Gosnell - did not match any documents."

Why Kermit Gosnell--who operated out of a filthy clinic that had not been inspected in 10 years; utilizing old, rusted, unsanitary medical equipment; having his unregistered, unlicensed, uneducated staff administer drugs to patients--often resulting in said patients delivering dead or alive babies in the waiting room (hence the blood stained carpet and furniture that populated the room); whose sadistic, unadulterated evil practice of "snipping" the spinal cords (essentially decapitating) of babies born alive in his "live-birth" abortions with scissors; who kept severed baby feet in jars throughout his clinic; whose negligent practices led to the drug overdose death of Karnamaya Monger--is not in your newspaper every day--if not on the front page!--is beyond me.

There are very few things that could possibly be put on par with the atrocities unraveling every day of the Gosnell murder trial. The only thing I can think of is turning a blind eye to those atrocities.

This trial goes far beyond the spats between the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds. The human rights abuses that were permitted to occur unchecked in a country where every other type of medical office and clinic, restaurants, bars, and tattoo parlors are heavily regulated and regularly inspected, is staggering. It goes without saying that any woman walking out of Gosnell's clinic was worse off than when she had walked in. Gosnell, Planned Parenthood, and others may argue for infanticide; but any other person with an ounce of moral fiber would recognize Gosnell's practice of decapitating live, viable babies that had been born alive as unnecessarily cruel and malignant.

And that you are not covering this trial--that you are not doing your duty to inform the general public of the savagery taking place in our backyard--is shameful.

(Sometimes) We are Called to be Co-Creators

My husband and I have been practicing NFP (Natural Family Planning) for two+ years now.  And I am no expert when it comes to NFP, to be perfectly honest.  I am a terrible charter.  As soon as I know with certainty that I entered Phase 3 (the infertile end of your cycle following ovulation and prior to the start of a new cycle with menstruation), I stop charting all together.  I don't bother to take my waking temperature every day.  I stop checking my cervix and paying attention to my other bodily signs of (in)fertility, and just start the charting back up once I've started a new cycle. 

Anyway, if you are unfamiliar with NFP, in a nutshell, it entails abstaining from sex while the woman is fertile (roughly 96 hours a month).  Since our daughter was born, Husband and I have primarily been practicing NFP to space (avoid) pregnancies.  Of course, one of the basic tenets of NFP is to be open to life, even while hoping to avoid a pregnancy.  And this is where many--including my Protestant Husband--get lost when it comes to NFP versus contraception.  They say, "But you can be open to life while using Birth Control.  You know Birth Control isn't 100%, so if you get pregnant while using it, you can still welcome that new life!"  Well, yes.  I suppose that is true.  But the other tenet of NFP is to be open to love.  And this entails giving oneself completely to one's beloved.  That means not holding any part of yourself--physically, mentally, emotionally--back; including your fertility.  To which the Proties and Pagans and Secularists and Nay-Sayers say, "But if you abstain from sex while you are fertile, then you are holding back your fertility and thus not giving yourself completely. HYPOCRITE!"  Well, maybe.  Like I said, I am no expert on NFP.  I got a B- (my lowest grade in my entire undergraduate career) in Christian Marriage at a fascist Catholic school.  I am not well versed in the Theology of the Body and the metaphysics of agape.  Yes, I suppose it can be said that in practicing NFP, my Husband and I are merely taking advantage of a natural loophole.  Or it could be said that when we engage in physical intimacy while I am not fertile, we are still giving ourselves completely, meaning there are no barriers between us; there is still a small chance that our act of love--though engaged during my infertile time--may result in a pregnancy.  And when I am fertile, we do not engage in physical intimacy.  We abstain.  Through charity, we find other, non-physical ways to express our love. 

However, last month, my Husband and I made the conscious decision to be intimate while I was fertile.  We wanted our physical expression of love to result in a physical manifestation of love.  We wanted to be Co-Creators with God.  We wanted to make a baby.

With both of us fully aware of my fertility and the high likelyhood of our act creating a life (he's Irish and I'm Latina; pretty good chances, no?), we made love.  And it was AH-MAZE-ING.  I never realized what a significant impact one's state of mind could have on a physical act.  Finally, I knew what Dr. Asci (my Christian Marriage professor) meant by the profundity of the marital act when perfectly engaged.  And my Husband and I were certain that we had just become pregnant.

But after two and a half weeks, I took a pregnancy test and it was negative.  I started my period two days later (more advanced NFP-ers wouldn't have needed to take a pregnancy test; they would have known from their bodily signs whether or not they were pregnant).

Which brings me to the main point of this post.  GOD has a role in bringing about life.  All of the physical attributes necessary to bring about life were there.  Everything was perfectly aligned.  I was fertile.  Husband is always fertile.  We're told time and time again that unless women are on birth control they will be doomed to have 58189237278346574 kids.  There were no barriers between us.  And we even willed it to be.  But God obviously did not.  God, in his omniciousness, did not deem it necessary or appropriate to bless my Husband and I with a child at this time.  This time around, my Husband and I were not called to be Co-Creators of life with God.

Maybe next time.

They Wanted to Drop "Pro-Choice" Anyway

Per Mary Elizabeth Williams' repulsively unabashed egocentric article, I will henceforth refer to abortion advocates as "Pro-Human Sacrifice."

Ms Williams concedes that the fetus is indeed a human life, albeit "a life worth sacrificing."

Worth sacrificing, for example, so Ms Williams can continue her "experimental drug trial."

All in favor of human sacrifices so licentious, narcissistic, selfish women who claim autonomy while simultaneously demand that others pay for their birth control and human sacrifices all so they can live out their base and meaningless existences responsibility-free, say

Just in Case You Missed it

America

 
is

Pro-Life.

In Which I Write Our Dear Leader a Lengthy and Tedious Letter That He Will Never Read and Have an Insignificant White House Staffer Respond With a Form Letter

Mr. President:

I, like many individuals comprising our Nation, was moved by your words following the Sandy Hook Massacre.  So much so that I would like to extensively quote you, if I may. Please, review your words with me:

This is our first task—caring for our children.  It’s our first job.  If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.  That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. 

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations?  Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children—all of them—safe from harm?  Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return?  Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no.  We’re not doing enough.  And we will have to change.

We can’t tolerate this anymore.  These tragedies must end.  And to end them, we must change.  We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.  No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction.  Surely, we can do better than this.  If there is even one step we can take to save another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try.

Indeed.

And, of course, your words following Sandy Hook go hand in hand with what you said for Father’s Day 2011.  Again, bear with me while we review your words together:

That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling.  That is when they need us most.

I could not possibly agree with you more, Mr. President.  Unfortunately, what you have said is terribly inconsistent with what you have done.

Your unequivocal support for that billion-dollar corporate fat-cat that is the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood; your ceaseless attempts to limit restrictions on abortion; your glorification of abortion providers; you have even gone so far as to say that you would not want your own daughters “punished” with a baby.

The way you and the First Lady were punished with babies?

As I am sure you know, the scientific criteria for “life” is as follows:

• Chemical Uniqueness - Demonstrate a unique and complex molecular structure
• Complexity and hierarchical organization - Demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical structure
• Reproduction - Reproduce themselves
• Possession of a genetic program - Possess a genetic program that provides fidelity of inheritance
• Metabolism - Possess a metabolism capable of maintaining themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments
• Development - Pass through a characteristic life cycle of development
• Environmental Reaction - Interact with their environment

(Rutten, Christina, “The Definition of Life,” http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm, April 20, 1999, accessed January 17, 2013.)

I would like to pose a hypothetical situation for you.  While you are the sitting president, an American and Russian joint space-exploration team discovers life, in the form of a single-cell organism, on a neighboring planet.  This single-cell organism meets the above criteria for “life.”  What do you, as president, do?  Would you rejoice with the scientific community for the discovery of this life?  Mark the day of the discovery a national holiday and mandate a staunch protection of this new life, as the greatest minds of our nation move forward with studying the life?

Or would you view this new life as a potential threat to the rights and freedoms of humans?  Would you order that this threat be swiftly and prematurely destroyed—in the name of human rights and freedoms, of course?

I cannot help but feel that if life were to be discovered on another planet, your actions would parallel the former.  I cannot help but feel that you would rejoice in the discovery and mark it a great advancement for mankind.

But I might be wrong.  You may, just as the Supreme Court did with the unprecedented decision of Roe v Wade, throw out and neglect the very essence of American jurisprudence: that in matters of uncertainty, it is the role of the law to proceed with the utmost caution.

In his majority opinion for Roe v Wade, Justice Blackmun expressed that the Court could not define when life began; but then almost immediately went back on his word and proclaimed that life begins with viability—though he had just moments before said that there were some in our society that felt life began at the moment of conception.  Had Justice Blackmun been concerned with the role of the law in matters of uncertainty, he would have walked on eggshells with this decision and sought to protect human life at the earliest stage possible.

That was the 1970’s.  The science was murky, I suppose.  But we, as a nation, no longer have any excuses.  It is a scientific, biological fact that life begins at conception.

• Fertilized eggs posses their own unique and unrepeatable DNA from the moment of conception.  Chemical Uniqueness?  Check.
• The cell is the most basic unit in the biological hierarchy.  Complexity and hierarchical organization?  Check.
• Fertilized eggs may reproduce asexually through twinning and they also possess cell reproduction.  Additionally, given time and development, the zygote will become independent and sexually mature.  Reproduction?  Check.
• The 46 chromosomes present in the fertilized egg at the moment of conception provide all the genetic information that it will ever need.  Possession of a genetic program?  Check.
• Fertilized eggs gather nutrients from their environment, as any OB/GYN will tell you.  Metabolism?  Check.
• Development?  Check.
• At every stage in the womb, there is environmental interaction.  Check.

(Ibid.)

Why, Mr. President, are not the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and marginalized among our society given the same standard of care, consideration and protection as, say, the environment?  The eggs of Bald Eagles?  Miniscule fish found in the bodies of water in California?  The hypothetical single-cell organism of another planet?

All in the name of Women’s Rights?

Mr. President, I know you abhor the Constitution of the United States of America, but please allow me to kindly remind you that the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.  These three inalienable rights are not ordered as such for sound and rhythm.  These rights are hierarchical.  They are ordered by importance; because one cannot have property unless one first has liberty and one cannot have liberty unless one first has life.  Therefore, the issue of someone’s life trumps that of another’s liberty and/or property.  It is for this reason that in the state of California, a homeowner and legal gun owner must feel that their life is directly threatened before opening fire on an intruder.  The intruder’s life trumps that of the homeowner’s property.  It is for this same reason that nationwide, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  The lives, safety and well-being of the other motorists and pedestrians trump that of the intoxicated motorist’s liberty.

It should be no different when it comes to the new life at the moment of conception. 

While you call for action to prevent senseless acts of violence in our society, you advocate for senseless acts of violence in the wombs of women. 

The eight-week old fetus being sucked by a powerful vacuum suction out of his mother’s vagina—either whole or in pieces.  Is not that violent?

The fourteen-week old fetus being torn limb for limb by forceps; her skull crushed and her spine snapped in half; and all those pieces evacuated from the womb.  Is not that violent?

The seventeen-week old fetus either swallowing saline in his mother’s amniotic fluid or being directly injected with saline, and slowly burning to death.  Is not that violent?

A child, born alive and healthy after a failed abortion, being stabbed in the head or heart with scissors; or left in a trash can or toilet to slowly die of neglect and starvation.  Is not that violent?

Mr. President, your feeble attempts to curtail violence in our society will fail, and they will always fail, so long as you, our political parties, and our nation advocate violence in the womb.  If we as a society are to value life, we need to start by protecting it in utero.

“If there is even one step we can take to save another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try.”

You can start by reviewing Roe v Wade with a heavy heart and contemplate the metaphysical disparity of such blatant moral depravity.

Sincerely,

SLB