Midway in Love

Years ago, when I was a new, young lover, I stumbled on a curious book of poems at a used book store. I flipped through and read the title poem along with a few others and was charmed. Feeling slightly self-conscious about the questionable literary respectability of such a collection of narrowly niched poems, I bought it anyway: When I Am an Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple.

I happened to see it again this evening and opened randomly to a middle page to see what I might see. And this is the poem I saw:

Love at Fifty
by Marcia Woodruff

We come together shy as virgins
with neither beauty nor innocence
to cover our nakedness, only
these bodies which have served us well
to offer each other.

At twenty we would have dressed each other
in fantasy, draping over the damp flesh,
or turned one another into mirrors
so we could make love to ourselves.

But there is no mistaking us now.
Our eyes are sadder and wiser
as I finger the scar on your shoulder
where the pin went in,
and you touch the silver marks on my belly,
loose from childbearing.

"We are real," you say, and so we are,
standing here in our simple flesh
whereon our complicated histories are written,
our bodies turning into gifts
at the touch of our hands.

However literary or sentimental, the poem is wise. While I am not yet fifty, I'm no longer twenty either. My body also is scarred and silvered with stretch marks. The veteran lover of the poem heartens me to age graciously, to love courageously, to give my real and simple self. Her words, finding me midway, turn into gifts.

Raising Boys by the Boy Code?

William Pollack, Harvard psychologist and author of Real Boys , has spent twenty years studying boys in our culture. He points out that, at birth, male infants actually seem to be more emotionally expressive than females. But by elementary school, most of that is gone, thanks to a gender straitjacket enforced by what he calls the Boy Code. According to the code, boys and men must not, above all, express their feelings. This rule constrains not only boys, "but everyone else, reducing us all as human beings, and eventually making us strangers to ourselves and to one another."*

Some sixty-five years before Pollack published his New York Times bestseller, C. S. Lewis suggested a similar conviction that it is emotion and sentiment that makes us human. In the Platonic tripartite psychology of head-chest-belly, it is by the middle element, the chest, the seat of emotion and sentiment, "that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal" (The Abolition of Man , p. 25). An education or upbringing that teaches boys to debunk or stifle their feelings produces, in Lewis's words, "Men without Chests": 

It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. [. . .] And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive,' or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity.' In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. (25-26)

With his usual insight, Lewis calls our attention to an amazing truth about human nature. However, I'm not sure he goes far enough in his writings. While he urges us to preserve the child's seat of emotion, he wants to see that emotion is properly trained into "stable sentiments" that will lead the child to respond to their experiences with habituated virtue. This is well and good. In fact, Lewis supplies what Pollack may lack in this regard. 

At the same time, Pollack—and other contemporary voices proclaiming with him a similar message—may supply a consideration that Lewis omits, namely the human need to express, to hear, and to accept the immediate, raw, and untrained feelings of ourselves and others with empathy, compassion, and sensitivity regardless of whether the expressed feelings conform or no to any approved sentiments.

To illustrate the passing on of trained sentiment, Lewis gives the example of the Roman father passing on to his son his own deeply-felt conviction—"Dulce et decorum est . . ."—that it is sweet and right to die for one's country. 

Pollack and others point out the complementary truth that it is also humane to express fear and sadness without shame and to nurture and comfort others when they express those natural human feelings.

Elaine Aron is another of the contemporary voices calling for a more humane view of the sexes. She warns of the unhelpfulness of stereotypes and generalities like the often heard "When women have problems, they just want to be listened to, but men want to give and get solutions." She argues instead that "We all need to express our feelings and find solutions to problems," and she cites research that "shows with perfect consistency that people in relationships are happier when women and men behave in what in the past has been seen as a traditionally 'feminine' way—that is, warm, nurturing, emotionally expressive, and eager to discuss the relationship. [. . .] what's called 'feminine' is simply 'normal human.' Fortunately, most men do behave that way too—contrary to stereotypes."*

By relating an example from his own childhood, San Francisco psychotherapist, Spencer Koffman, paints a vivid picture of how the Boy Code stunts the basic human need to express and accept emotion:

Boys are enlisted into "gender bootcamp" at a very early age, where they are taught to be good Warrior/Kings. One of my earliest memories of this indoctrination comes from first grade. I fell off the jungle-gym. I wasn't seriously hurt, but the shock of the fall caused me to cry. The uniform reaction from every boy and teacher was not to console me, but to point out that boys do not cry. That was the first and last time that I cried in school. I was in training to become "a little soldier."*

As I face the daunting challenge of raising a boy, I pause to ask myself, How can I equip my son to become a soldier against injustice, a ruler of himself, and a comforter of many, one who is not afraid to cry, to grieve, to rejoice, to engage, and to love with a full-orbed expression of his God-created humanity?




*Quotations from Elaine Aron's The Highly Sensitive Person in Love, a book about which I have several caveats but still find to have helpful insights.

Never the Same

Postpartum depression affects 12 to 25% of mothers, reports Kathleen Kendall-Tackett in the second edition of her book, Depression in New Mothers: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment Alternatives. I have been one of those mothers.

For a book addressed primarily to medical practicioners, there are several wonderful gems in this book for the lay and professional reader alike. I found it to be empowering, especially in dispelling myths. For example, we learn that PPD is NOT caused by hormonal changes or imbalances, does not go away with time, and can be as efficaciously treated with exercise and other alternative treatments as it can with drugs.

The most powerful part of the book, in my opinion, is the section describing the rituals surrounding birth and the transition to motherhood in cultures where researchers have found a surprising absence of PPD. I found these descriptions beautiful, moving, and illuminating, especially in the context of the voluminous research summaries that make up the bulk of the book.

Kendall-Tackett describes the social structures that protect new mothers including a distinct postpartum period, social seclusion and mandated rest, household and childcare assistance, and social recognition of her new role and status:

In almost all the societies studied [which displayed low instances of PPD], the postpartum period was recognized as a time that is distinct from normal life. Postpartum is a time when mothers are supposed to recuperate, their activities are limited, and they are taken care of by female relatives. This was also common practice in colonial America, and was referred to as the "lying in" period (Wertz and Wertz, 1989). [. . .]

In cultures where there is a low incidence of the blues or depression, there is a great deal of personal attention given to the mother. This has been described as "mothering the mother." In these various cultures, the new status of the mother is recognized through social rituals and gifts. For example, in Punjabi culture, there is the ritual stepping-out ceremony, ritual bathing and hair washing performed by the midwife, and a ceremonial meal prepared by a Brahmin. When she returns to her husband's family, she returns with many gifts she has been given for herself and the baby. Ritual bathing, washing of hair, massage, binding of the abdomen, and other types of personal care are also prominent in the postpartum rituals of rural Gautemala, for Mayan women in the Yucatan, and for Latina women both in the U.S. and Mexico. Here is a description of one of these recognition rituals performed by the Chagga people of Uganda

"Three months after the birth of her child, the Chagga woman's head is shaved and crowned with a bead tiara, she is robed in an ancient skin garment worked with beads, a staff such as the elders carry is put in her hand, and she emerges from her hut for her first public appearance with her baby. Proceeding slowly toward the market, they are greeted with songs such as are sung to warriors returning from battle. She and her baby have survived the weeks of danger. The child is no longer vulnerable, but a baby who has learned what love means, has smiled its first smiles, and is now ready to learn about the bright, loud world outside." (Dunham, 1992: 148)

There is something very wrong about a culture where we expect and are expected to pop out a baby and get right back on the horse acting as if we are the same person we were before we birthed a new life into the world. We are not and will never be the same.

The Innovation of Christ with Regard to the Dignity & Equality of Women

Some of my favorite passages of summary from Pope John Paul II's Papal Encyclical "On the Dignity and Vocation of Women":

Christ's attitude to women confirms and clarifies, in the Holy Spirit, the truth about the equality of man and woman. One must speak of an essential "equality", since both of them - the woman as much as the man - are created in the image and likeness of God. Both of them are equally capable of receiving the outpouring of divine truth and love in the Holy Spirit. Both receive his salvific and sanctifying "visits".
 
The fact of being a man or a woman involves no limitation here, just as the salvific and sanctifying action of the Spirit in man is in no way limited by the fact that one is a Jew or a Greek, slave or free, according to the well-known words of Saint Paul: "For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

[. . .]

The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ".

For a full treatment of the biblical and traditional Christian teaching regarding the dignity of women see the rest of the Encyclical.

Dear Mormon Missionaries (A Second Question)

[Note: This letter was written after my first meeting with the missionaries and before my second.  I am publishing it now because many of my questions remain unanswered, not least because we ran out of time (and were distracted by lots of little people wanting attention).]

When you stopped by the other day, in addition to asking for your take on the incongruities between Mormon teaching and traditional Christianity, I also asked how you deal with apparent inconsistencies within Mormonism itself.

Again, I ask in all sincerity and hope I do not give offense.  

From my outsider's perspective, it seems that LDS prophets/presidents have given differing teachings on certain issues.  Two such especially troubling issues are those of ethnic groups and of polygamy, respectively.

Here's what I see from my perspective . . .

From my reading of 2 Nephi 5:20-25, the Book of Mormon teaches that, in contrast to those who are "white [. . .] and delightsome," "dark skinned" people are "cursed," "loathsome," and inferior ("And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed" v.23).

I've also seen some quotations attributed to previous LDS leaders, directing such a sentiment toward African Americans and other specific ethic groups applying the "seed of Cain" doctrine to say that dark skinned people are spiritually inferior and that (white) Mormons should not intermarry with them.  (I know that not everything one finds on the Internet is reliable, but it looks like at least some of the citations given in the link above check out.  Please let me know if my information is bad.)

I understand that current LDS teaching does not endorse the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another, but I am troubled by the fact that blacks have only been able to hold the LDS priesthood since 1978.  I am also confused by the apparent incongruity between the statements of previous LDS leaders and the current position.  The previous teachings are deeply disturbing to me.  

Can you help me understand how you reconcile yourself with the past teachings and policies of the LDS church on the issue of race and ethnicity?

Also, while polygamy is not endorsed for present practice, it was previously an endorsed practiced.  It also seems that the current ban is temporary, that it will one day return, and that it will ultimately be practiced in the highest level of heaven.  At least such is the view I see when reading through Doctrine and Covenants 132 as well as other LDS publications.

In one LDS publication, The Desert Weekly (v.43, p. 540), quotations from the 1890 General Conference regarding polygamy are given along with the following summary of that assembly's decision to suspend the practice of plural marriage:

"Such is the authoritative position of the Mormon Church. Briefly summarized it may be read in this way:

The revelations of God given to Joseph Smith, including that on plural marriage, are binding upon the people, unless 'their enemies came upon them and hinder them from performing that work.' 

They performed their 'work' in establishing polygamy until 'their enemies came upon them and hindered them,' and disobeyed the law of the land until through persecutions and punishments they were compelled to conclude that 'it is not wisdom to make war upon sixty-five millions of people,' nor 'to carry out this principle against the laws of the nation and receive the consequences.' But it is yet to be re-established, for 'all that He has promised in this code of revelation has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit.  That which has not yet been fulfilled will be."

If polygamy is a holy state and one that is central to LDS eschatology, can you help me understand the change in emphasis today which seems to downplay the importance of plural marriage in LDS history and doctrine?

Can you help me understand the LDS position on polygamy?  I find it quite confusing.

Why do only men receive the priesthood in the LDS church?  Is the "patriarchal grip" in the marriage ceremony symbolizing that women have to enter heaven and achieve divinization through their husbands?  From some of my readings of LDS texts, I am uncertain whether women can actually become gods in the celestial kingdom or just men.  What is the official LDS teaching on this matter?

It's possible I'm reading it the wrong way, but when I read Doctrine and Covenants 132, I can't help but feel concerned by the apparent tone and attitude toward women.  It appears that Joseph Smith is informing his wife, Emma Smith, that God "commands" her to "receive all those" her husband "has been given" or else she "will be destroyed." From the context, it looks as though Joseph is being called "a ruler over" all the "virgins" given to him as "his property'; that a man's wives "belong(eth) (un)to him."  Am I reading this right?

There also seems to be some contradiction within the passage.  First it states that a man's first wife must "give her consent" before her husband "espouse the second."  However, shortly thereafter it says that if any man have a wife [. . .] and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood," and she doesn't

"believe and administer unto him, [. . . ] she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor"  (Doctrine and Covenants 132, especially 51-66).

From my outsider's perspective, it's difficult to see how this attitude toward marriage and toward women is of God.  Am I missing something?  How does LDS teaching handle this passage and the church's past practices of polygamy?

I have great respect for you and where you're coming from and do not intend to bash the LDS faith.  I ask these questions sincerely.  Understanding that you come to my door to tell me about your faith, I present you with my honest questions.  I would like to understand your position on these important issues.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

"A Sincere Gift of Self"

An old truth eloquently and simply stated strikes home, though we've heard it a thousand times before. This is why I love a good children's book. I have deep admiration for authors who can make plain to little ones what we adults so often obscure with too many words.

In this vein, I thank Pope John Paul II for making plain to me, a little one, what I so often obscure with my convoluted and disjointed thinking. It is not a new truth revealed but an old familiar truth clarified and illuminated.

It is this: that a woman's vocation and fulfillment consists in "a sincere gift of self"—to Christ her heavenly spouse, to her earthly spouse, to the children of her womb, and to all God's children—"according to richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the 'image and likeness of God' that is specifically hers."

While more verbose than a children's book, I am finding the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) to have the searing brilliance of God's truth made plain. I am learning in what "feminine genius" consists and what it means to pour myself out for my family and others in a uniquely feminine way. Care to read with me on "a subject of constant human and Christian reflection"?