Feminist Leanings

If I haven't said it enough on here, or out loud in frustration, exasperation, or excitement, here it is again: I am seeking what it means to be a true feminist. And how to balance feminism and Catholicism, two interrelated aspects of myself. This search takes up space in the back part of my mind almost constantly and on some occasions rises to the surface.

Yesterday, my mother saved a newspaper article for me about the rise of a new feminism. The headline reads, "Evangelical women create their own brand of feminism." (The online version has about 3 different headlines, none of which are quite the same as the print one.) It's a trend I noticed two summers ago during my internship with SFLA. Women bringing their femininity to the forefront as they rise to power on the Republican side of the aisle. I went to an event on Capitol Hill hosted by Concerned Women for America, one of the groups mentioned in the article. (We were subsequently evacuated from the Capitol building.)

According to Miller, this new branch of feminism combats the traditional left-leaning of feminism by presenting strong women with strong right-wing tendencies. These women also see traditional "family values" (specifically marriage and motherhood) as a source of strength. I love that women are complicating narrow notions of feminism, especially the idea that a feminist is pro-choice; I want to be, to use Miller's phrase, a "pro-life butt-kicker."

However, this new brand of feminism does not satisfy me. Apart from the obvious problem that I do not subscribe to many conservative ideals, I have fairly significant issues with other aspects of the movement that Miller describes. Michele Bachmann, the example of the new feminist, "credits her professional success to the submission of her will to Jesus and her husband." The new feminist is "a Christian wife and mother, above all." Marriage and motherhood are beautiful, valuable, and important vocations. But attaching supreme value to them excludes many women called to other vocations. Some women are single or have no children for now; others are single and have no children as more permanent state of life. They too belong under the umbrella of feminism.

So I thank Bachmann and Palin for their contribution to the discussion surrounding feminism. I'm glad they've come to the table and posed questions and challenges. They just haven't given the answers for which I am searching.

Short Chapters

As of yesterday, I have closed one chapter in my life and begun another one. I am home in NoVA for a few weeks before my move up to Steubenville. Yesterday, I piled most of my life into my car, put whatever didn't fit into Percy's, and headed northwards. My key chain, sans CCM and house key, is startlingly light and doesn't jingle the same way in my purse. I have a short chapter of life starting here before I plunge into grad school.

Words of Wisdom

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."

Americanism

A few weeks ago, I posted on "Patriotism from the Pulpit," sharing a Busted Halo article. A friend commented on the question of placing flags in spaces of worship (specifically, next to the altar at the front of the church. He commented:

...[I]t might exclude non-theists from America. We hear so often that one has to be religious to be a good american. Your own article holds up as an example an organization founded on the idea that "being Catholic could make you a better American." Then vice president Bush took it a step farther when he said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." It seems to me that all the symbolic associations between the country and the christian god contribute to that kind of prejudice. Do you have any thoughts on that?

If you haven't read the article, I'd recommend doing just that to hear the original line of thought. Here are some of my thoughts on this, organized as best as I can.

Before one can answer the question, "Does being Catholic [or Christian, monotheistic, religious, etc] make you a better American?", one has to answer the question, "What does it mean to be a good American?" This question of course can cause endless debate and I am fairly certain that no two people would answer it the same way. However, for a working definition I propose:

Being a good American means having a loyalty to and a love of the United States. It means having the common good of the nation as a priority (although not necessarily the top priority). It means a commitment to serve and preserve our nation while striving to make it a better place for all.

That statement contains a lot of vague language, but I think it will suffice for my discussion. Also, for clarity of language, I am going to use the term "patriot" to refer to a "good American" from here on out, mostly because I don't want to imply that only people in the US are Americans -- there's more to these two continents than our nation.

Now that all that is out of the way... Does being a Catholic make someone a better patriot? Can an atheist be a patriot? In my own life, being a Catholic has had two effects on me that might have an impact on my patriotism. First, being Catholic means I strive to be a better person. It is what keeps me honest, makes me work hard, motivates me to care for others, and in general is responsible for the "good" things about me. These qualities, I believe, make me a better patriot.

Second, and in my mind more important, being a Catholic gives me a sense of the importance of the common good. As a Catholic, I am a member of a universal Church, who stresses the unity of all her members. I know that my good and my neighbor's good are bound together and that I am, in a mysterious but real way, one with others. This idea makes me predisposed to see other people as part of a "we" rather than a "they." Thus, seeking the common good of the nation makes sense to me. As does improving my country -- because whatever my country does affects not only my life but my conscience.

[N.B.: These are ideals to which I strive and where my faith leads me. I do all of this very imperfectly.]

So. Along these lines of logic, being a Catholic does make me a better patriot. Those two ideas are intrinsic to Catholicism, so in this way, being a Catholic should make one a patriot. I can't speak for other religions, since I don't know any well enough.

Now for the second part of the question: Can an atheist be a patriot? According to my working definition of a patriot, the two are in no way, shape, or form mutually exclusive. I pose this question: Can an atheist seek the common good as a priority and seek to effect real, positive change in his country? I see no reason why not. As long as a person can conceptualize the good of others and seek it as a good, I see nothing to prevent that person from being a patriot. As long as a person can find reason to serve and improve the fellow human beings who occupy this nation, it doesn't matter if that person believes in God.

One final question: Does being a patriot make someone more "American," any more a citizen of this nation? Does failing to be a patriot make someone less of a citizen?

Modest Is Hottest, Part II

In my quest for true Catholic femininity, I discovered the blog of a group of Catholic Princeton alumnae who are now full-time moms. Today, I read a post there on modesty. I think the issue comes more to the forefront of the female mind during summer, when fashion bares skin, rather than finding creative ways to cover it. (I'm not worried about modesty in winter; I am too busy wondering where it is socially acceptable to wear a blanket.)

Juris Mater's final statement especially intrigued me and really is the reason why I chose to share: "I am shifting toward more feminine and more modest alternatives." How are those two adjectives connected? Is one necessarily linked to the other? Do we need to make a greater effort to find one when we dress according to the other?

Reading Days

My term as YACM officially ended on Friday. So I have mostly had school work to do -- pre-recorded lectures which I can enjoy on my own time schedule. Which, for me, is extremely compressed. My goal is four lectures a day, which means 3 hours of listening to my computer talk at me. I listen quite easily from the comfort of my own bedroom, but if I stay in my house all day, I feel dull and uninspired. Nevernomind that listening to my computer talk at me for three hours a day is not necessarily the most exciting and inspiring activity; I want to make it as lively as possible.

In attempt to liven up lecture-listening, I have been seeking exotic places for the listening. Outside is simply too hot right now, so I have been wandering from building to building, with two necessary conditions: WiFi and comfortable chairs. In my wanderings, I have discovered a favorite spot that shocks me: Swem Library.

All through undergrad, I avoided Swem whenever possible. During the semester, it is chock-full of stressed students and exudes stress, which threatens all who enter its doors and, when exams come around, overflows into the rest of campus. However, I have discovered that in the summer months, it is simply a quiet and peaceful place, with enough people that I don't feel alone, but few enough people that I don't feel crowded. A couch overlooks the sundial, and I can charge my lappy while listening to theology and enjoying the view.