Made in the Image of God

Before having a baby, I didn't think that much about my body. I wasn't particularly bothered by any aspect of it but I didn't really love it either... I just kind of used it and tried to keep it healthy and otherwise ignored it. After having a baby, my body jumped up on center stage and started screaming for my attention in a way it never had before, even during the tumultuous changes of adolescence. Suddenly my belly looked different, my breasts were bigger, I was producing milk, another human being (albeit a tiny one) was visibly and tangibly depending on my body for his very life, I hurt in unexpected places, and a line across my abdomen was raised and numb. Every time I changed, or took a shower, or went to the bathroom, or nursed my baby (so essentially all the time), the changes in my body stood out to me, and I didn't like them.

At first it was really hard. I wanted my old body back, and I wanted to have it to myself again. No more stretch marks, loose muscles, or scars; no more semi-continuous physical touch; no more worrying about "overdoing it" in the simple everyday activities of life; no more struggling to balance my baby's and my husband's needs for physical closeness. I would try on my old pre-pregnancy jeans and get depressed, or catch a glimpse of myself wandering the house in pajamas and feel ugly and inadequate.

But as time went by, something surprising began to happen. The negative feelings were born of the difficulty of the transition from a pre-pregnant body, through pregnancy, to a post-pregnant body, and they were natural. Change can be hard, and it takes time to adjust. And because those feelings were simply a product of the transition, they didn't stick around forever.

One day I looked at the dark web of lines on my abdomen and thought, I am a life-giver.

I looked at my lopsided, leaking breasts and thought, I am a life-sustainer.

I looked at my weary arms after rocking my baby to sleep and thought, I am a comforter.

I looked at the curves of my body curled around my baby as he nursed away his tears and thought, I am a safe haven and a place of rest.

In the blurred-together days and endless nights of those first few weeks, my body had somehow, in all its raw and rough reality, began to take on the image of God as it never had before, and in so doing, reminded me how God is all those things to me: the giver and sustainer of my life, my comforter when I am sorrowful or discouraged, my refuge from the fears and toils of life. How can I look at my body and think it is ugly, when it is a witness to me of the goodness and faithfulness of God? It is beautiful, when it shows me His image, because He is beautiful. We read in Genesis that we are made in the image of God, but I think we forget that this includes our physical bodies just as much as our spiritual, emotional and rational capacities. I know I had never thought of it that way before, anyway. God has left testimonies of Himself in the smallest, most physical and material details of our lives, so that we don't need to be deep and profound thinkers to see His presence and be reminded of His character, and if we open our eyes to those glimpses of Him, I think, our lives will be more beautiful. The things we take for granted, the things we hardly think about, even the things that we dislike - they are worth looking at a second time, with new eyes, to see if we can find a picture of God within them.

A reaction to the Economist debate on the "place of women"

Where do you think a woman's "place" is?

Should a woman be in the home, as traditional Western society has stipulated? Or should a woman be in the workplace, as modern feminism argues? (hat tip to Network of Enlightened Women).

Over at the Economist, as linked above, a woman argues that women as a group belong in the corporate working world, and that the choice to remain at home as full-time mothers and homemakers is undesirable for both the women themselves and for society as a whole. That a woman who chooses to remain at home is choosing to leave her potential unfulfilled and to hang as a consumptive deadweight on the beneficence of her breadwinning spouse. That such a woman hurts the "cause" of all women worldwide by her refusal to take up the "responsibility" of every modern woman to work outside the home throughout the entire course of her life. That because men can do something, women shouldn't be allowed not to do it.

Feminism has changed course, or is at last revealing the dark heart of their movement. The cry is no longer for the freedom of any individual woman to choose to work full-time and be respected for that work; now the cry is to remove that freedom to choose by making full-time, life-long participation in the labor force an expectation for every woman. Career-minded women, I have no objection to you pursuing your careers wholeheartedly! It is your life, and you can choose your priorities. But please don't say that, just because it fits your ambitions, it is the only noble goal a woman can have, or the only role she should play. While you fulfill your private dreams and help increase the nation's GDP, I intend to invest in the next generation. I intend to teach young minds to see the world with wonder, to help them learn to love other people, to give them a secure and stable home, and most importantly of all, to train them to follow God. Will my contributions be felt monetarily? Probably not. But I believe and hope that they will be felt through the fabric of society, as I weave in to my small section of it the strong threads of love, faith, and belonging that the family is best equipped and designed to provide.

Procreation and unity - or, contraception part II

This post is not as "family-friendly" (that is, child-appropriate) as most on this blog

Reading my way across the internet today, I came across a very clearly and eloquently worded explanation of the nature of sexual intimacy (actually this writer has consistently been, in all that I have read so far, quite clear, logical, courteous, and sensitive to beauty, which makes for very enjoyable and edifying reading).

"...human sexual nature is not a collection of facts that have no meaning until we freely assign them one. Sexual intercourse has a natural teleology; it is ordered to procreation. This natural end provides a context which itself assigns a meaning to the sexual act. This meaning is “natural” in the sense that it “presents itself” to the mind of a sufficiently intelligent participant without requiring any decision on his or her part. If I make love to a woman, it means “I choose you to be the mother of my children.” This, and only this, is directly and naturally signified by intercourse. However, for an intelligent being, able to consider the future, it has profound implications. Children require a family, so the sexual act implies an irrevocable commitment; it initiates a new society consisting of the spouses and their prospective children. In the conjugal act, the spouses pledge their allegiance to this society—this also is virtually contained in the act’s one natural meaning." - In Defense of Patriarchy, by bonald

The unitive nature of the act, then, is bound to its procreative nature. This is an assertion I have heard many times but never completely understood. For example, I have struggled to understand why some (including, officially, the Catholic Church) believe that it is wrong for a married couple to use contraception. After all, the married couple has already, in other ways, signified and established the union between them, and they are most likely intending to bring that union to fruition at some point in the future. The man is still choosing that woman to be the mother of his children (and vice versa) - just not yet.

And yet I can see, symbolically, the contradiction in that. Symbolically, contraception is truly a rejection - a rejection of the full nature of sexual intercourse and thus a reduction of its meaning, and a rejection at a very basic level of the other person. If sexual intimacy is unifying by nature and not just by convention, then contraception interferes with that union by preventing the partners from completely giving themselves to each other. In the middle of what ought to be an utterly self-surrendering act, in which each becomes the other's, the man does not give and the woman does not receive. Considering that some (beautifully expressed over at Like Mother, Like Daughter) have defined masculinity and femininity by the roles of being the first giver and the one who receives in order to give again, respectively, this is a serious issue. Symbolically, not just physically, contraception establishes a barrier between two people even as they are seeking unity, by short-circuiting the inherent procreative nature of sexual intercourse on which the unitive nature is founded.

What, then, are the practical implications of that symbolism? Does it matter morally, emotionally, or spiritually - or is it just a beautiful ideal picture? I'm not sure, to be honest. I don't know that it is inherently wrong for a married couple to use contraception, but I am having a hard time coming up with an argument as coherent and beautiful as the one above. Everything begins to sound like an excuse or a rationalization rather than a unified understanding of the nature of sexual intercourse within marriage as God designed and intended it, which is insufficient for someone who desires to follow God wholeheartedly in this area of life just as in any other. Do any of you have thoughts on this? Can you offer me a complete picture of the nature and purpose of sexual intimacy and how that informs our behavior, as opposed to a "I'm sure it is fine to use contraception now, since you're committed and planning on having children later?"

A priority choice

In reading about feministic careerism vs. traditional homemaking (which I very frequently do), I have found that very often the difference is one of priorities. In the first, personal fulfillment and economic prosperity are highly valued, and in the second, family and children are highly valued. In the first, the important thing is to have stuff and to keep up appearances:

"...even college-educated men in their 20s and 30s will have a tough time pulling in the cash to pay for the house, two cars and nursery school. The simply truth is that most couples need two incomes just to maintain a middle-class life." (Kay Hymowitz, author of the book Manning Up)

The second wonders why maintaining all the trappings of a middle-class life is so important. If they have to live in a smaller house and only own one car, it would be worth it if the wife could be home making that house a place of love and beauty and joy, raising up their children to love and honor God. And if she was at home doing that, the "nursery school" expense would be gone as well.

To me, the first option seems much more self-centered and emotionally sterile. I would rather sacrifice a high-paying career than give up deep and meaningful relationships with my family! Couldn't the love and gratitude of a husband and children be rewarding too, just like the satisfaction of intellectual appetite and the respect of one's colleagues? It seems to me that it could, and that by cultivating humility rather than pride it could also be much better for the state of one's soul.

The wisdom of women

I had the great pleasure of attending a friend's baby shower today (her baby girl is due October 7!), and have since been thinking about the three great transitional moments of a woman's life. First a girl becomes a woman; then she becomes a wife; then she becomes a mother. At each moment more traditions are handed down, more memories are passed from one generation to the next - one generation receives the knowledge of all the generations before them, a scroll, so to speak, aged and fragile, colored with the stains of time, bearing our mothers' wisdom. And we read it with eager eyes of anticipation - and then we read it again, with desperate eyes in the frantic stress of life, and we cry our hearts out because all that wisdom cannot solve our problems or make our lives comfortable.

But when we have cried all our tears, and come to the eerie quiet at the bottom of sorrow and struggle, we are reminded that our mothers never promised that their advice would fix all the hardships in our lives. They never claimed that their wisdom would make the situations in which we walk any easier to travel. Rather, they made the even greater claim that if we lived by that wisdom, we would change - that we would be able to bear the burdens life laid upon us, and be able to find peace and strength even in the midst of hardship and grief.

Change hurts. It isn't comfortable or pleasant to undergo the kind of pressure that will actually affect lasting transformation! But at least as women we have the accumulated wisdom of our mothers and grandmothers to guide us through that pressure to the beauty of a changed life. We do not have to walk the path of faith alone; all the women who have walked it before us lend us their support, and freely give to us the grace and knowledge they have won through fire.

Apologies and a small thought :)

I'm sorry I haven't posted as much this week! Paul and I are in the process of moving, and work has been hectic as well, so I haven't had much time to think or write. But I am so glad we finally have our own little place to settle in to :) We've put some stuff into place as we brought it to the apartment but in general it is still boxed and chaotic, so I'm definitely looking forward to unpacking this weekend. Paul (being in the National Guard) has drill this weekend, so it will be just me, and while I'll miss him, I'm kind of looking forward to being able to get everything set up just the way I like it, all by myself. It will be so nice to have a clean, organized, beautiful place of our own! The problem will then become keeping it that way... but I am going to be committed to keeping it nice because I know it will help our home be more peaceful and welcoming for ourselves and for friends who might want to visit.

On that note, I suppose I have been thinking about the importance of the home this week. I've noticed that when the home is cluttered or dirty (for me, clutter is worse), it becomes a less restful and inviting place, and I'm more likely to want to be somewhere else. When things are kept in their proper place, and the whole place is clean, it draws me in and makes me want to be there sharing life with others. On top of just order and cleanliness, when the house is made beautiful in little ordinary ways (like uses of color, and candles, and pictures, for example), it becomes even more enjoyable to be in. Finally, I've decided that this task of keeping the home ordered and beautiful is far more suited to women (in general) than to men. Or maybe it's just me, I don't know. But I believe that the wife is better equipped to make a home worth living in than the husband is, although he may be quite good at aspects of it and should be quite good at extending his assistance, just as - in general again - I believe the husband is better equipped to go out into the world and wrestle with it to provide for and protect his home and family. The woman is the center, the heart; she nurtures the family and makes the home a place for growth and love. Complementary to this, the man is the shield and the shelter; he provides for the family and protects his home from the outside world. Together, they are ideally equipped to create and sustain a home in which children (for children are the natural end of marriage) can grow, learn, and flourish in love and assurance. We don't have children yet, but I'm thinking that this time now is the best time to learn how to make a home! I'm not the greatest at learning two major things at once, after all, so I should start on the one I can do now instead of trying to figure it out at the same time I'm learning how to be a mom :P Here's hoping I won't be discouraged when I start to fail, and will get up and keep trying!

Contraception and abortion

I've been reading several very interesting articles (and books) lately that discuss, either tangentially or as the main argument, the specific moral dilemmas that revolve around family and marriage. They're especially interesting to me since those issues have become much more personally relevant in the past two months than they were before! Anyway, as I write about them, I'll try not to come across as preachy or obnoxious, because I realize that people have a lot of disagreement about some of these things, and I don't want to make anyone upset, especially if I'm spouting off some half-thought-through idea that is heading the wrong direction :) I will be honest about what I think and where I am now, though, so hopefully it won't come across as if I'm attacking anyone who thinks differently than I do.

The first issue that caught my attention, less than a month after our marriage, was the potential for birth control pills (hormonal contraceptives in general, as well as IUDs) to cause early abortions by preventing implantation of the embryo. Ideally, the pill prevents ovulation, so there is no egg to be fertilized and no embryo to worry about. As a back-up, it thickens the cervical mucous, making it more difficult for sperm to swim up to meet an egg that might be there if ovulation did occur (it is unknown exactly how often ovulation occurs in women taking contraceptives, because it is somewhat difficult to track, but the undeniable fact that women taking oral contraceptives will sometimes still become pregnant is proof that ovulation can occur, and that sperm can make it through the inhospitable mucous to reach that waiting egg). I knew those things before I started taking the pill, and I was fine with them. I was only thinking about how convenient it would be! However, the third function of the pill (publicly labeled as such, so I really had no excuse for my ignorance) is to prevent the uterus from preparing for a pregnancy - the lining is kept thin, with the network of glands and ducts unprepared for implantation - so that if ovulation occurs and an egg is fertilized, that embryo will not be able to implant and no pregnancy will take place. The embryo will die.

A common response to this dilemma is to protest that many such early abortions take place naturally - it is thought that about half of all embryos fail to implant, and a significant percentage of those that do miscarry very early on in the pregnancy, often before the woman even realizes she is pregnant - so why should we worry about the very rare case that an embryo is created while taking the pill and fails to implant? It may not have implanted anyway, after all. The difference, however, is that while taking the pill you (or I) are actively doing something to prevent pregnancy, knowing that it could entail the death of the early embryo. That's more ethically problematic than if it is happening without your knowledge, desire, or interfering action. By your action in the situation, you become morally responsible for the result.

For these reasons (as well as some less coherent issues that I'll try to discuss in Part 2 of this series), I stopped taking the pill a month ago. I do miss some of the benefits that come with taking it, but I think it's worth it to deal with some inconvenience in the pursuit of doing what is right and pleasing to God. As a disclaimer, I do want to say that there are reasons to take the pill besides birth control - I have heard it can help regulate certain conditions such as PCOS and can be especially helpful for women who have significant pain associated with their menstrual cycle - and for women who have these other reasons, the choice of whether or not to take the pill will not be so straightforward as it was for me. All I know is that my conscience was uneasy, and so it was the better choice, in my desire to honor God, to no longer use oral contraceptives.

If you want to read a very good post/article about the topic (which is well-written with sensitivity and from a very personal perspective), check out this post by my friend Diana: Thoughts on the Pill. Her post was actually one of the first things I read that led me to wonder if something was wrong and I should stop taking the pill, but it is written in a very non-confrontational way so it is a good introduction to the topic, and she has some good and interesting thoughts.

To be a woman after the feminist revolution

Sometimes it seems like one of the major effects of the feminist revolution was to put pressure on women to do and be everything, to demand perfection and 100% effort not just in the home but also in the workplace.

Don't misunderstand me! I am so grateful for the freedoms I have that women just a few generations before me didn't have - that I can go to college and grad school without being viewed as odd or strange, that I don't have to deal with a sexist boss like my mom did, that I have had no problem finding a job in scientific research (a field traditionally male-dominated). I'm thankful for birth control that gives me the option to postpone child-bearing until after I've had the chance to get my degree and begin my career. And I'm exceedingly happy that I can vote, and that my views and opinions aren't looked down on because I'm a woman!

But at the same time, I sometimes wish things were different - that I could choose to stay home with my children and teach them myself without feeling or being told that I was putting unfair pressure on my husband by not working outside the home, or that I could work part time to his full time and be able to make and maintain the home as a place of love, order, and wonder. I mean, at this point in my life it really doesn't matter because I don't have kids and I love working full time! But someday we'll have to make a decision about children and careers and I'll have to give something up.

The myth of modern life, which I think is pushed especially at women since the feminist movement, is that you can do everything and have it all. I grew up never thinking about whether I'd rather be primarily a mother and homemaker or primarily a career woman - I just planned for both and figured I'd do it all! But now that I'm older and (hopefully!) wiser I'm realizing that it just isn't possible. To really have a great career in my field would mean I would have to lose so many of the irreplaceable, magic moments of seeing my children grow and blossom. But if I didn't work outside the home at all, I would miss it a lot. I love science. I love biology, I love research, I love programming, I love analysis and modeling and hypothesizing and learning, and I don't want to lose that! Also, I really do feel like it would put a lot of pressure on my husband, and I don't want him to have to feel like the financial security of the whole family is resting entirely on his shoulders.

So, I'm very glad I don't have to decide this all right now! Unless rather significant unplanned events occur, I've got a few years to think about it before the issue presents itself. I guess I'm just a worrier sometimes :P But what do you think? Do you women feel that pressure as well, or is it just me? Where do you find the balance lies in your life and personal circumstances?