Progressive Nuns?

First published October 18, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/10/18/october-11-2012/

Like many feminists, I never thought I’d use the word “progressive” to describe Catholic nuns. However, after learning about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), I have to say that I’m amazed at the work of this group. While connected to the Catholic faith, LCWR works to promote women in the Catholic religion as leaders. The group also participates in humanitarian efforts. Another surprise is that this group expands the focus of “right to life” issues to include working toward the eradication of hunger, repealing of the death penalty where it exists, and stopping war. Additionally, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious believes that fetal rights are not the only consideration where abortion is concerned. And, the LCWR hopes to influence the Catholic Church in its acceptance of homosexuality to welcome all peoples rather then condemning them.

PHOTO: DAVID MOJADO

These stances are indeed radical for Catholicism and have placed the LCWR at odds with the Vatican. In fact, American bishops have been sent by the Vatican to oversee the organization to attempt to bring the group into line with what the Vatican considers the Church’s teachings. Specifically, the Vatican charges the LCWR with going against Church doctrine on issues related to homosexuality, birth control and what they consider radical feminist thought that stems from the organization. To their credit, the LCWR is more than willing to begin a dialogue with the Vatican about Catholic doctrine, yet (no surprise here) the Vatican would rather issue mandates versus discuss anything at all. This stance proves that the Vatican remains anti-woman, of course.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious believes the Church must evolve (pun intended—I couldn’t help myself!) to meet the society and culture in which we live today. The nuns who are part of the LCWR claim that their work at the front lines of humanitarian efforts put them in touch with the lives of people as they are lived, not as one might merely desire them to be. For over forty years, the LCWR has advocated for the ordination of women. Much of that time, the group has been relatively silent about their desire for leadership. Even while they are publicly silent, leaders with the LCWR continue to ask themselves and one another about what it means that the Vatican and church leadership seem to fear women and not value their leadership potential.

The most surprising aspect of what I learned about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is that while many in the group work toward asking women to choose to continue pregnancies over aborting them, there are a significant number of nuns who consider the rights of those already born as just as important and significant as those of the unborn. The LCWR claims that policies and positions that are pro-fetus versus pro-life need to be reconsidered. They consider hunger, war and the death penalty as just as important to the Catholic conversation about being pro-life as abortion.

Even as I remain an atheist feminist, I find it encouraging that women, who belong to what are considered anti-women faiths, still work toward empowering women within their faith. That the Leadership Conference for Women Religious continues to ask for not only power, but also a dialogue with the Church on issues related to their experience working with people directly is inspiring. I’m not sure I’d have the patience to work so tirelessly for decades, and I admire the faith of the nuns in the LCWR that allows them to remain committed to their religion even as they work to change it so that it reflects more of who they are rather than merely accepting the doctrines of Catholicism on blind faith.

Some Assembly (and Possibly Some Revision) Required

First published at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/10/25/october-18-2012/ on October 18, 2012. 

In Annie Lamott’s SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED (with Sam Lamott, Riverhead Books, 2012), the author writes, “To have mothered this young father fills me with visceral feelings of awe, joy and dread.” This statement sums up my own feelings about parenthood. I’m regularly awed when I consider the growth of my children over the years. Sure, you don’t notice each day specifically, that quarter inch of height or the reduction of the curved belly of toddlerhood into the taught stomach of adolescence. Yet, when you stop and consider your child, at whatever stage or point of development, both physical and otherwise, you can’t help except be awed at the utter strangeness of it all, even as it is mundane and expected. It’s like watching a sunrise or sunset, really. I mean, sure the sun is going to rise and set, yet when we take the time to see it, that, too, can be visceral and awesome.

This “visceral” nature of parenting is what I believe is at the heart of this past summer’s “having it all” hoopla. Arguing against brain chemistry having much to do with male and female response to what is perceived as “danger” for their children, I believe it is social conditioning. Men take “flight” and go to work (and remain there) in response to the needs of their children. Women, in contrast, are socialized to “fight” and to remain at home (or at their children’s school or hospital bedside) and to leave work behind.

So, what is feminism supposed to make of both the male and female visceral feeling of parenthood? I think feminism needs to lead the discussion to our social and cultural mores and normalize the different responses to parenting exhibited by individuals. We cannot see fathers who work as supporting families and mothers who work as abandoning them. Maybe as we watch Marissa Meyer take the helm of a major corporation even as she becomes a mother to another child, we don’t judge her or say she’s setting us all up. Maybe her response, though culturally and socially outside the norm for women, is to charge headlong into work upon delivering, in the same way we would laud a man for doing. At the same time, we need to make room for more men to join the ranks of the stay-at-home parents, who remain in place with their young children, rather than go off to work.

In order to accept and commend both roles, a sea change the likes of which all this debate of “having it all” has been about is required. That sea change, though, is not just business and government enacting policy. The sea change is Lamott’s visceral feeling. We must open our hearts and minds to these differences in individuals, and not claim they’re mandated by gender. We need to revise our thinking about the value of unpaid work in this world. We need to value the care a home requires, and the care required by children. This way, we don’t give everyone the “right” to work, while still demeaning the caregiving role.

Voting and Issues Related to Birth Control and Abortion Access

First published October 11, 2012 http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/10/11/voting-and-issues-related-to-birth-control-and-abortion-access/

PHOTO: THERESA THOMPSON

Jennifer Granholm, former Michigan governor, television host and visiting professor at the University of California at Berkley, wrote about what she calls sexual McCarthyism of legislative efforts since the 2010 election in the federal and state congresses. Toward the end of her article, she cited opinion polls that show President Obama ahead of all Republican candidates amongst women voters. She wrote that women “may need to fight the same fight their grandmothers fought in the 60’s.” Lastly, she says that women will be out en-force to vote in the next election, assuming that the votes from women will go to pro-woman, progressive candidates.

While I realize that opinion polls are used far and wide in coverage of election issues, and help candidates decide on which issues they should focus or highlight in campaign materials, I’m concerned about the gender-specific nature of the rhetoric about the upcoming election in the U.S. where funding of Planned Parenthood and legislation around abortion access and birth control are concerned. Sure, not too many of our grandfathers were necessarily promoting access to abortion in the same numbers as our grandmothers. There weren’t so many grandfathers out there advocating for birth control access, either. It was a different time, and yes, I will use that pat phrase to sum up what would take several articles to address as to the actions (or non-actions) of many men around these issues that certainly have an impact on men just as much as they do on women.

I will ride this tangent for a moment, though, as I consider why more men are not out there writing about and advocating for women’s access to abortion and birth control. What is your first thought about a man who stands up on a sidewalk or walks in a march carrying a “pro” birth control pill banner? Well, plenty of guys who do this kind of thing are accused of desiring less responsibility for themselves. The same holds true for abortion. Any man who “advocates for” or supports abortion rights might be viewed as someone who merely wants the woman to “take care of” an unplanned pregnancy. In these two areas, men can’t win. If they’re against either, they are seen as against women. I believe that men should not have a say in what I do with my body. No man should have any say about me using birth control to avoid pregnancy. Not a priest, not the president and not even her husband should have any say in whether a woman continues a pregnancy either. That said, men are then caught in a quandary as they may be called upon to support offspring they never intended. And, THAT said, I believe that the decision must always rest with the woman, and so that any man engaging in heterosexual sex must be aware of the possible consequences. He must be ready to embrace either the loss of his potential child or the prospect of supporting a child he does not necessarily want. That’s just part of being a responsible partner in heterosexual sex.

Now that I’ve given men a “free pass” where public advocacy is concerned for abortion or birth control issues, that doesn’t give men an excuse to not become part of the political movement to which many women, including Ms. Granholm (and this author) belong. We need men to not only run the risk of being accused of controlling women in the opposite manner when they advocate for birth control and abortion access, but also to get out and vote for candidates who are going to protect and not jeopardize women’s need for greater access and less restriction for both birth control and abortion. The U.S. election is less than a month from now. Vote to protect the rights of women.

"Odd Girl Out" Book Review and Reflection

Last week, we looked at Title IX and the impact it has had for women on the playing field, in the classroom and in the faculty offices of colleges. While I mentioned poverty as a place from which stories are not often told, in addition to the contributions of women to causes, there are other “minority” statuses that are often excluded. One of these is the status of non-white women in sports and in college, and the other is the marginal position of lesbian women. This week, we’ll look at ODD GIRL OUT, which was a pulp novel and yet which voiced the feelings of many women in the 1960s.

Ann Bannon is the pen name of a woman author who published a series of books about young lesbian coeds in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Her books, of course, flew under the radar of serious reviewers, yet gained a steady following and readership. Like books today that baffle publishing houses and professional reviewers alike, the popularity of the “Beebo Brinker Chronicles” also surprised even the author herself. Bannon wrote from her experience, fresh out of college, with suspicions about her classmates’ sexual orientation, and a curiosity about a way of life that she did not dare consider seriously herself.

Bannon’s books captivate readers and researchers, who marvel at the early forays into the lesbian experience that her books explore. Readers find kindred, albeit dated, spirits in characters such as Laura in ODD GIRL OUT. These young women found themselves disarmingly not attracted to men, and just as disarmingly attracted to women. Their lesbian experiences were often quiet amongst women themselves, some of whom were merely experimenting with what, especially at the time, was “safe sex” where they would not earn a reputation. For others, these experiences were an awakening to the sexuality that confused them, and that they had attempted to deny. For this reason, the early inklings of lesbian leanings, as presented by Laura in ODD GIRL OUT, allowed many readers to finally feel normal about their own feelings of love for and attraction to women.

Bannon writes in the introduction to ODD GIRL OUT that she was touched by letters she’d receive from women who thanked her for making them feel normal—finally. She shares with us that the women who wrote to her expressed gratitude for her frankness, which helped them have hope for love in their own lives. The author admits that she, herself, used her characters to explore what she felt was also forbidden to her. She could be a butch lesbian through a character in a book, and she could experience lesbian love and sex this way, as well.

Reading ODD GIRL OUT, and especially Bannon’s introduction, I am reminded (again) of the stories of women being marginalized. Even as lesbianism and bisexuality is touted as “hot” in the mainstream world of young women today, it is through the lens of male beholders and for male entertainment. Lesbians, especially those who do not conform to the standards of femininity in our society, still face the discrimination and marginalization they always have endured. Books like ODD GIRL OUT give voice to lesbians coming to terms with their burgeoning sexuality, as they normalize the feelings of these women—feelings that are personal, internal, connected to the heart and not lesbianism as public display for entertainment.

The other aspect of ODD GIRL OUT I’d like to discuss is the fact that as we have more acceptance of alternative sexuality than ever before, some of this labels men and women, when in the past it did not. Bannon’s character, Laura, discovers herself as a lesbian. However, her female partner, Beth, while she enjoys her sexual exploits with Laura, is ultimately not a lesbian. In decades past, men engaging in sexual acts with men in adolescence were not labeled. Female junior high, high school and college students could engage in same-sex interactions, and actually never think of themselves as lesbian. Today, it seems, if one even “practices kissing” with a classmate or friend, sexuality comes into question right away. I think that as we move toward acceptance and understanding of varieties of sexuality, we need to resist labeling until we are more developed. It seems quaint to read about Bannon’s characters engaging in same-sex interactions, even while many of them never questioned their end-game sexuality. Certainly, women may learn that their friend with whom they practiced kissing grows up to embrace a lesbian lifestyle, while she embraces that of heterosexuality. This should also be considered normal development.

This is the last of my four-part series exploring the books required for a U.S. Women’s History course offered by the University of Maine, Farmington. I’ve invited students from the course to contribute guest posts later in the semester to inContext, so we may hear some fresh voices that further explore some of the topics we’ve covered. I hope readers of inContext have enjoyed this series, and are heartened that rather than the standard U.S. History course in college, that the University of Maine at Farmington includes this offering, which is a more inclusive and personal history, and tells the story of ordinary lives and people, especially women, who have made great strides and contributed a great deal to the status of women in our current society and culture.

First publication: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/10/04/part-4-of-u-s-womens-history-odd-girl-out/

"The Boy Kings: A Journey Into the Heart of the Social Network" - Book Review and Reflection

In THE BOY KINGS: A JOURNEY INTO THE HEART OF THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Free Press, 2012), Katherine Lossedescribes her experiences working at Facebook shortly after it began and moved into office space (after its birth in a Harvard dorm room). If you’ve seen the film THE SOCIAL NETWORK, you know that Facebook began as a way for Harvard males* to “find” eligible females, and to also rate women based on their appearance. That Losse would not realize that she was entering the proverbial “heart of darkness” where women are concerned when she took the job at Facebook seems suspect. Yet, to the author’s credit, the book is not actually about the sexism rampant at the company, at least in the early days. It is more a series of rhetorical questions that she asks herself, then answers in the book as she poses the same questions for us to answer for ourselves. Losse admits that she long harbored thoughts of writing about Facebook, and I wish she was more upfront and less ambiguous about that intention (like Ted Conover who became a correctional officer to write “from the inside” about that role). *I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO REFER TO THEM AS MEN AND YET ALSO DON’T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS DEROGATORILY DISMISSIVE AND CALL THEM BOYS.

As described by Losse, network definitely describes Facebook, yet social? She questions the idea that we can be truly, or more accurately, authentically social on-line. This is a valid question, and one that is addressed slightly more academically bySherry Turkle. I believe Losse’s book is more accessible possibly to a younger generation than Turkle’s book, and it is valuable as a first-person experience and individual reflection about life on-line. However, even while I appreciate the insights Losse provides, I can’t help but feel like she didn’t “infiltrate” merely to provide the insider story, but rather drank the Kool-aide and was brought into the cult for a time.

The title gives everything away with regard to how the author felt about working at Facebook. It was a bastion of boyhood, complete with the requisite adolescent fantasy of refrigerators filled with sugary, caffeinated beverages and bins of every kind of snack food and candy an eleven year old might dream of. She was the lone seeker of fresh fruit, which she describes as most often rotting before it was consumed. Then, there were the cartoon-graffiti pictures on the walls, including those exaggerating the female form for the male gaze. It is as if Ms. Losse saw herself as the Wendy to the lost boys. She not only describes her “female” suggestion of real food but also remarks at one point, “You can’t run a successful company with boys alone,” referring to her role as one of the few females in the office. Facebook is described as a gadget-filled, bed-time-less and far from wholesome Neverland, and Losse is the stand-in mother.

The more obvious things about Facebook that we all likely know already (or suspect) are included in the book, as well. Facts and figures about time women spend studying other women’s profiles and pictures versus the lack of time spent by men pursuing such activities are provided. The more esoteric information Losse shares includes Facebook’s policy around group pages, and how they determine whether a group is a hate group or not. We don’t have to wonder about why teens and twenty-somethings post drunken photos on Facebook; the activity is something Facebook employees do, and, well, they have good jobs, right? The “fun” it seems everyone is having working at Facebook is also debunked as it becomes clear that more often than not the male employees have fun, and the women do the menial, hourly paid work. Additionally, everyone is expected to wear company shirts for photo ops, and there is never, ever a company event or even normal work day when photos and videos are not taken for posting on the site. Employees were encouraged to not just blur, but rather erase the line between their personal lives and professional lives.

Like Losse, this is my criticism of Facebook. My college freshman daughter believes that because her friends from high school (who are at other colleges) are posting pictures and status’ depicting “fun, fun, fun,” that she’s the only one of her friends who has rough days being far away from home on her own for the first time. I asked her whether she ever posted anything authentic and genuine or that might demonstrate emotions such as insecurity or sadness (or anything other than sarcasm or utter joy). She realized that since she never admits to any of these human, emerging-adult kinds of emotions, that it is likely her friends also feel them and don’t post them. Losse actually experimented with posting less-than-ecstatic snippets of thoughts, and found that no one noticed, or that they brushed it off. While their comments were good-natured, they were still snide and didn’t address the actual emotional content of her original message.

(IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I CLOSED MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT MONTHS AGO. AND, YES, I KNOW HOW TO REALLY CLOSE OUT AN ACCOUNT “FOR REAL” AND COMPLETELY. I ALSO KNOW NOW, TOO, THAT FACEBOOK MAY STILL RETAIN CERTAIN PIECES OF INFORMATION ABOUT ME EVEN THOUGH I DELETED INFORMATION FROM EVERY CATEGORY AND “UNFRIENDED” EVERYONE IN MY LIST BEFORE CLOSING THE ACCOUNT. OH, AND FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES CAN (AND DO) ACCESS ANY ACCOUNT THEY WANT, INCLUDING WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT WERE “PRIVATE” E-MAILS THROUGH THE SITE.)

Some portions of this review sound negative and like I’m harping on the author. This is not my intention, as I think Losse’s book is a memoir that speaks significantly about important issues related to social networks and our on-line lives today. She points out the sexism rampant at Facebook, especially in its early days. Today, (we can hope) that the teams of lawyers have at least included a sexual harassment policy in an employee handbook. I’m sure stockholders wouldn’t be too happy if this wasn’t something that was not only included, but also enforced to some degree. Maybe a few more of the paintings have been retired to men’s restrooms (as if that makes it any better). While writers (and reviewers) certainly aim for clarity, the “loss of the true intention” is something that digital communication (e-mail, Facebook posts, texts and Tweets) has brought to our world. Losse shares a valid and poignant view of what this means to an individual person, which I believe is her over-arching point: the loss of the meaning of and value of whole, real, complicated human friendship and interaction and what this means for our individual and collective futures. Eventually, as biological creatures, we all need sleep and nutritious food. We must determine for ourselves whether we want a boy king running things or whether we’re actually ready for the “wild rumpus” to end.

THE BOY KINGS: A JOURNEY INTO THE HEART OF THE SOCIAL NETWORK by Katherine Losse, 2012, is available from Free Press(a division of Simon and Schuster)

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/10/01/the-boy-kings-a-journey-into-the-heart-of-the-social-network-by-katherine-losse/