Bus Musings

Who out there has ever been dumped? (I realize this is an odd question from a girl who just got engaged, and before you jump to conclusions--J and I are still engaged and happily planning both the wedding and the marriage) But seriously, if you've ever been dumped, who has had friends console you (with copious amounts of greasy pizza and (non-greasy) ice cream) with this statement: "He just couldn't accept who you are. You're better off without him."?

You mean I'm too... blonde?!

I know I have experienced all of the above, and I'm hoping sure I'm not alone. I was randomly musing about this on the bus to school this morning. Granted, it was 7 AM (8 AM classes 5, Courtney 0), so I'm not sure my musings made a whole bunch of sense, but I'm going to try and write out my rambling thoughts.

Much of the world says that if a relationship doesn't work out, it's because you couldn't accept each other as you are. We have giant libraries of books targeting pre-teen and teen girls, trying to empower them, telling them that they shouldn't change for boys, or relationships with said boys.

Now I'm not bashing that kind of empowerment, as a good majority of teenage boys are simply not mature enough to have the girl's best interests in mind. But if J didn't try and change me, I would venture to say that he wasn't being a very good husband. The way I see it, the vocation of marriage is a vehicle that God uses to a) make you holy, b) make your spouse holy, c) make your children holy, and d) make everyone who you touch with your life holy. I'm not a saint. I'm trying, but it's a work in progress. Part of J's job as my husband (starting August 18!) is to help change me into saint. So when we tell these teenage girls, for their own good, to remain who they are in the face of relationships, some of that becomes learned a little too well. It is good for a teenage girl to stand her ground when her boyfriend is telling her that sex would make their relationship so much better. It is not so good when a married woman stands her ground and says "I'm not 'mother material', don't try and change me." Note, I'm talking about Godly husbands who desire sainthood for their wives, not men who desire to control or demean their wives.

Part of who I am is who I used to be. This is the unchangeable part that J can't shape, and just has to accept. I thank God that he does accept that lost, Godless girl I used to be, and loves who she became. But part of who I am is who I'm growing to be. This is the part that J is largely going to shape. In fact, he already has.

When J and I first began to date, I strongly disliked cooking, was attending an evangelical church, and had strange liberal ideas about how the Catholic Church had to change to suit me. Now, I love to cook (although he had nothing to do with this directly, I was praying pretty hard that God would prepare me to be a good wife--this is what I got), and I love the Church, the way she is, and I realized that it was I who had to change, not the beautiful Bride of Christ.

Having J in my life has already changed me so much. If I refused to change for him, I would be alone, and my walk with God would be suffering. This is because changing for the man who is to be my husband, so that our relationship can be closer, is a pale shadow of changing for the Ruler of the Universe who desires perfect union with me.

Being Discriminating

I woke up this morning to this story on the morning radio. For those who don't like to follow links, I'll summarize. Essentially, there is a professional hockey player who is being accused of racism because he dressed up as the rapper Jay-Z for Halloween, complete with make-up to make his skin darker.

NHL player Raffi Torres in costume
with his girlfriend

Honestly?! Racism? I think his costume is great. He looks a lot like Jay-Z, and he is a self-professed "big fan", so I doubt he was doing anything to make Jay-Z look bad. People dress as celebrities all the time for Halloween; just because they're of a different skin colour, does that automatically make them off-limits?

This points to a larger trend that I've been seeing, not only with skin colour, but with gender/sex as well. It seems that people are so careful to be seen as accepting and tolerant, that they try to pretend that differences don't exist at all, even ones as evident as skin colour.

I've had people tell me that I'm being racist, or that I'm discriminating when I am describing someone and I mention their skin colour. Literally, I was describing a girl going through sorority recruitment to one of the members of my sorority. I described the girl as black, with huge curly hair, and my sorority sister called me racist.

Why don't we take a journey through the dictionary to see if I was racist.

racism (from World Dictionary at Dictionary.com)

—noun

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief 

Based on this dictionary definition, I was not being racist. To merely point out a difference does not imply superiority in any way. While we've got the dictionary open, why don't we look up another one of those great insults - "you're discriminating."

discriminate (from dictionary.com)

verb (used without object)

1.

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

2.

to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately.

verb (used with object)

3.

to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate.

4.

to note or distinguish as different.

So, according to this definition, it can imply two different things. The first definition, most people would agree is wrong. You should look at each person as an individual. However, it is perfectly valid to point out differences.

Look at men and women. To discriminate against a women in the sense of the first definition would be to say that "you're a woman, all women belong in the kitchen, therefore, you belong in the kitchen." This is not taking into account who that woman is at all; maybe she is called to religious life, or single life. To be discriminating in the other three definitions would be to say "You're a woman. You are different than a man." Pointing out differences does not mean that you are decrying said differences.

So just like some people would like to pretend that skin colours are all the same, people would like to pretend that men and women are the same. News flash, they're not. Ladies, being different from a man is not the same as being less valuable than a man.

My University President got in HUGE trouble from a large sector of the student population when she made a remark that she is advocating for white males. She made that remark because there are more women than men in the University and more non-white men than white men. She didn't mean to say that she is advocating for white men at the expense of women and minority groups. She herself is a non-white woman who holds an engineering degree among others and is one of the highest earning University Presidents in Canada.

Along the same vein, I was part of a program in high school geared towards helping women go into non-traditional career paths (like engineering, technology and science). Now I'm a music major in an education degree, who wants to be a stay-at-home-mom. Not exactly blazing new trails, but it's what I want to do, and what I believe God is calling me to.

Differences are great. God created us to be wonderful in whoever we are. The only thing He calls for us to be the same in, is that we are all called to be Saints.

Babies and Selfishness

I get a bit sad when well-meaning Catholics say that marriage and parenthood isn't a vocation, that the only "real" vocation is that to religious life or the priesthood.

But in reality, I think a vocation is the major life shaper that is going to break you out of your selfishness so you can more fully follow God. But so many people don't see marriage that way, and with the ever evolving reproductive technology people have decided that kids are something that are meant to better fulfil themselves. Don't feel like you're "ready" to have a child yet? There's a pill for that. Did the pill fail? Don't worry, they can "get rid of it" for you. Did you wait too late to start a family and now you're not getting pregnant as easily as you hoped? In-vitro fertilization (IVF) works great!

Now, because of IVF, which has a high chance of producing multiple pregnancies at once, there is another way to micromanage your fertility. It's called "reducing" a pregnancy, and basically doctors abort all but one or two of the fetus' in utero. The link is to a New York Times article about the procedure.

A couple of quotes that really stood out for me in the article:

"I was right to be afraid [to have twins]. Studies report enormous disruption in families with multiples, and higher levels of social isolation, exhaustion and depression in mothers of twins. The incessant demands of caring for two same-aged babies eclipse the needs of other children and the marriage. It certainly did for us. There’s no doubt that life with twins and a third child so close in age has often felt all-consuming and out of control. And yet the thought of not having any one of them is unbearable now, because they are no longer shadowy fetuses but full-fledged human beings whom I love in a huge and aching way."

I feel like this is true for many people. Once they carry a baby to term they realise that the babies truly are people, not just ideas of people as they sometimes are perceived in the womb.

“In an environment where you can have so many choices, you own the outcome in a way that you wouldn’t have, had the choices not existed. If reduction didn’t exist, women wouldn’t worry that by not reducing, they’re at fault for making life more difficult for their existing kids. In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I’m not saying we should have less choices; I’m saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be.”

This isn't the first time that this sentiment has been expressed. Studies have shown that compared with women in the 1970s, the overall happiness of women is declining. We have gotten ourselves into a society where it is difficult to raise a family on one salary (although it is definitely done), and women don't like it. Most of my friends say that if they can afford it, they would like to stay home with their kids. Then they almost feel guilty for saying it, as if it is selfish to want to raise your kids yourself. I will argue that it is less selfish to do without things so your children can be raised by yourself. I'm not saying women have to stay home. But, they sure should not feel guilty for wanting to stay home.

Choices give us control. Control over things that we shouldn't necessarily have control over. When we can micromanage aspects of our lives we start to feel a sense of entitlement, and then that selfishness that lives inside all of us comes out. It just breaks my heart that babies die for it.

Beauty

Ok, so I have a confession. I have a bit of an obsession with the TLC show "What Not to Wear". Something about seeing people wearing clothes that just are not good for them transformed into these beautiful people by different clothes, hair and make-up just tugs at my heartstrings a little. I hadn't seen the show in awhile, so tonight was a bit weird to see how my viewpoints have been altered by my faith.

After a marathon session tonight with my Mom, I got to thinking, why do all these women have insecurity issues? There seems to be one of two extremes on the show: either a woman will dress bland and frumpy in order to hide any perceived body issues (legitimate or not), or she will dress very revealingly in order to attract attention because any sort of attention is good attention for her. It makes me sad. As I was talking to my Mom about it after we started talking about how women get so down on themselves. They don't think they're pretty, they don't think they will be desirable.

I know that I definitely had struggles with that. I've always thought that I wasn't pretty enough, or that I needed to go above and beyond what other girls would do in order for a boy to want to be with me. Now I've met the man I'm pretty sure God personally picked for me (we'll just call him J), and he helps remind me that I am loved for who I am, not what I do or how I look. I won't lie, I still struggle with it. I still have a hard time believing that J finds me attractive and loves the way I look BECAUSE it's part of who I am. So I'm working on it.

So as I talked with my Mom, I said "We need to do things for the glory of God. We can't compare ourselves to other women, we need to take care of ourselves because then we are taking care of what God created."

The most beautiful women I know (in real life) are the ones that are totally sold out to God. They don't think about how they look (or rarely). They take care of themselves, but they don't spend every second worrying about if they look OK. They just live, and they have a bit of a sparkle in their eyes which no amount of cosmetics can get you. I did a youth camp with some of these women last summer and we spent hours going over with those girls the idea of inner beauty. A couple of the verses that we used, that would be a good reminder for me, are:

^"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves..." 1 Peter 3: 3-5

and all of Proverbs 31, which is long, but it's awesome so you all should go read it!