"I bend to sweep crumbs and I bend to wipe vomit and I bend to pick up little ones and wipe away tears. I bend over a big pot of stew and I bend to fold endless laundry and I bend over math books and spelling sentences and history quiz corrections. And at the end of these days I bend next to the bed and I ask only that I could bend more, bend lower.

Because I serve a Savior who came to be a servant. He lived bent low. And bent down here is where I see His face.

...

And people say, “Don’t you get tired?” and yes, I do. But I’m face to face with Jesus in the dirt, and the more I bend the harder and better and fuller this life gets. And sure, we are tired, but oh we are happy. Because bent down low is where we find fullness of Joy."

(from the blog of Katie Davis, a 22 yr-old who is foster mother to 13 Ugandan children.) 

I decided to end this blog.  And then this post crept up on me and now I just can't help myself.

It's a great article and it has it all.  Gender and class and political economy--everything I was trained to look for in a smart, well-considered analysis (of any kind) during my short stint in graduate school.  The concept of the value of work and the nature of women's work and the place of childrearing in a household economy and all of that is something I spend quite a lot of time thinking about.  As I sit at home.  With no outside job. And rear children while my husband is (usually) off at work in a job he finds extremely fulfilling. 

There have been other articles in the last few weeks, too.  About aprons and the "mommy wars" and all that.  Those are always out there and it's usually same old, same old.  Women arguing about which is best and more fulfilling, or which is more sacrificial. 

I hate that women who work outside the home are still accused of letting their kids down.  It strikes me as a worse accusation than that you are simply letting yourself down by not having a career--that you are failing to live up to your own potential or be a productive member of society.  But since those are both just really silly, they are easier to address.  More complex is the charge that women are being let down because they are expected, for long durations of time, to tend to the basic needs of others.

Yes, the above-mentioned post is fascinating and astute, but it also says this: "It’s always been a brutal gig to be asked to be intelligent and creative and engaged enough to raise a highly successful child, yet to be satisfied with only that, forever, along with some cleaning and cooking."

My Facebook friend through whom I found the post probably didn't really even notice that sandwiched in there, just as many of us don't notice any number of ways that women (unintentionally?) take down other women.  There hardly seems to be a way to read around the implication that to be satisfied with menial labor and tedium is to settle for a lesser life.  It is to accept to be treated as a lower being and less competent.  Furthermore, "creative" and "intelligent" people deserve more fulfilling work than mopping up spills and making sure the fridge is stocked.

So the question is, does that mean that the stupider and less creative people should do it?  Or, rather, that a woman who does this work will (perhaps ought to) be considered stupider and less creative?  Because it sure sounds like it to me.  I know this for sure: someone needs to do the cooking and cleaning and children need someone to look after and nurture them. 

Let me first clarify that in no way am I arguing that women's contributions to local and global economies have been recognized and appreciated as they should and I am certainly not saying that women ought to be the ones to cook and clean (rather than men).  The dignity of women is regularly trampled on and ridiculed and women are made to feel less than human in any number of degrading ways, not the least of which in the nature of the tasks and work they have been allowed to (or encouraged to) undertake.  But to suggest that it is degrading for a woman to care, full-time, for her own family's basic needs is just absurd.  Also, I would like to mention that I don't know anyone--male or female--who only cooks and cleans.  Not one.*

In my marriage, our roles and tasks are divided down traditional lines, more or less, but we know several couples for whom the roles are reversed.  In one family, she is the doctor and he has had to take over the childcare duties while she completes her seven-year residency.  He told me that he gets up at 4am on the days when she has to work all day and then stay overnight on "call."  He goes surfing really, really early in the morning just to get some alone time while she and the kids are still at home in bed.  And then he comes home, gets the kids ready for daycare and then takes himself into work. He cooks and cleans and gets the kids put to bed and then takes care of the night-time feedings for their infant daughter, too.

When he told me this, you know what my first thought was?  "Man, that is one noble guy, to do all that so his wife can pursue her dream."  And you know what I think when it's my turn to do all that? "Man, do I have a raw deal or what."  


I should mention that I've only been doing "cleaning and cooking" full-time for about seven and a half years.  But I've learned something in that short time: first of all, that it's not just cooking and cleaning.  It's so much more involved than those two words suggest. I also need to plan meals, shop for them, use or re-use food and ingredients wisely and try to reduce waste. And then do all the dishes and mopping that follow from all of that effort.  I will also need to clothe everyone that I am feeding, and rotate out the winter clothes and rotate in the summer ones and make lists and make dental appointments and then even more cleaning and the training of the children to clean and chop and wash and all the rest.  It is so much harder and more involved than just "cooking and cleaning."  It also takes patience, forethought and even creativity.

Secondly, I learned that I will most likely do these things for a very long time, and probably for the rest of my life.  I don't mean that I won't ever have an "outside job," because I might.  But when it comes to caring for people who are too helpless to care for themselves, whether babies or a sick child or spouse, an elderly or demented parent, maybe I am just getting started.

So what do I make of my gut reaction to my friend's surfer-husband's role, except that I don't want to be expected to really work that hard or sacrifice in those particular ways?  Apparently, somewhere deep down, I still feel that it is less noble, for a woman, to serve.  As if I am not part of a faith community that treasures the example and sacrificial love of a young woman whose calling was to care for the physical and material needs of a particularly special Infant. 

___________

One of the things that really helped me as my husband was going through his Medical Residency training was to keep sight of the ways our days and work was similar.  There seemed to be such a divide between our routines and we struggled with feelings of isolation.  So I numbered commonalities and kept a running list.  For example:

1. Neither of us gets uninterrupted sleep.  Patients or babies usually howl for help around 2 and 3am.
2. We both get puked on.  A lot.
3. People scream and yell and cry at us for no reason. 
4. We are expected to remain patient and calm and collected under extreme conditions.
5.  We have to wash our hands continually. (hey, that may sound very simple and unimportant, but it helped to imagine him doing the same thing I was doing, over and over again.)
6.  A lot of what we do is repetitive and often mind-numbingly dull. 
7.  At the end of a day/shift, all we want to do is watch a funny TV show about nothing in particular.

Okay, but there is the main difference that he gets paid and I don't.  And I believe that is the point Yuki was making.  Women are often the ones who do the chores and tasks that don't pay and that no one ever sees.  Childcare and home economics are not considered professional fields of work (if you are caring for your own children, I mean); we are not even required to study and we won't graduate with a diploma because we are just expected to do it for free.  Women get the raw deal when that's all they are given to do, right?

Well, on the one hand, I say, good.  I am glad that at least there's one thing right with the world.  What's wrong is expecting to be paid for every little act of service.  Good that lawyers do pro bono work for those who can't afford the standard fees.  Good that some doctors realize that, once the bills have been paid, they might do well to use the spare time to volunteer in clinics for the poor.  Good that neighbors water each other's plants and occasionally roll each other's trash cans to the curb.  What is strange is that men (and women) do NOT expect themselves to serve the basic needs of others, but instead view service to others--especially to strangers--as optional.  What is strange is that relationships of love are transformed into relationships of power and that we don't blink an eye but instead we find ourselves rushing to jump in, too.

We ought to know better and I think we do.  We value service to neighbor and we pride ourselves on being people who help out when a tornado or hurricane comes through, or share trucks and men when wildfires rage out of control.  Just don't you dare ask us to put on an apron and start baking for our husbands.  We will do that if and when we want to, and for as long as we feel like it, but no more.

Last month I listened to a radio program on a different topic that made me groan out loud.  A representative of Catholic Charities (USA) was explaining his perspective on why Americans should willingly and generously assist new refugees to get settled and find jobs, etc.  His argument?  That you never know what they or their children or grandchildren might end up contributing to our country and anyway many of us are descendants of refugees.  I remembered that program as I listened to one about adoption this morning on the same station.  Who knows what gifts and treasures an adoptee might bring to the world, if they're only given a chance (they said).  For proof, just take a look at what Steve Jobs accomplished!  And the same has been used as a rationale against abortion: don't deny the unborn a chance to become the next greatest CEO!

What rot.  Children, refugees, women, men, the elderly, the disabled, the severely disabled, the unborn, are of extreme value because human life is valuable.  Period.  People are worthy of our service simply because they are people and as such have inestimable dignity.  Furthermore, as Blessed John Paul II said, women are particularly well-placed to humanize society.  He said that we need women because they are women, and by their existence and through their bodies and their experience, they bear witness in a special way to the value of the human person by just being women.

"Women first learn and then teach others that human relations are authentic if they are open to accepting the other person: a person who is recognized and loved because of the dignity which comes from being a person and not from other considerations, such as usefulness, strength, intelligence, beauty or health.  This is the fundamental contribution which the Church and humanity expect from women." (JPII, EvangeliumVitae)

 So then why on earth would we insist on a future that is not shaped by our gender? 

Women understand and live the experience of the less powerful; we carry and birth the most vulnerable among us. And, if we are honest, we know what is at stake if we refuse to feed and nurture the bodies of those people who count on us to care for them.  We lose out.  Not only the young or the helpless or the elderly, but also us.  Because we turn away from our own humanity--male and female--if we refuse to tend to the needs of others and if we walk away from opportunities to bend lower and opt rather to reach higher.  We make the mistake of believing that creativity and intelligence are separate from, and stifled by, a lifetime of service and in doing so we harm our very concept of self.

One final quote:

"The enhancement of intelligence and of humankind's cognitive powers has, unhappily, not been matched by any enhancement of our capacity for love.  It seems, in fact, that this capacity for love counts for nothing, even though we know that to be happy or unhappy depends not so much on whether we know or don't know, as on whether we love or don't love, are loved or are not loved.  It is easy to see why this is so: we are created "in the image of God," and God is love.  Deus caritas est! ...It is not difficult to see why we are so anxious to increase our knowledge and so unconcerned about increasing our capacity to love: knowledge automatically translates into power, but love into service." (Fr. R. Cantalamessa, "There Were Also Some Women")

* Which is not to say that they don't exist, because they do.  I just realized, as I thought about it that anyone I know who stays home full-time also homeschools, or knits, or prays, or writes, or works out of their home part-time, or tutors, or reads, or keeps books for the family business, or blogs, or volunteers their time, etc.  I think in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan there are women who are not permitted to do anything else and even in Morocco, but I really can't think of anyone I know personally who fits into that mold.  Do you?

on further reflection

Pretty soon after saying that I don't read too many blog posts about poverty or service to the poorer among us, I realized that wasn't really true.  In fact, one of the very times I read Molly I ran across a quote that she referenced (by an Orthodox monk, maybe?) about how the extra pairs of shoes in your closet are ones that you have withheld from the needy.  Then Kris wrote this short piece in which she pondered the nature (and varieties) of poverty.  Pentimiento has several posts in which she wrestles with her discomfort on the origins of wealth and sometimes she writes about reality for her undocumented friend.  Earlier this week Heather wrote about her grocery shopping habits and it turns out she manages to spend less than $24 each week so she can have a little extra leftover for hungry others.  And then there is Rae, who doesn't have posts devoted to the subject, but simply lives it out (just an example: $50 for food during Lent's six weeks for herself and her husband. That's serious).

And there are plenty more that I am forgetting, for sure.  Trying to set the record straighter.

misc

1. My youngest has started morning preschool.  For two hours and forty-five minutes, five days a week, I am on my own!  You wouldn't believe the amount of stuff I can cram into that short time frame.  It's actually a little ridiculous and I probably need to chill out.  Heck, at least no one can accuse me of wasting it.

2.


(stopped next to me at a red light over the weekend)


3. Right now in our backyard, there are thousands of tiny baby grasshoppers.  If you take a step toward the grass (okay, it's all weeds), dozens of them scatter with a sweet pippity-pippity sound. I never remember they are there until I go out to hang up the laundry.


4. Ooh, I just said "laundry" so now I have another excuse to tell you more about my laundromat.  Not only are there folks wandering about with coolers full of breakfast burritos, snowcones, and "biscuits" (whatever those might be), but the other day I was folding sheets at a table only to realize that no one within earshot was speaking English (only Navajo). I looked up and realized I was the only white person in the place.


5. Last week, the thought of making a pilgrimage (and possibly never coming back) to one of these Greek monasteries was very welcome.  An acquaintance told me on Saturday how blessed I was, to have the three kids and my health.  "From the outside, you know," he said, "it's easy to see how much of a blessing it is."  Sadly, I don't always have the outside perspective on those sorts of things. 


6.  My kindergartner's sight words for the past two weeks have been "I," "am," "the," and "little."  I feel like that ought to prompt me to some profound thoughts, but it doesn't really.  It's just kind of cute.


7.  It's a good thing I have two daughters because only one of them likes to lie in bed in the late afternoons and exchange back or head rubs.  The older one is off creating and researching and reading and writing comic books or doing crossword puzzles and generally not doing anything that remotely resembles sitting still.  And the son never gets tired of launching himself off bookcases or onto couches.  It's going to be a long, long winter.


8.  It's not winter yet, and I still love to sit outside when I can on my new favorite chair. 

sometimes we get views like these:

 

transubstantiation

For some reason, I resolved to write a post on family life and medical training and then I made an announcement of my intention here.  To get closure or clarity, maybe, or perhaps it was because I thought I might be able to say something of practical use for someone going in.  Surely, after seven years, I could reflect logically and reasonably on the process and the season, couldn't I?

The problem was, those two stories--starting a family and starting medical school--are intertwined for us.  I had the babies and he went to school.  And then began the Dreaded Residency, with capital "d" and "r" and a third baby.  In both the living and the writing of our story, there has been joys and tears, and after about 57 million attempts at drafts to tell the story of why, I had to give it up.  A decision which, instead of adding to my sense of discouragement, finally somehow brought peace.

There are people who, when writing about past events or trials in their lifetime, look back and see abundance and plenitude of grace.  Stomachs, minds and souls filled and fed on a hillside, with twelve full baskets leftover besides.  Feast, in the presence of the Son.

I don't understand that miracle story as well as some of the other ones about bread: the Syro-Phoenician woman who begs for crumbs, and the story of that widow, the one at Zarephath.  Scarcity and suffering, famine and fear.  In the second account, food is indeed multiplied, but not in abundance.  The man (a prophet though she didn't know it) arrives on her doorstep demanding a meal, and she shares even though she is sure there isn't enough.  Oil and flour made into a small piece of bread--not enough to satisfy, just enough to maintain life for one more day.  It is too small and it seems impossible that it could do any good.

source

Then, each morning, more bread is made and the supplies are exhausted once again.  Just enough and no more, like the manna that was gathered in the desert--only enough for a single day. 

Still hungry, always hungry, the widow and her son are the lucky ones; they survive the famine.  The miracle feeds them and they are alive each day to witness another one.  Hungry yet grateful, the widow lives, praying and looking forward to a time when there will be plenty.  And in the meantime she and her child are fed by the prayers of a prophet in order that their faith story can nourish others.  Their faith, their hunger, their humble meals, a foreshadowing of the real bread of Word and Presence so that we will come to believe that we, too, can offer ourselves as broken bread.

In later years when they remember the season, the widow and her son probably also remembered the real and physical pains of never-enough.  Their story also has survived, told and retold if not for their sake then for ours.  We are the ones now who need to learn that just a bit of bread, made from dust in an empty jar and the oil of greasy fingerprints--how it is always a little bit of nothing that is transformed into bread that nourishes. 

more on spoiling

this is cute: a four-year old gets it! 

road trip

last week, I took off alone to go visit my sister and friends in Colorado.

 I've never driven so far on my own, but it was fabulous.

I am still kind of on a high from that trip so I'll be back once I get back to normal.  Maybe.

on the Memorial of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta

Yesterday evening, Jeremy came home from his 12-hour shift to rest of us, midway through dinner and in our underpants.  Well, I was fully clothed, but the kids were only in underwear and shoes.  Undies because they were each taking turns being ‘Captain Underpants’, and shoes because someone’s cape had whipped around, accidentally shattering a glass, and there hadn’t been any time to vacuum up the pieces.  Come to think of it, the vacuum spews rather than sucks these days and that reminds me of another floor I will have to clean tomorrow: the mop never made it out in honor of the breakfast time orange juice spill and the stickiness attracted all manner of other nasty grossness.  (sigh)

Online, I encounter all kinds of people who aren’t like me and some of them call themselves “perfectionists,” a word that continues to mystify me (now “lazy,” that I understand all too well).  One of my blog-crushes is a woman cooks from scratch, homeschools, knits, blogs, sews—you name it.   For years I have tried to figure out her secret and partially it is because she had cancer years ago and so she is really, really grateful for and invested in the Now, and partially she’s just made this way, with a drive I don’t have.  She just wants to do all these things, and usually she has the resources to do them.  She is who she is, unapologetically.  I like that.

There is another reason I like to read her: she believes in spoiling her family.  In an I-won’t-sleep-tonight-because-I-want-tomorrow-to-be-the-best-Christmas-ever kind of way, except not just on holidays.  She believes in giving her family her best.  Being chronically tired and overworked, being limited, being only one person to split 9 different ways for the kids and one more for her husband—that’s a given and she accepts it.  So she says: Given that the job is an impossible one, what can I still do?  That’s good stuff.

The concept of spoiling* other people has been on my mind a lot.  Last Saturday, at a soup kitchen that feeds anywhere between 40 and 80 people six nights a week, a young man took charge of the cooking.  He was from Mexico, maybe about 25 years old and he struggled to translate into English and into cups-and-gallon measurements as he delegated the chopping and blending duties.  He was trained to cook in kilos because he learned from French monks while in Europe for a few months and we have him here only temporarily, as a postulant to the Franciscan Order.  The meal he made last Saturday, when finished off with the pumpkin pies someone dropped off that morning, would be a gourmet feast.  

I kind of chuckled at his disapproval when the fresh tomatoes ran out and we had to substitute canned diced ones.  The flavor was lacking, he moaned, and the rest of us smiled because that kind of perfectionism is rare in donations-only soup kitchens.  Later, though, when I thought back to my few other experiences with chefs for the poor, I remembered others I have known like him.  In Brooklyn, at a crisis pregnancy shelter, there is a volunteer who arrives early in the morning, five days a week, to serve a homemade breakfast to each of those ever-hungry women.  She takes a pad and pen and goes door-to-door, taking orders.  Each one can choose from a varied menu: oatmeal, pancakes, eggs cooked any way, cereal or toast.  Then, the volunteer custom-makes twelve breakfasts, ready by 8am. 

In Colorado, at the homeless shelter around the corner from our old house, Monday night was the night a professional chef would come in.  It was always a three-course meal on Mondays and when it was my Tuesday of the month, I would bring in my pasta-and-a-salad and the guests would drool as they recalled and described the previous night’s menu.** The Sisters always made sure that there was dessert, and extra treats on holidays and feast days and they deep-clean once a week.

Mother Teresa was once criticized publicly for giving too much to the Poor*** without requiring anything in return and she answered that there are enough societies out there that spoil the rich, but few to spoil the poor and that’s what she and her sisters were about.  I guess she had her share of romantic notions about serving the Poor, too.  I like that.

I haven’t come across a whole of posts about spoiling the Poor in my corner of Blog World, but I would like to read more.  I would love to read a post about how important it is for foster parents and unwed mothers to have occasional vacations, or how important it is for the elderly poor to live in beautiful surroundings.  How about a list of practical ways to spoil other people, a la Ann Voskamp’s gratitude list?  I would dig that.

Recently, though, I did come across a post about the importance for homemakers to maintain a tidy and lovely home.  The author used, as a counter-example, a woman who volunteers outside her home and allows the interior to suffer.  Unmade beds, clutter, peeling wallpaper…the horror.  The point of the post was, if I understood it correctly, that this woman was not only neglecting her house, but her vocation to create a pleasant place of retreat for her family.  It set up (falsely, I think) two choices: to serve others OR to serve our families, and it kind of bummed me out.

I'd like to think we can do it all: spoil our kids, our spouses and the occasional lonely neighbor or needy stranger.  We can't do it full-time, of course, because our families need us to feed and clothe them.  But maybe we can do a bit of gardening, or go to grad school, or make a phonecall to someone who is lonely, and kick back once in awhile to sip iced tea out on the porch in the evenings—a season for everything and time for a little bit of all of it.  Is the work at home really ever done, anyway?  So why wait to have any fun until after the dishes are done?  Shouldn't service cost us something anyway?

I'd like to think that there is a way for me to get out more often so I can share my now-well-practiced cooking or tidying skills with others (even if I can't exactly produce meals that are works of art).  And I'd even like for my kids to come with me, too. 

The truth is, that article did more than bum me out.  It went even further and implied that people with the means to do so should invest in their home. Really, I am disgusted by the idea that we or our families would be right to be disappointed with anything less than beautiful and orderly material surroundings and I question that our money should be spent, primarily, on ourselves.  I reject that narrow understanding of the nature of beauty and I refuse to rob my family of the opportunity to sacrifice their own comfort in small ways.  It’s good for them, and it’s good for me.  We need the Poor, and our souls need to catch glimpses of how God spoils them because we need to understand how spoiled we are, and how poor. 

My kids will probably grow up moaning and groaning about the maddening things I made them do when they were younger.  We don’t get to shelters or soup kitchens very often, but you wouldn’t know that to hear them complain.  Soon enough, it will be their turn to institute annoying family traditions with their own children.

I overheard the young wannabe-Franciscan mention that he would be cooking dinner for the friars later in the day.  I doubt he made a gourmet meal for them and I doubt they cared.  But on the other hand, maybe he did?  Maybe he cooked two fabulous meals in a single day and if so, good for him.  

I'll take the peeling wallpaper and dirt if I have to choose, but I don't think I do.  A little bit of extra mess and clutter and a few extra wrinkles in the unfolded-laundry is probably all the difference it ends up making in my household and I am okay with a little more chaos.  Besides, in my family we have a tendency to show up for dinner half-naked and in capes so we're clearly not real picky. (By the way, my son’s outfit was the best: Thomas the Tank Engine undies and his sister’s Uggs!  No photos for obvious reasons, but you should’ve seen it.)

In the end, I am glad I read that post, however disparaging toward the Woman-of-the-Neglected-Home.  In fact, I’d like to hear more about her because it is so refreshing to hear about someone who isn't obsessed with home improvement and decorating.  Who knows what kind of volunteer work she is doing or her reasons for doing it, but it's always great to hear about people who are so free from the love of Things.  I like that.



Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us.



 

* in this post, “spoiling” is devoid of any negative connotation.

** darn you, Mr. Professional Chef!  Couldn’t you switch to Wednesdays or something?!

***I have been known to refer to parenting as a service to the “poor” given that without us, our children have no means to satisfy their own needs, and I stand by that.  In this post, however, the Poor means also those who are suffering depravations and/or injustices of more serious kinds and with no one to care for them.

Quick Takes

1.  Seems like this is the only post I have time for anymore.  Maybe it's a sign that I should stick to the short, the sweet and the funny.  Well, maybe I will.  So there.

2. Short: I was cutting my fingernails last week and one teeny tiny cut fingernail flew into my eye and got stuck there.  True story.  (Thank heavens for that ER doc roommate of mine who knows how to do magic with Qtips.).

3. Funny: Speaking of that roommate.  One time, while on Ambien after a string of night shifts, he sat straight up and bed at 3am and sang this song (it starts at 1:15):

4.  Probably there will be people out there who will have a hard time believing that story (it really happened and I remember thinking at the time, "No one will believe me and there are no witnesses around to vouch for me!"), BUT about 200 people were there when that 8-year old missionary kid karaoke-sang this song at my wedding reception:



5.  Sweet: My son wants to change his name to Bye-djul-Broccoli-Face when he gets older.  Come on, that's sweet.

6.  Sweet: Peanut butter cookies are sweet and I made a whole batch yesterday and they are in my freezer right now as I type. Too bad it's Friday and they are verboten.  Argh.

7.  Sweet:  Too bad I have all these nice new friends who are all very sweet and I am a sarcastic meanie. I try to fit in, but then I remember: I am a sarcastic meanie who doesn't belong with the Sweet Girls. Oh well, maybe I can just distract them with my homemade peanut butter cookies and they won't notice...

more takes at Jen's

Quick Takes

1. In one of the many inflight magazines I have perused over the last year, I read a story about a computer game writer who lives in New Mexico somewhere with his family.  He doesn't earn much and he doesn't want to, although his games are very successful.  Something about being an artist and putting them online for free.  Anyway, I think about his family a lot because they have three or four kids and they manage to live off of $14,000 a year.  They don't own a car, they grow their own vegetables, maybe they turn their waste into cooking gas, who the heck knows.  How do they do that?

2.  Usually, I think about that family as I hang up our laundry on our line.  I also think about how it used to be that only poor people line-dry and how having a dryer is still somewhat of a status symbol.  However: more and more folks are doing it now to be "eco-friendly" and so now it is the smart thing to do and not just the poor thing to do. 

3. A facebook friend listed "Faith, Family, Exercise and Beer" as her main interests.  All I have to do is write a post on beer and that would sum up the content of this blog.

4. Saw a sad bumper sticker today: "Someone I Loved Was Murdered."  Yikes.

5. I like this headline from the Navajo Times from July 28th, my birthday. 

6.  It's been a very busy week and I feel like I have barely had a chance to sit down.  In the middle of it all, on Wednesday, we decided to paint the dining room.  I wore shorts and an old t-shirt and, at one point when I looked down, I remembered a fleeting thought from my shower earlier in the day about how there was no time to shave both legs.  "I'll just do one today and one tomorrow," I thought and then I must've gone ahead with that plan because sure enough, there to the East was a dense and fertile forest, and to the West it was clear and pure, like the still surface of a mountain lake. 

Jeremy almost died laughing.  Hey, I'm just glad I got a shower, ok?

7.  For the last few weeks, I've ended up at the laundromat right when the show, "The Doctors" is airing.  Good grief, she's still talking about laundry.  No, I'm not!  I want to talk about fertility symptoms!  Apparently, there are some Apps. out there that help you keep track of your menstrual cycle.  There are even "his" and "hers" Apps, where "his" warns him of the onset of PMS and makes helpful--though maybe a little condescending--suggestions (like, "today would be a good day to compliment her outfit or appearance").  

Anyway, it bugs me a little that this software was only mentioned in the context of sex because I can think of about a hundred reasons why it is helpful for any woman, sexually active or not, to chart her fertility symptoms.  I guess it's still a good thing that folks are out there talking openly about women's cycles, and encouraging men and women to get in touch with Mother Nature a little bit more. 

more takes at Jen's and hers are as hilarious as ever.

who wants to join a cult? (part II)

You may have noticed that in the preceding post I did not address the issue of theological/doctrinal error within abusive and high-control religious groups.*   There are several reasons for that:

1.  First of all, because groups vary.  In some, there is some very obvious distortions of faith concepts and outsiders can clearly pinpoint them, even if a member has bought into the belief system.  But when a group is still in the recruiting phase, there may not be.  Or it may be so understated that it would be hard to prove. 

2. Secondly, because convincing people that there is serious error is usually not an effective way to steer them away from potentially harmful groups.  Their mind is becoming more and more confused and the leader(s) like it that way.  Besides, there are all kinds of minor theological disagreements out there so perhaps this is just one of them? (thinks the brainwashed member...)

It is much easier to spot other kinds of dysfunctions—unhealthy group dynamics, an overbearing or all-knowing leader, the absence of the usual (and healthy) disagreements and compromises among members, and other tell-tale pattern of  thought control programs.  It is often sufficient to focus on the social psychology of a movement or group, to try to make a decision about whether to join up or, alternatively, to run for the hills.  "How cult leaders and other clever operators get people to do their bidding seems arcane and mysterious to most persons, but I find there is nothing esoteric about it at all," writes cult experet Margaret T. Singer.  "There are no secret drugs or potions.  It is just words and group pressures, put together in packaged forms." 

Words, you say?  So for a literature-based cult, this ought to be pretty simple, then?   Maybe so.

Still, when you have a controlling leader who is geographically removed from his/her followers, the dynamic is not going to be exactly the same as it has traditionally been with other high-pressure groups of its kind.  It can't be; if you are trying to influence people from afar (or in some way to acquire some power over them), a leader will necessarily have to be more cautious and more cunning in their methods because small mistakes will show more easily.  On the other hand, the agenda will be "packed into" those reading materials for maximum effectiveness.  The Internet makes such groups possible because of instantaneous flow of information, but perhaps they will be less successful because of it. 

There is no way to predict exactly what will happen next with this particular group, but, based on what other swindlers and egomaniac leaders have done in the past, we can make some educated guesses.  Besides, if the agenda is to control people, there should already be evidence available in the written materials.  The hierarchy needs certain conditions in order to function effectively, and it would be working toward certain goals (if it is indeed a cult or high pressure group).  In Part I, we listed some of the the methods that cults use to create an environment of change and control (to shape the personalities of members into their most agreeable and non-resistant form).  Singer believes all the tactics of thought reform are encompassed within this list of three:

1.  they destabilize a person's sense of self: they create a person who has lost confidence and independence through a slow and imperceptible (though well coordinated) program.  They have undermined their consciousness of reality, their belief system and beaten down their defense mechanisms.  Again, not by force because words, suggestions and environment are usually enough. 

2. they get a person to reinterpret their own life history and accept a new version of reality and causality

3.  they develop a person's dependence on the organization and transform them into a deployable agent

From what I could tell in the small group I attended in June, this group is still somewhat in the early phases of development.  It all seems very harmless because there are (seemingly) no specific demands on members and besides, they are "volunteering" their time in recruiting others!  No one told them to do anything, right?  And it's not like the leaders are breathing down their neck because, they are thousands of miles away!

At that meeting, as these (very devout and well-intentioned people) studied the materials and discussed the content, I remember that several people present agreed (in response to an encouragement to "say Yes to God more willingly and frequently") that they did indeed need to do that and to be less fearful.  In itself, this is not a scary statement from a Catholic as we all admire the Virgin Mary's unquestioning "Fiat" to the Angel.  The problem was that these very sincere Catholics had already accepted that the message of these texts was divine in origin.  They no longer questioned the messenger's words—they had already made up their minds to believe that they were the words of Jesus Himself.  The parish priest directed them to a book, a bishop has given his Okay, and that was enough. 

This is, in my view, one of the real dangers of groups like these—the fact that everything seems so innocent and pure and harmless.  The people I met who are taking these materials seriously all seemed to be sweet, well-meaning and trusting.  They just want to understand God and their faith better.  But they were not waiting for a final verdict from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—the content of the book was unquestioned.

Brainwashing is a loaded word and I hate to use it because it conjures up the extremes: the Mason family and David Koresh and all that.  This is what is really scary about it: brainwashing starts as soon as someone has accepted someone else's authority over their thinking.  In the case of an alleged visionary—who is speaking the words of Jesus or Mary, after all—it's all over.  Anything "Jesus" wants them to do, they'll do.  That's how cults get started, when people stop asking questions.  


In Cialdini's book on the mechanics of influence, he used salespeople as an example, but in my experience, it applies to church people, too.  Not the woman in the church narthex, that's not what I mean.  I mean the leader of this group, the person who is claiming some extra special spiritual knowledge and encouraging others (like the narthex woman) to flock to them for guidance.  That's one of the warning signs that stood out from our brief conversation: the promise of an extra special anything.  The question ought to be, Why, if there is nothing substantially different from Sacred Scripture, should I bother with someone's books or ideas about a supernatural revelation they claim to have had?

There is a Church document from 1978, the NORMS OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ON THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING IN JUDGING ALLEGED APPARITIONS AND REVELATIONS" that speaks directly to this issue (it has been translated into English at this website):

"4. In uncertain cases that make little difference to the good of the Church, let the competent ecclesiastical Authority abstain from any judgment and direct action (it may even happen that, with the passage of time, the event said to be supernatural may fall into oblivion); nonetheless he should not leave off vigilance, so that if necessary, he can intervene promptly and prudently."    http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html

As I understand it, when a priest or bishop grants an Imprimatur, it doesn't necessarily mean that a private revelation has been authenticated.  It simply means that there is nothing in the published materials that has been found to contradict established doctrine.  There's a big difference.  In fact, that was pointed out in #2 on that same list:

2. If the faithful are legitimately requesting it (that is, in communion with the Pastors and not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene, to permit and promote some forms of veneration and devotion, if, according to the Criteria as noted above, there is no obstacle to them. Nevertheless, there should be caution lest the faithful take this manner of acting as an approval on the part of the Church for the supernatural character of the event (cf. Prefatory note, under c).

_____________

How could it be bad when the fruit is good?  The woman in the narthex asked.  What harm can it do? 

Plenty.  Have you ever been betrayed by someone you trusted about the deepest matters of your faith or life?  Have you ever suffered through the anguish of not knowing who, if anyone, to trust ever again.  Have you ever lost your ability to trust yourself?  Well, I'll tell you: it's awful, and dark.  Most of us can't handle that sort of messing with our minds.  It is easy to become confused, and depressed, maybe suicidal.  It's that serious.  

In the meantime, I think we should do the same thing that Robert Cialdini advised in his example of the salesperson: just sleep on it.  Keep praying the way you always have, move on with your life and ignore the "new stuff" for, oh, a good decade or so.  Belief in private revelation is not mandated by the church and it usually takes awhile to authenticate a revelation (remember St. Faustina?).  So just relax, we'll know if it's legitimate soon enough and do you really want to take the risk, just to be able to brag that you "knew [of this movement] when"?


Go from the gut and steer clear of groups that seem too good to be true because they most likely are.  Ignore it because it will probably fade away on its own anyway and just disappear into the mist.  The same people who are good at manipulating can also be really good at hiding the traces of their misdeeds; they might just disappear after awhile and (hopefully) move to some island far, far away.

____________

Maybe you're getting depressed just reading about this, but I try not to get too discouraged about the whole business.  Sooner or later, if the group is in fact a cult, it will start to show.  Members will realize it and some of them will walk away.  Sooner or later, the desire for power or money will eventually override the leader's sense of self-preservation.  They will make mistakes and their real agenda will peek through.  They will become less cautious and their real motives will start to show.  They will not realize it, or they won't care (once again: think, Warren Jeffs).  Pastors who are really in it for the money get busted by the IRS all the time.  Or whatever, that's just an example.  At this point, it will no longer be a matter of convincing new recruits to join, but of helping current members get out.

On the other hand, though, the deceit might just be outright and in the open all along.  A monthly urgent message from God about how members of the group need to work harder, pray more and sacrifice more of their time and money—all passed along by a messenger who won't reveal their real name or anything about their past?  Well, that's so obvious, it just might work.

  

* I am focusing on religious cults in this series because that's what I know about, but there are many, many different kinds: commercial or political ones, cults that offer techniques in self-improvement or enlightenment, cults based on outer-space phenomena, psychological cults, etc. 

7 Quick Takes--Navajo Southwest Edition (with photos)

1. On Thursday there was a very long line of people with grocery carts lined up in the parking lot of a local supermarket. I couldn't figure it out at first so I got closer: a couple of guys had big barrels and would roast your chiles for you if you wanted to wait your turn.

2. I hear that devout Navajo will not visit local ruins because they want to prevent the spirits of their ancestors coming along with them when it's time to go home.

3.  The Annual Inter Tribal Indian Ceremonial was held close by last week.  My camera's battery died and it was sunset so none of my pictures began to capture how spectacular it was.  Not only are there Navajo, but Zuni, Hopi, Cheyenne, Taos and even Aztec Indians (and plenty more I haven't listed here).

4. Jeremy learned at work that at the time of burial, the Navajo need to have all of their parts buried with them.  Lost or extracted teeth, missing fingers or limbs, etc.  At the birth of a new baby, a Navajo grandmother requests to take the placenta home.

5. A bunch of guys with guns are having lunch in a reserved room at the coffee shop today.  Holstered guns, I mean.  The gun laws here take some getting used to.

6. My kids' school is 80% Navajo.  They kind of stand out a little.

7. At the laundromat they play country music and folks selling food in coolers wander around.  At the Annual Ceremonial Parades the number of snack food hawkers was completely out of control.  Folks backed their pickups up so they could sell from the backs of trucks, or they set up tables, or they loaded their coolers into grocery carts and did laps up and down the streets. 

more takes over at Jen's (her #3 is particularly hilarious)

who wants to join a cult? (Part I)

You know that thing when you open up the church bulletin after Sunday Mass and there's a plug for a new cult?  "Come and join our cult-group!  We pray a lot, we lie even more, AND you're guaranteed to become a mental health case after a short couple of years!"

Yeah, me neither. 

If only obsessive-compulsive narcissists would introduce themselves as such right from the start, it would save the rest of us a lot of trouble.  "Hi, I'm crazy and really really power hungry and I would love to manipulate you and a bunch of other people and then ruin some lives!"   Is that really asking too much?  At the very least, it would give everyone a chance to make a decision based on all the facts and then walk away laughing and not crying.

Unfortunately, this is what is more likely to happen:  say it's June, on a Sunday.  In the church bulletin there is a notice advertising "free summer reading" and promoting the publications of a certain Christian group.  There is even a local group that had begun to meet on the church grounds to discuss the book and to pray.  You are familiar with this group and know enough that you have been keeping your distance, and then enough more to know that others probably might want to, as well.  But then you find out that the local pastor is really into these publications and is spreading the word far and wide.  There's even a rumor that the local bishop has endorsed the materials.

If you hear about all of this on a Sunday in June, and if, a long time ago, you happen to have joined up with a similar group that was "just for prayer" and that one turned out to be a big huge mess, then you might do what I did.  I walked over to the display table to have a closer look and try to figure out why in the world someone thought it was a good idea.  There was a woman who was very obviously excited to share about the changes in her life that had occurred since she came across this new literature.  So instead of pretending I had a real interest in the books, I decided to be frank.  I told her about the online search I had conducted on the group and its leader and that I had come across some troubling allegations.  She seemed a little confused, but not at all defensive and replied that she had heard nothing the least bit negative about the movement, and in fact, the parish priest had been the one to introduce her to the books. 

 "They have changed my life!  I feel closer to God than ever!  Anyway, there is nothing in these books that isn't already in the Bible.  So how can it be bad?" 

Well, yes, that would be why.  Four reasons, right there.  Thanks for helping me make my case. 

________

Back in my college days, I joined a prayer group too.  It sounded good and harmless (how could prayer be bad?) and I told my friends who expressed reservations that I would keep my eyes wide open to look for warning signals.  They said that the group seemed "cult-like" and that the leader seemed "strange."  And I said, Thanks but I will be on the watch for anything suspicious.  Maybe that made them feel better and maybe it didn't, I don't know, but at the time it gave me a feeling of security.  As long as I could remain objective, keep my mind and eyes wide open, I wouldn't be "taken in," right? 

Turns out, that's the whole brainwashing deal; it happens without you realizing it.  Doh. 

Besides, what is suspicious?  What exactly was I supposed to be looking for?  I made a huge mistake in thinking that I didn't have to do any homework.  I didn't even research "signs of a cult" until months and months later.  By then, I was in very, very deep.  Looking back, though, the signs were already there.  (If you have to justify going to a prayer group, the problem is probably not the prayer, but the group so it makes no sense to sit around throwing arguments back and forth about the legitimacy of different kinds of prayer.)   

______________

So what kinds of groups should we avoid from the get-go?  What traits in a leader are evident red flags?  Well, I've got all the answers so read on. 

Okay, that was a joke.  The truth is, I only wish that my experience in a high-pressure—and extremely dysfunctional—group had provided some failsafe technique for identifying similar groups or scary and dangerous leaders.  In reality, no two groups or leaders are exactly alike and manipulation is often very subtle.  New leaders learn from the mistakes of past ones and, if they're any good, they'll avoid the obvious pitfalls.  But I still believe that this is exactly where cult experts and cult survivors have a lot to contribute to the conversation.  Of course not all religious groups that are a little wacky are cults, and not all alleged visionaries are narcissistic or abusive (even the false ones), but those of us with some experience of how cults get started, then fuel themselves, and then eventually implode (because eventually, they all do) might just have an idea of what signs to look for.  


Manipulators are out to create a climate--an atmosphere where the pressure is understood without being explicit; no one has to even say anything at all because the expectations are clear to the members.  They know what's going on even if an outsider doesn't; the problem is that they're okay with it.  In fact, they think the mission and practices of the group are great!  These signs are perhaps easier to spot if you've seen it up close, because early on, before things really get started, those signs will already be there, only they'll be quieter and harder to pinpoint.

Probably one of the very first things to be on guard against is over-enthusiasm.  If the group is young, their leader unknown but prominent and a hotshot within the group and if there is already a sizable following, that makes it a little fishy already.  In his book Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini advises people to be suspicious if, very shortly after becoming acquainted with someone, you feel a closer bond than you probably should.  For example, if, only fifteen minutes after meeting a salesperson, you are ready to purchase the product they are promoting, that ought to be a red flag right there.  You don't have to be able to pinpoint their tactics, he clarifies, but be assured that they are somehow calculating a response from you.  In some way, they have been able to exert a degree of power over your thinking without you noticing it.  Perhaps your enthusiasm about being associated with someone so "exciting" or "special" has caused you to ignore your better judgment.

So let's start a list. 

#1 is get online.  Google the group, the leader.  What have former members said about the group?  If anyone has every linked this group with the word "cult," you should probably go ahead and google that, too, because chances are, you'll be surprised at how many shapes and forms cults and cult-like groups will take.  No one joins up for a cult.  No one decides to join a group because the group philosophy is dangerous and crazy.  They are not thinking that down the road they might want to poison themselves and their families.  Obviously.  Cults are groups that start out as good causes, and then go wrong.  We sign up to improve the environment, or to better society, to deepen our personal spirituality, or to improve ourselves and increase our happiness.  It all has to sound good from the outset, or no one would even take a second look, right? 

That's #2 and #3, then: Do not expect that to find anything obviously wrong within a successful group (that you suspect might be cult-like).  You may or may not.  If they have survived for a few years, or even a few decades, and if they are still recruiting, then they are probably good at what they do.  It will be subtle and it will probably sound really, really good.  And then, #3 is to realize that high-pressure groups and cult-like groups evolve.  They start out one way, and end up another.  (My personal opinion, however, is that in hindsight, we can always look back and see signs from the very beginning, some of them very obvious though they may be couched in gushing and over-religious language.)

Here are some more things to watch out for but will be harder to gauge as a non-member (this information is not usually shared explicitly by the highest levels of the hierarchy and it will take even members awhile to recognize patterns)

4. There is usually a single person at the top who calls the shots; this person is never wrong and should never be challenged.  They are secretive about themselves and like to maintain an aura of mystery about their past and their personal life.  This doesn't mean that they won't laugh at their own expense at times (if only to prove that they aren't "one of those Crazy Power Hungry Cult Leaders Who Can't Take A Joke, ha ha!").  But beware if you cross that line; there is always an understanding among members that the leader will get the last say and should never be criticized.

5. There is pressure, whether stated outright or not, whether subtle or overt.  Members are progressively cut off (psychologically or physically or financially) from their support networks of friends and family or colleagues and the group begins to take center-stage.  Or, stated differently, members will become so personally invested in the group, they cannot function independently anymore.   Simultaneously, nothing they do can ever be good enough for the group/leader.

6. There is an atmosphere of exclusivism/elitism: everyone within the group is superior (or in the Right) and everyone else is inferior (just plain wrong, lazy or possibly evil).  If you really want to get things done, or if you really want to be sure to get to heaven (or whatever), you know what to do: everything the leader/group says to do, of course!

7. In a high-pressure group, there is never a legitimate reason to leave. 

8. There is a defensive or paranoid attitude toward people on the outside: "they can't handle the truth; they're just upset because we're showing them up for how unholy/lazy/selfish they are" or "See?  We're not crazy or boring or uptight.  If we were, would we play frisbee once a year, huh? Huh?"

9.  As good at the manipulation game as a leader might be, there will be some troubling patterns that have emerged or that are beginning to emerge.  Like:

 – they have begun to solicit money/sex/some other currency, whether subtly or overtly. 

– there is a change in the teaching/theology or message.  Over time, to retain the members, the doctrine of the group will morph and the focus will change from recruitment of new members, to the retention of the ones they have.   Here's an example: once a climate of control has been established and members are trying hard to fit in or to comply with the expectations of the group, a leader can "back off" and appear to be more lenient and gracious in what they say because an undercurrent of inadequacy is always there anyway, as far as members are concerned.  If leaders talk about generosity or gentleness or kindness then their followers might just become convinced that they are kind and generous and gentle.

(to be continued...Part II, click here)