A Brilliant Solution Presents Itself

Some of the folks at the Cathedral sponsor what is known as Theolgy on Tap. I pronounce it good, as it combines two of my favorite things: theology and beer. Mixed drinks are available, too, but why anyone should prefer that over the proof, according to Benjamin Franklin, that "God loves us and wants us to be happy", is utterly beyond me.

The topic of discussion was Chrisitian feminity. The speaker, whose name I have forgotten, is a professor of philosophy at St. Kate's. She knew her theology, and proved to be a very good speaker as well, weaving in quotes from various thinkers, Catholic and otherwise, who have left us some of their ideas throughout human history. Although she did not mention Chesterton--unlike the fellow from last week--she gets bonus points for two separate references to Flannery O'Connor.

Now a friend of mine has recently commented on the topics I choose to cover herein, and expressed interest in a slight change of temperment--if not view--on certain issues, particularily my contentious feelings toward feminism. Well, based on yesterday's talk, my opinion on the matter has not changed. I still view modern feminism to be disastrous, not just for traditional men such as myself, but for women as well as the whole of society.

The speaker was not, by modern feminist standards, a feminist. For she committed the two sins against those hellbent on destroying the remnants of the patriarchal establishment. First, being a Catholic, she expressed opposition "reproductive rights", not only by dismissing abortion as immoral, but saying similar things about birth control. She noted that "fertility is not a disease"; feminists evidently believe otherwise, as they take a pill to prevent fecundity from manifesting itself until they so choose. Second, she stated the well-known, if seldom pronounced fact that men and women are profoundly different, and not merely because of cultural pressures either.

She then discussed the complementarity of the sexes, and the important role that both men and women must play in the monumental endeavor that is raising a child. For a women cannot father and a man cannot mother; in her own words, "there is no such thing as parenting".

I have previously expressed herein, that I believe the family, and by extension, society, functions better when women play their role as mothers. This is emphatically true, for the family is the building block of society. It is the smallest level of government, no matter what the system of governance. Whether the regime is monarchic or republican, the mother and father's role in the household remains both constant and profound.

Yet in my haste to point out the obviously diminished role of woman in modern society--ironic, considering the ostensible goal of the feminists--I have missed something just as important. Recently I have been discussing paradox, and, perhaps more importantly, the issue of balancing the truth so that both sides are respected, rather than emphasizing a particular precept such that its compliment is forgotten. Thus, the family, and again, by extension, society, will flourish if women are beneficient mothers, but only if men are likewise good fathers.

Indeed, the very birth control of which feminists are so proud, has allowed men to become absent and irresponsible; consequently, illegitimacy rates have soared, and what was intended to give women greater freedom has instead heaped an impossible burden upon them. For women must now do what they were never intended to do, and indeed cannot do: father.
There are single women that do an admirable job, but while their behavior is often courageous, the result is seldom salutary from the child's perspective.

The solution to the mess of absent men who refuse to father and the women who choose to minimize the motherthing they must do, resides in restoring order to the home. Unfortunately, we live in a system that is not only capitalism, but corporate and pregnant with usury. The problem lies in the latter two, and an elimination thereof will do much to add stability to the presently cacophonic home.

Presently, in almost every home, at least one parent gets in a car, or other form of vehicular transportation, and sits through traffic on his way to make money in the corporate world. So long as a family has one able breadwinner, and so long as a family will be content with ample bread and the occasional circus, one parent can stay at home to raise and educate the children. Since women commonly possess wombs, as well as a nurturing character, and men often make more money than women, it makes a large amount of sense for the woman to be the one who remains at home.

But, last night, it finally occured to me why this was problematic. The desired end is obviously not where both mother and father work while the kids go to day care and/or school; the best end is for both parents to retain jobs which allow them to work from the home. In this way, the role of provider can fall to one, the other or both--it makes little difference--and the far more important parental obligations can be filled by both mother and father.

Moreover, this is the way things worked for much of human history. If we had followed Jefferson's advice and developed into an agrarian republic, we would perhaps not have gone so far wrong. While farming is no longer considered profitable by many, nor would it make sense for all to take up farming, there are many other occupations that can be performed from the home. In this manner, the child receives, not only the love and attention so necessary in laying the ground work for a good life, but also an education in his father's and/or mother's trade. Yesterday's speaker postulated that Jesus lived in a similar environment, learning carpentry no doubt from his earthly father Joseph.

I do not have all the kinks worked out as yet. But I see the ideal, and a plan to reach it can be concocted as I go along. I note, too, that this theory fits hand in hand with Chesterton's distributism, which reduces corporatism to a healthier capitalism, wherein people produce things and exchange them with others. If every person decides that in order to become a better parent, he will return to an occupation which allows him to work from home, corporatism will self destruct. (I realize I used the word parent, but the alternative construction was appalling.) If every man runs his own little shop, selling his own little wares, we'll no longer have to put up with, or worse, shop at, places like Wal-Mart.

That thought alone ought to bring a smile to everyone's face, but if that does not, remember that acheivement of this idyllic end will also result in stable homes. There may be some who really do enjoy purchasing garbage from the big box stores, but I am manifestly certain, that in all but the most extreme and unfortunate of circumstances, every former child is glad of the time his mother and father had spent with her. Would that we could make the time grow. Perhaps we can.