I didn't start out meaning to make this all-Catholic week.
Some in the Catholic mummy blogosphere have run out of things to whine about on their own behalf so they have gone looking for things to whine about on behalf of others. It must be because it's Lent. In any case, it's the sad plight of Catholic singles who get to read nothing but stories of the challenges of being a Catholic mother that is drawing attention. What can the church do for these unfortunate women?
My answer: lex orandi. Save the liturgy, save the world.
But let's talk about other people's answers. What really jumped out at some people was a comment about jumpers. It appeared in response to this post (search for "jumper" and you'll find it) and here is the bit of the comment that got some discussion going:
But the jumper, what about that? Well, let's give the woman above the credit for at least seeing that the issue is that she doesn't look good in a jumper; that she looks better in other clothes. Others miss this.
The best answer in the Catholic blogosphere was given at a site called Seraphic Singles. And let's start with the really good stuff. She first makes an astute moral observation and then gives some rock solid advice. First the astute moral observation:
And here is the thing: what image of yourself are you presenting? Let me give you an analogy. A while ago I did some work with a guy named Chris. He's a really nice guy and very competent and dependable and he has a pleasant, self-deprecating sense of humour that puts people at ease. The problem is that that self-deprecating sense of humour necessarily means diminishing his own abilities and work. And people can't help believing him. They think Chris is a great guy to have on the team but they typically fail to note just how good he is at his job. When it comes time to pick people for some future project they think of others first.
For women the same thing happens with what is often mistakenly called modesty. If your "modesty" amounts to telling and showing people that you are a non-sexual being, then people will eventually take you at your word. No man wants to marry a non-sexual being except maybe the man who thinks of women as potential incubators for his babies. (And maybe we could match one of those guys up with the Catholic single I quoted at the top and then they both could use one another to make babies because that would make them both oh-so-much-better than those evil people who use one another for sexual pleasure.)
I disagree with Seraphic on one small point: jumpers are sexy on some women, even devastatingly so. It's up to you to make the assessment and it's up to you to get it right. A jumper can say, youthful and fresh. If you think you have that to offer and some women can and do do have that right through their forties, a jumper might be just the thing. Other women have other strengths. You have to be able to decide what you have going for you. One helpful hint, as Seraphic correctly notes, is to notice how men react and what they react to.
Of course, if you think it is immodest or a sin to be a sexual being in the first place, that will all be impossible for you. Back to Seraphic:
A final thought, I really saw myself in this paragraph from Seraphic (you should really read the whole thing):
Some in the Catholic mummy blogosphere have run out of things to whine about on their own behalf so they have gone looking for things to whine about on behalf of others. It must be because it's Lent. In any case, it's the sad plight of Catholic singles who get to read nothing but stories of the challenges of being a Catholic mother that is drawing attention. What can the church do for these unfortunate women?
My answer: lex orandi. Save the liturgy, save the world.
But let's talk about other people's answers. What really jumped out at some people was a comment about jumpers. It appeared in response to this post (search for "jumper" and you'll find it) and here is the bit of the comment that got some discussion going:
I don't expect the Church to have a yenta on staff, just see that most people are called to marriage and do a small part in facilitating that. I tend to see that priests in Latin Mass parishes are more in tuned to this. They are more sympathetic. I also notice that more men go to TLM. I don't look good in a jumper, so I'm floundering around praying that God will send me one of his choices sons.......before my fertility is gone.One quick note before we get on to the "jumper" issue: I don't want to be cruel but I do hope you will all notice that self-centred that comment is. I say this as someone as capable of being self-centred and selfish as any. Send me one of your choice lambs so I may slaughter it, or send me one of your choice sons so I can use him to make babies before my fertility is gone. It's pretty much the same. You have to wonder what she does if she gets married and it turns out they can't conceive. What is marriage to her then?
But the jumper, what about that? Well, let's give the woman above the credit for at least seeing that the issue is that she doesn't look good in a jumper; that she looks better in other clothes. Others miss this.
The best answer in the Catholic blogosphere was given at a site called Seraphic Singles. And let's start with the really good stuff. She first makes an astute moral observation and then gives some rock solid advice. First the astute moral observation:
Modesty is a good and noble thing, but it is all the sweeter when it is subtle. The virgin who reminds people constantly that she is a virgin is not as modest as the virgin who keeps her mouth shut on such a personal subject.And now the rock solid advice:
Now I know somebody is itching to write in and tell me that women don't dress for men, we dress for ourselves, and blah blah blah blah. This has to be complete garbage because I cannot think why any woman would wear a stupid "jumper" unless she were worried about her audience.The key issue then, is who that audience is: men or other women.
And here is the thing: what image of yourself are you presenting? Let me give you an analogy. A while ago I did some work with a guy named Chris. He's a really nice guy and very competent and dependable and he has a pleasant, self-deprecating sense of humour that puts people at ease. The problem is that that self-deprecating sense of humour necessarily means diminishing his own abilities and work. And people can't help believing him. They think Chris is a great guy to have on the team but they typically fail to note just how good he is at his job. When it comes time to pick people for some future project they think of others first.
For women the same thing happens with what is often mistakenly called modesty. If your "modesty" amounts to telling and showing people that you are a non-sexual being, then people will eventually take you at your word. No man wants to marry a non-sexual being except maybe the man who thinks of women as potential incubators for his babies. (And maybe we could match one of those guys up with the Catholic single I quoted at the top and then they both could use one another to make babies because that would make them both oh-so-much-better than those evil people who use one another for sexual pleasure.)
I disagree with Seraphic on one small point: jumpers are sexy on some women, even devastatingly so. It's up to you to make the assessment and it's up to you to get it right. A jumper can say, youthful and fresh. If you think you have that to offer and some women can and do do have that right through their forties, a jumper might be just the thing. Other women have other strengths. You have to be able to decide what you have going for you. One helpful hint, as Seraphic correctly notes, is to notice how men react and what they react to.
Of course, if you think it is immodest or a sin to be a sexual being in the first place, that will all be impossible for you. Back to Seraphic:
And as a husband-attracting device, modesty is highly over-rated and always has been. Back in Jane Austen's day, elegantly dressed young ladies made their Empire-waist frocks stick to their bodies by spraying them with water. Desperate matchmaking mothers prompted their scandalized daughters to smile more, to flirt more, to give more encouragement, for heaven's sake, Laetitia. Modesty should of course be on the list of your womanly attributes, but it is down around #5. It is not #1, except in places like rural Afghanistan.Of course, the real challenge here is be the virtue. It's not enough to do these things, you have to be the sort of person who naturally is a sexual being, who tends to react in a sexual way even when sex is not going to happen. He made us sexual beings; that is what He made us man and woman means.
A final thought, I really saw myself in this paragraph from Seraphic (you should really read the whole thing):
If a man wants back all the beauty, romance and fittingness of the Mass before 1963, he might very well want back all the beauty, romance and fittingness of men's fashion before 1963. And if he is that interested in men's fashion before 1963, imagine how he thinks women should dress.I'm already married but the point is a good one, fittingness. These things all go together. Real modesty is to dress in a fitting fashion. Fittingness is hard work, hiding your sexuality is lazy.
Thanks for the shout-out, Jules. I'm honoured.
ReplyDeleteIt's not hard to praise quality. Thanks for popping by.
Delete