bearing blog

bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  4  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].

  • The two kinds of, for want of a better term, plural marriage.

    Lots of good stuff over at Family Scholars Blog today. 

    The discussion around this post about so-called "plural marriage" got a bit heated and confused:  no one seems to be able to agree on whether poly-whatchamacallit-marriage is something that liberals and feminists will support as a lifestyle choice, or whether it is something that they will repudiate as a backward, unequal, misogynist institution.

    It’s a perfect example showing why it’s necessary to define your terms at the start of a debate.  Some of them are thinking of one kind of legal structure in which one person is "married to" two or more other persons, and some of them are thinking of an entirely different legal structure in which one person is "married to" two or more other persons, and they are trying to use the same name for it. 

    Let’s play a game.  Cue Sesame Street music:

    Three of these groups are doin’ the same thing, three of these groups are kinda the same; one of these groups is doin’ its own thing, now it’s time to play our game;  it’s time to play our game.

    Who doesn’t belong?

    • A male member of a fundamentalist church in rural Utah, who is already legally married to one woman and who wishes to marry a second woman
    • A Muslim man legally married to three  Muslim women in Nigeria
    • A hypothetical upper-caste woman in a hypothetical matriarchal society in some forgotten golden age of matriarchal societies, married to two men who must both provide for her
    • A group of three people in, say, Toronto, one of one gender and two of the other, who are all deeply devoted to one another and who wish to enter a legal marriage in which all are bound together

    Ready?

    If you guessed "the Toronto threesome," you’re right… but the key question is, Why?  What’s objectively different about that bunch?

    Here’s the distinction that makes a real difference:  the number of marriages involved in each case, and who is married to whom. In the set of "like" legal structures, a marriage is always between one man and one woman; but one person can enter multiple marriages which are independent of each other, independently meet the local criteria for "marriage," and can be independently dissolved.

    • The Utah man has formed one marriage with his "first wife," and he seeks to form a second marriage with another wife.  If he is successful, the two marriages would be (1) man/first wife, (2) man/second wife.   The two women would not be married to one another.
    • The Nigerian man has formed three separate marriages:  (1) man/first wife, (2) man/second wife, (3) man/third wife.   The three women are not married to one another.
    • The hypothetical matriarch has formed two separate marriages:  (1) matriarch/first husband, (2) matriarch/second husband.  The two men are not married to one another.

    Technically, the term "polygamy" should be reserved for this type of legal structure, with "polyandry" describing the marriages of one woman to two or more men, and "polygyny" describing the marriages of one man to two or more women.

    Contrast this with the Toronto threesome, which hopes to form a single marriage — a single covenant or contract — that includes three people.  If there are two women and one man (it really doesn’t matter who’s outnumbered here), then the women are married to each other while each of them is also married to the man, because they’re all one big happy marriage. 

    Technically, this is not polygamy.  I don’t think there is an accepted word for it; "polyamory" might do it, except that "polyamory" doesn’t imply legal sanction of any kind, only, well, affection and/or sex.

    (UPDATE:  MrsDrP, in the comments, says she’s heard the term "group marriage."  I suppose that would do, except that it’s numerically imprecise; two is a group, after all.   Well, what do you expect — the ones coining the term have imprecision on their side.)

    These two systems are not at all the same.   And it’s easy to see that they’re not the same:  just make an analogy to business partnerships or corporations.  If Mary forms a business partnership with Joe and another business partnership with George, is that equivalent to Joe, George, and Mary all forming a partnership together?   Obviously not.

    So, here’s why the debate got all muddled over at FamScholBlog:  Some, thinking of "traditional" polygamy, specifically polygyny, claims that liberals and feminists will never go for it ’cause it’s inherently unequal.  Others, thinking of polyamorists entering legal menages-a-trois (and -quatre, and -cinq, and so on) claims that liberals and feminists will attack the two-person marriage the very first minute that the opposite-sex marriage battle is over.

    Sloppy thinking won’t do here. Does the legalization of same-sex marriage imply that there is no legal reason to prohibit "polygamy?"  It rather depends on whether by "polygamy" you mean, well, polygamy — one person entering into multiple marriage-style unions — or whether you mean "marriage-style unions of more than two people." 

    Old Testament polygamous marriages were valid marriages.   There’s nothing inherently at odds with natural marriage there.  One man, one woman:  that’s what it takes to make babies; and each marriage was exactly that.   If a man could provide for more than one family, he could enter more than one marriage.  Simple.  Natural.  Theoretically, I suppose, it could go the other way round, but practical considerations made it primarily if not exclusively a polygynic system rather than a polyandric one.

    Enter the Church, and a new understanding of marriage, not merely as a natural, biological institution, but as a sacramental one:  and the new sacramental understanding of marriage, added the dimension of no Christian may be in more than one marriage at a time.  Because now Christian marriage is an image of the unique union of Christ and the Church, see?  And multiple marriages obscures that. 

    A legal system that respects the biological origin of marriage, but not the sacramental one (which makes sense if the state is never to be informed by any church) would stamp its approval on traditional polygamy while rejecting outright all unions-of-three-or-more.

    A legal system that respects neither biology nor sacrament would approve of unions-of-three-or-more.  What other reason is there to forbid them?  And if that same legal standpoint views egalitarianism as all-important, then traditional polygamy, with its inherent inequality, would be rejected.   The original reason that multiple marriages were legally excluded — foreignness to Christian understanding of the meaning of marriage — has quietly gone away (it was probably unconstitutional to begin with) and been replaced with an unwritten "something else" that doesn’t inconveniently refer to religion.  I dunno, maybe it’s economics.  We can’t afford to put two wives, plus children, on one guy’s insurance. 

    That’s why legalization of marriage between two individuals of the same sex is a sign that legal marriage of three-or-more individuals is more likely:  Inherent biological realities are officially irrelevant. 

    But it’s probably not a sign that polygamy is more likely. 

    —

    |

    1 comment on The two kinds of, for want of a better term, plural marriage.

  • Local news articles on the “Talking about Touching” controversy.

    Bishops fault local archdiocese’s sex-abuse program:  Child-protection guidelines fall short amid parents’ opposition   (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 3/31/06)

    Archdiocese late in starting sex-abuse education (Star-Tribune, 4/1/06)

    (h/t:  Primary Educators League)

    —

    |

    No comments on Local news articles on the “Talking about Touching” controversy.

  • How not to make a bed.

    Amusing post at Six and the City.

    —

    |

    No comments on How not to make a bed.

  • Why you should care that I don’t have a job.

    The always-right-on-the-money "Jane" at Asymmetrical Information explains why the mommy wars make a lot of sense:

    …if you think you’ve found the One Right Way to raise YOUR child, then it does indeed make sense to fight hard to persuade as many other women as possible to make the same choice. If you are at home, working mothers are your enemy, at least until they chuck the rat race, and vice versa.

    Why do I say this? Simple: having the majority of people live the way you do has significant positive externalities.

    In other words, we at-home moms benefit when there are a lot of other moms at home, and working moms benefit when there are a lot of other moms working.

    She goes on to give examples from both sides, including this one:

    …[S]taying at home with children is not nearly as rewarding as it was in the 1960’s. All right, there are more daytime television options than there used to be, and gyms now have day-care centres. But there is something huge missing, and that is all the other women in your neighbourhood. The ones that your mother had coffee with, asked to watch the children for an hour, played afternoon bridge with, formed the pillar of the PTA with, and so on . . . they’re all off trading bonds or editing books or waiting tables. That’s why all the women I know who stay home are desperate for adult conversation by the time their husband walks through the door. Most neighbourhoods used to be communities full of women who zipped around between houses, filling each other’s days. Now they are often lonely prisons.

    This rings true to me because, despite being at home, I’ve mostly escaped that prison.

    Crucial to my happiness, in all seriousness, is the fact that we’ve formed close friendships with three other families in similar situations (dad works, mom’s at home, kids are homeschooled) and we spend huge amounts of time together during the weekdays.

    Typically we trade off days: Mondays everyone’s at Melissa’s, Thursdays at mine, Fridays at Hannah’s, etc. We take some work with us, supervise all the kids’ schoolwork around the kitchen table, help each other make dinner or take care of housework, and also we’re available to each other on a moment’s notice for emergency childcare and the like.

    For example, Melissa broke her ankle this week and the rest of us are taking turns spending the day over there just to help her out with her kids.

    I can’t imagine how my days might go if all my friends were working and I had no one but myself and my own children in my own house. I think it would be terribly isolating and depressing. I try to remember that when I talk to women who are struggling with the home/work decision — I don’t regret staying home, but my home-staying experience has made me wealthy in relationships, and not everyone feels comfortable reaching out to other women to deliberately form this kind of a relationship.

    Nevertheless, I try to encourage people to do it — it makes all the difference in the world.

    And I specifically try to encourage women I know and like who live in my city, because — who knows — maybe we can help each other out. 

    —

    |

    1 comment on Why you should care that I don’t have a job.

  • Leaven bleg.

    So I was reading the Exodus/Passover account this morning and it occurred to me to wonder: 

    What kind of leaven did the Israelites in Egypt use, anyway?  I mean, obviously (I think) it would be a naturally occuring yeast, but how did they work with it?  Was it like a sourdough, where you use some of the last batch to leaven the next batch?   Or was it fresh leavening added to every batch?   

    I’m just wondering, exactly what did they have to do differently, in terms of recipe, when they were commanded not to leaven their bread.

    Was the process changed much when, many generations later and in a different land, the Jews were keeping the Passover feast in the time of Christ?

    —

    |

    4 comments on Leaven bleg.

  • Snakes on a Plane.

    OK, this entire blog — starting from the bottom of the archives and going up — made me laugh. 

    Here is a quote from Samuel L. Jackson to whet your appetite.

    "As soon as I opened the script and saw the title, I was like, ‘Cool!’ Hopefully that’s not a euphemism for something else,” says Jackson with a laugh. "And sure enough, I go there and there’s 500 snakes on a plane. Can you believe they were going to change the name to ‘Pacific Air 121′? What is that?"

    I really should NOT sit down at the computer when I go down to get a glass of water in the middle of the night. 

    (I must say, though, after I read the quote from an actor who played a passenger that, um, bit it early in the movie, I’m ready to see it myself…

    In fact I read the script and, as it turns out, accuracy and believability don’t really matter in a film entitled SNAKES ON A PLANE! )

    I have to close this post, or I won’t be able to stop myself from adding more quotes from the site.  The exclusive script review, for example, with spoilers… and the fan art, including a movie poster for Snakes on a Torus… 

    H/t Scrutinies, of all places.

    —

    |

    No comments on Snakes on a Plane.

  • The spirituality of children of divorce.

    An interview with Elizabeth Marquardt, author of Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce.

    Q.  I imagine that children of divorce would also struggle with seeing God as a parent.

    A.  When I asked them if God is like a father or a parent, their reactions would tell me as much about what they thought about their parents as what they thought about God. One woman said, "God’s not like a parent. God is something smarter than us." Another said, "God seems more distant, like a manager."

    Q.  How does divorce affect how the children of divorce read the Bible?

    A.  Let’s take, for instance, the parable of the Prodigal Son. The children of divorce don’t focus on the end of the story, when the child comes home and is welcomed by a loving parent. They focus on the beginning of the story, when someone leaves the family home. For them, it’s not the child who leaves the home; it’s the parent. …One young woman told me, "When I hear the parable about the Prodigal Son, I always think maybe one of these days my dad will decide to come back, too."

    …Then you realize that the parable is supposed to illustrate God’s love and compassion and presence — the ever-present, steady, everlasting presence. But children of divorce see themselves in the role of the father waiting for the child to come home; that’s the role of God in the story. They have to be their own protector. They have to be the one waiting in the doorway for someone else to come home. It’s a scary and anxiety-producing place for a child.

    Interesting.

    The armchair psychologist, seeking an explanation for my conversion to Catholicism and in particular for my marriage to a man from a firmly Catholic family, might point to my experiences as a child of divorce.  According to Marquardt, that’s not such a common response; kids from divorced families tend more toward evangelical churches or no church at all.

    —

    |

    No comments on The spirituality of children of divorce.

  • What we’ve lost.

    Rich Leonardi visits his father’s boyhood parish church, slated for closing and sale.

    Before leaving, I was permitted access to the massive choir loft for a full view of the apse and nave. At the risk of sounding maudlin, I started crying. This church, which at its peak celebrated five Masses during the week and seven on Sundays, which my father and his family spent countless hours serving and worshiping in, probably won’t survive. I grew up less than five miles away. Why had my father never taken ten minutes on a Saturday afternoon to show me this place? And then I felt bitter. We traded heavenly cathedrals like this for barns in the suburbs? We gave up Mozart’s "Requiem," Byrd’s "Mass for Five Voices," and Schubert’s "Mass in G" for guitar-strumming, tasteless "family masses"? Justice must require the payment of a debt attached to the destruction and neglect of so much beauty.

    It’s not so much that the guitar-strumming family masses, in and of themselves, were such a bad idea.  As a supplement to the heritage we already had — why not?  Fads come in, fads go out, that’s life.

    But as a replacement for "out-dated" beauty?

    I’m Catholic; I’m thirty-one. I’m angry that a whole generation before me threw all that splendor away, and wants me to say "Thank you" that I have guitar-strumming family masses instead.   My generation of Catholics has only scattered scraps of Catholic culture, that we have to pull together into a crazy-quilt, something that we can hand down to our children.   It’s not clinging to the past when we ought to move forward; it’s sorrowing that our inheritance was squandered.   And it’s not an alien experience here in America:  what race’s children hasn’t sorrowed, at times, over what was lost when their parents were (by force or by choice) "assimilated?"

    Blogger and matchbook-collector James Lileks has written, if I remember right, that he’d give up a year of his life to spend ten minutes walking city streets in the 1940s. I don’t know if I’d give up much life for it, but I have a sort of "Twilight-Zone" fantasy that goes like this:  I am walking down a city street and happen to pass a crumbling, graceful church, the sort built to serve throngs of immigrants in the mid-1800s, just as daily Mass begins; impulsively I step in, and find myself transported back to, oh, 1920 or so, just for half an hour.   

    It’s part of that cultural poverty that I can’t even tell you what I would see there, except for the few things (and they are the crux on which it all turns) that, by the grace of God, have remained.  I just wish I could go, and come back, knowing what it’s like to be immersed in the peculiar otherness that was Catholicism in America before it became "American Catholicism."

    I hold out some hope of a revival, and I want our family to be part of it.   I don’t yet know what that will mean for us, but I’m keeping my eye out for it.

    —

    |

    1 comment on What we’ve lost.

  • “Half-assed but happy: Interior design for the broke and impatient.”

    Jenn at breed ’em and weep has learned an important lesson about interior design for the busy mother:  Lower your standards.

    I know my limits now. Wallpaper removal is not for me. I don’t care what the guys on This Old House say. I don’t have the resources, I don’t have a handyman or a nice Shaker man to seduce. Even if I did seduce a skilled handyman, I wouldn’t have the stamina to keep him entertained for as long as it would take to do my kitchen the right way. And it seems pointless to seduce a half-assed handyman when I can just seduce myself and get the same results.

    Read the rest, it’s funny.  I’d sympathize, except that the handyman-seduction strategy* has been going well for me.

    *Or is that tactics?  I can’t remember.

    —

    |

    No comments on “Half-assed but happy: Interior design for the broke and impatient.”

  • “Sharia Catch-22.”

    Abdul Rahman, the Afghani who was facing the death penalty on charges that he converted from Islam to Christianity, has been freed for lack of evidence. 

    At first this sounded like a joke (hasn’t everyone seen the old sign-outside-the-church saw, "If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?") but it turns out that there isn’t sufficient evidence that Rahman is mentally competent to stand trial.

    Or so the prosecutor says.  My thought:  the Karzai administration had to frantically grasp for some solution that would satisfy the law and the constitution— which, inconveniently, really does make apostasy a capital crime; the large fraction of the population who, inconveniently, consider this to be a good thing; and the American government that backs his. 

    I take Christian martyrdom — you know, the old-fashioned kind where you don’t take bystanders down with you — pretty seriously.  Nevertheless, I was amused by this exchange at Ann Althouse’s blog:

    Ann, posting: Was Rahman mentally unfit?   "Rahman, [before his release], said he was fully aware of his choice and was ready to die for it, according to an interview published Sunday in an Italian newspaper La Repubblica."

    Commenter twwren:  It’s Sharia Catch 22. He must be insane becuase any sane Muslim would reconvert to Islam therefore he cannot be executed.

    Ann, in update:  I like having that part of the law and note that, extended, it would mean that anyone who embraces martyrdom for religion is insane. That’s a useful idea. I hope they propogate it.

    There’s more good stuff in the comments at that post.

    —

    |

    No comments on “Sharia Catch-22.”

  • Birds at the feeders.

    In order of appearance so far this season, with snow still clinging to the ground and with our yard denuded of vegetation:

    We saw the last four all for the first time within twenty-four hours, which made for a very exciting day.  Let. Me. Tell. You.

    I’m aware that many feeder fans classify pigeons, grackles, and starlings as pests, a sort of avian squirrel, better shooed away so as not to waste the finch-food on it.  At our house, for the time being, every bird is equally exciting. 

    The pigeons in particular have been fun to watch, because their color variations make it possible to recognize individual birds on return visits.  My kids have christened one of them, a mottled gray-white bird, "Snowy Pigeon."

    And I had no idea that grackles, up close, were so severely beautiful.   I had thought they were all black.  But in fact, they are tricolored:  the body is black, but the rear end is a deep violet and the head is an iridescent, very dark green-blue.

    —

    |

    No comments on Birds at the feeders.

  • “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”

    So says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the Afghanistan trial judge presiding over the case of Abdul Rahman. 

    That "If" in the quote?  It’s a big "if."

    Mr. Rahman does not deny his crime, nor does he appear to regret it.   He stands accused of converting to Christianity.  If he refuses to renounce Christianity — and so far, he has — he faces the death penalty.

    There is a possibility that the state will bow to international pressure and release him; but the result of that might well be a lynching, according to this WaPo/AP article:

    Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces"….

    "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

    Take a look at the pics of Rahman in the article:  you may be looking at a genuine martyr.  Let’s hope not.  Let’s hope that thinking Muslims and thinking Christians, however, start sitting up and paying attention.

    —

    |

    No comments on “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

…more to come later