Hlootoo's Art

goodhelppublishing:

This weekend, Catholic Answers sponsored a (prerecorded) event called the Caritas Conference. It involved numerous Catholic women speakers focused on women’s spirituality and feminine theology. One talk by Lauren De Witt, entitled, “Calling the Lost Girls Home,” jumps into the topic with a gusto not matched by its shody research and logic.

Many of these talks involved topics that employed similar “theology” that limited women’s roles and purposes in God. De Witt’s talk, whose subtitle blared, “Finding True Freedom in the Kitchen,” employs much of the dismissive and hypocritical heresies discussed in my book, With This Veil, We Pray. Because the topic was similar to other speakers in the conference, and I have the most notes on De Witt’s speech, I will focus on her points in this post.

The main thesis as De Witt explains is how every baptized faithful’s purpose is to “go out and make disciples” – and for women, that means our “feminine sphere” dictates our mission field in in the home. Whether a woman works from home, out of the home, or not at all, is irrelevant, because those are merely “external details.” As she claims: “…regardless of your state of life, you are called to be a homemaker.”

Rather than defining homemaking, De Witt immediately goes on to dismiss feminist critiques of women’s limited social welfare in the 20th Century. She begins by challenging the stereotype of the “oppressed homemaker,” claiming that Betty Friedman and others were merely “projecting” their abusive or toxic home life onto the wider population. SO rather than these women making observations of their own life experience and finding it true for other women, according to De Witt, they were merely pushing their own trauma onto others and claiming it to be universally true.

While many feminists have indeed made horrid claims about marriage, and have gone on to sadly contribute to women’s oppression, they were not reacting to nothing. They were not projecting. In fact, Betty Friedman’s Feminine Mystique was her response to facing pregnancy discrimination at the work place. It was her realizing that her husband could continue working as a father with financial and societal independence while she could not. She was being unfairly treated in a world that set her up for inequity.

However, none of these past forms of oppression are ever admitted by De Witt. I suppose De Witt is either ignorant of or blatantly ignores the realities of how close her own social limitations are as a woman from just a generation or two ago. For many decades, it was mandatory that a woman obtaining a pregnancy test had to inform her husband (so abusive men could force her to abort or use her pregnancy to further alienate her). It was until the 90s when all 50 states outlawed marital rape (so a woman in a sexually abusive marriage could not seek support or justice). Laws relating to domestic abuse are also fairly recent. And these are just a few examples.

However, rather than acknowledging the very real evils that these feminists and other women fought against, De Witt instead explains how these people were involved in the “cult of self.” She even claims that there is no “empirical evidence” of unhappiness and oppression” going on! I suppose she happily glossed over historical articles covering legal and cultural mandates for women’s welfare? I cannot say, but it’s not a good look for a speaker who claimed to do their research.

De Witt then goes on to claim that feminists largely blamed homemaking to be the source of women’s oppression and unhappiness. While it is true that some radical branches of feminism claimed this, and some still do today, that was not the case for most. In fact, many of the laws and changes brought about by activists directly protect homemakers. Maintaining financial freedom after marriage, keeping health information private, and more allow a homemaker to remain on equitable footing with her husband. This of course allowed more women to escape toxic or abusive men, who in the past kept their victims more easily in the home. While this was only one factor of many in the higher divorce rates that occurred, it is inaccurate for De Witt to claim that a majority of these women sought divorce simply because they were self-centered.

After this, De Witt goes on to preach about homemaking and what it means for women (whether or not they are working out of the home). She does not discuss the work amount involved with homemaking (which, btw, is the equivalent of working 2.5 jobs), but also denies that fathers can contribute in similar ways. To quote directly from De Witt, “[the] essence of womanhood is nurturing…men are not capable of that same level of nurturing.” After telling women that it is THEIR responsibility to make the home a place of love, holiness, and child-rearing, she then explains how men are not much help in that regard!

So De Witt has no problem setting up a situation where a working mother now relies on little support at home with children and housekeeping, thus adding onto her already overburdened workload. She also excuses mediocre and absent fathers, claiming that they can not help with the home as women can. Does she know how crucial it is for fathers to be present? Involved? Is she unaware that more men than ever are picking up more homemaking responsibilities and wish to do so? There is even studies showing how crucial it is for fathers to bond with their babies during pregnancy, and to bond with them skin to skin in the golden hour after birth. It literally rewires their brain! But men aren’t as nurturing or needed for homemaking? There are numerous studies on this topic also, which she no doubt glossed over.

There are numerous other hypocrisies De Witt discusses in her speech. The most damning, however, is what prompted me to call her talk heretical rather than just misleading. In these two points, De Witt directly replaces Jesus with the idol of homemaking.

“The home for us as women is our spiritual destiny…while some of us are called at various times to work or evangelize outside the home, and that work can be very good or very necessary, that work will never be our vocation. Your vocation is not your career, it’s not your volunteer hours logged in, it’s not your instagram account. Your vocation is your husband and by natural extension, your children…your identity lies in your womanhood and your vocation lies in your home.”

I want every woman and girl reading this to understand something: yes, marriage is a vocation meant to love your spouse and children. That love, however, is there to help them into Heaven, to Jesus Christ. When we pass onto the next work, our marriages and relations dissolve not because our earthly roles did not matter, but because they fulfilled their purpose in helping us make it to Heaven. YOUR SPIRITUAL DESTINY IS ONENESS WITH JESUS CHRIST, and your vocation is to love others so much that they see Jesus Christ in YOU. And yes, sometimes your vocation IS in a career or other opportunity, such as with St. Elisabeth of Hungary or St. Gianna Molla. These women did not do the work they did in spite of motherhood, or as a side quest before homemaking again. They did so because they were called to it by Jesus Himself.

Even if it were true that the homemaking idol was our god, De Witt explains how to be a homemaker the most inefficient way possible. She claims that Satan will tempt women to give it up whenever they experience valid frustrations with disrespect and other familial problems that are sure to arise. Expecting obedience from children and support from the husband means the homemaker is feeling “self-serving” rather than burnt out, frustrated, or unappreciated. So instead of validating the very real overwork already expected of women, De Witt merely claims that any feeling of dissatisfaction is demonic.

The entire time, anything deemed feminist bunk is dismissed as bitter women projecting their pain onto others. Yet while listening to De Witt, I cannot help but wonder if she is projecting her own issues onto other women. Her assertions that men are not as helpful and nurturing speak of a mediocre husband and father; her claims that children will be unruly and you can’t do anything about it speak of a mother feeling unsure of how to move forward with discipline; and her claims that the devil will tempt you to be selfish if you feel any of these things are problems speak of an attitude that assumes she can never resolve these problems through respectful dialogue and support.

Of course, making assumptions about her projection are unfruitful and I could be wrong. Just as De Witt was also wrong to claim that women are projecting when they speak up about injustices done to them and others. Her assertions are baseless, lacking in charity and understanding, and do nothing but make an idol out of homemaking.

Feminine spirituality is sorely misunderstood by the secular world, and it seems to be the case for mainstream Catholicism also. When discussing this conference with other Catholics, they rightfully claimed that the topics shared were not fruitful or faithful to our traditions. However, many seem to want to blame a fundamentalist Protestant infiltration into our religion. No doubt that outside influences can affect members of our Church, but we can not throw off the burden from our own people. Catholicism has its own history with harming women, with just as many if not more sinners to commit evils as there were saints to uplift women and their dignity.

If we want to right the wrongs of heresies like that of De Witt, then we need to know that this nonsense can spout within the Church on its own, without the need for outside influence. We need to admit that members are swinging in ways that are not fruitful because they are not founded on Jesus. And in order to correct these sinners, we need to act like saints and learn from the saints that fought against this in the past.

Thank you for your time, and be blessed.

-Virginia Pride

Good Help Publishing

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS

Gosh I remember struggling with this way of thinking at some point. That homemaking is EVERYTHING. I kept telling myself that this is of God, yet felt uneasiness inside. Maybe this was the reason why.