Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Trade caregiving for well-being

Get your journals ready to write down these words of wisdom! Journalist, speaker and writer Gail Sheehy spills the beans on the secret to woman’s long-term happiness. In her last article in USA TODAY, she presents Mary Claire Orenic as the “happiest woman at midlife”, being that she is an accomplished woman with a happy family life and a limited number of children. In Mrs. Orenic’s case, she has only child, which is one child less than “the ideal number contribute to a woman's long-term happiness”, based on the “massive data search by Gallup-Healthways for USA TODAY” (which, by the way, is not accessible through the article).  Sheehy writes that the greatest impact on a woman's well-being at age 50 is to be free of caregiving responsibilities for children in the home and to have healthy parents who don't need care.”

Perhaps Mrs. Orenic is a very happy woman. It does indeed seem that she is devoted to her son and husband, and that value can be admired from cultures across the board. Her personal case is not for study here, but rather the confirmations made in light of her case and the Gallup-Healthway data collection.

I don’t know what took me more off guard: 1. the attempt to literally calculate happiness according a specific number of children and a cut-off age for having children; or 2. the assertion that being free of “caregiving responsibilities”, as she puts it, augments a woman’s happiness. (Note that Sheehy uses the word “well-being” and happiness interchangeably in the article.)

Let’s talk numbers. Another woman known for her happiness and publically awarded for her contributions and “success” didn’t even have one child: Mother Teresa of Calcutta, winner of the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. Accomplished? She founded a religious community which by her lifetime, reached nearly 4000 members just in the female religious branch, 157 communities in 123 countries throughout the world, all completely dedicated to taking care of the most destitute and unwanted (the poor, the dying, the orphans, the marginalized). A woman with no physical children, but carried out her "caregiving" responsibilities until she died, leaving a legacy of good behind her. In a way, she continued to engender life well past her midlife period.

She may not have coined, but she sure did promote, the phrase “the joy of giving”. For her, these weren’t just words; they were a mentality, a lifestyle, a spirituality. In her bold and rich Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Mother Teresa tells a story about a Muslim mother who divided rice among her eight children and a neighboring Hindu family who brought Mother Teresa (and the rice) to them in the first place. She said: “I didn't bring more rice that evening because I wanted them to enjoy the joy of sharing. But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy with their mother because she had the love to give. And you see this is where love begins - at home.”

In his encyclical letter Mulieris Dignitatem - On the Dignity & Vocation of Women- John Paul II states that “Woman can only find herself by giving love to others.”  Fulton Sheen highlighted the same point from a different perspective in his work, The World’ First Love "Woman's unhappiest moments are when she is unable to give; her most hellish moments are when she refuses to give.”

Sheehy’s “freedom from caregiving responsibility--happiness” theory is not compatible with the “fulfillment in giving” perspective that has no room for limits or calculations.  The giving of self in love may be expressed in many different forms and lifestyles, from the woman with one, eight, or no children of her own. Though a constant gift of self may not always be pleasurable or easy, it is more than just noble or admirable, and more than beneficial for just the woman herself. The ripple effects extend to the family, the community, to society itself. Think about it. What would happen if women “free” themselves of giving?

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Image and happiness

This concern for image (that can lead to some wild extremes) perhaps isn’t completely without foundation, nor artificial, such as a product of social/cultural pressures. I would say that the error lies in the form that this concern takes on and the reference points. In other words, I think there is something lacking when people only look at themselves, or at popular social models, for guidance as to what image they ought to represent.

People may be surprised to hear that the human concern for “image”, from the Christian perspective, does have to do with our nature as human persons. “God created mankind in His image, in the image of God, He created them; male and female, He created them.” (Genesis 1:27). Simple? Yes.  Banal? Not at all. This need to express something about our “image” is basically written into our very being! It’s intrinsic. For the Christian, this is fundamental to understanding his own dignity, and the dignity of every human person- man and woman. If God is the reference point and source of a person’s image, then it seems important to discover and get to know Him in order to express a worthy, faithful image.

Perhaps non-believers would disagree on the point that we were made in God’s image and therefore, disagree with the statement that we ought to know Him so that the rest may follow (i.e. understanding own dignity, what image we ought to portray, and how to portray it, etc.).  Regardless of religion, every person (especially those woman concerned with their image), ought to reflect on what is their reference point for something as basic as how they express themselves to the rest of the world, to the people around them, and even to themselves? In other words, have you thought about what are trying to represent? What are your criteria for doing so? (We cannot forget the reality that many people look to what Ms. Ambrose and her celebrity clients put forth as models for our image).

When the image well portrays that which it tries to represent, there is order. And where this is order, there is peace. Where there is peace, there is happiness. Speaking of happiness, take a look at USA Today’s story that has received worldwide coverage for “America’s Happiest Woman”:  Mary Claire Orenic.  We’ll have to save this discussion for the next post.