Several friends and I have been running a discussion group at the Chaplaincy this term called "Catholicism and Economics." The focus is primarily on distributism, an economic system based around the small and the local. Once again, I'm the only woman in a "serious-minded" discussion group, but, for the very first time in my life, I think the under-representation of my sex may bother me.
At one time in my life I was pleased, honored, and self-congratulatory when I found myself in a male-dominated discussion group. To be surrounded by men, discussing real issues in serious tones with big words seemed like a step forward. I loved to hear people--ie men, and particularly in Washington, DC--discuss the world's problems, and the grandiose, intricate plans they had designed to correct them. This was the same time in my life when I thought that success in life meant being like these men. Someday, I too, would join in the machine of government. I, too, would change the world.
But that was before. Three years of living and working in Washington changed my mind about changing the world. Humans fail. Systems fail. The humans who design systems fail. And Washington, any center of government, goes around in circles creating grand plans on a national level to correct local, human problems.
It really struck me tonight, sitting in the economics discussion group, how very masculine a way of thinking about the world that is. I joined the group to find out how I can make moral economic choices for myself and my family; these men want to start a revolution. How very confident, and mostly admirable, to see a problem and seek to correct it in a sweeping, universal way. The only problem is, I'm increasingly skeptical that any kind of real change comes from the top down. Or at least that that's the way I'm supposed to operate in the world.
Instead, I think I'll choose to change the world in a more feminine way. I'll focus on my own moral choices, and encouraging others to make moral choices also. I'll work--with Adam--to build up a community of people seeking to make moral choices and to live happy lives together. It's an approach based on family, on community, and--I think--part of the woman's vocation as a woman, a wife, and a mother.
Perhaps you are right about men tending toward the grandiose revolutions. The distinction I would tend to make is that men work outward from the family, while women work inward. However I must admit that I do not spend much time considering such sex differences.
ReplyDeleteI think you are quite right though to be skeptical of these sort of large-scale frivolities. I have spent about 5 years attempting to affect some sort of large-scale good within the fraternity, only to eventually give up on such attempts at any sort of positive progression.
When I look back over the past few years, it seems to me that the only things I've done right (or at least not royally screwed up) are the small things, such as Christina.
Hm, not sure about the gender divide - but I definitely agree with change starting from the bottom up. I think it was Ghandi who said 'you must be the change you wish to see in the world.' My only question is whether people who want to affect change on a large scale have already made themselves the change they want to see?
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure on the gender divide either--I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. But I am pretty sure that at least some people who want to affect change on a large scale (ie me, circa 2003) have precisely NOT made themselves the change they want to see. Some have, though. It's just not a foregone conclusion.
ReplyDelete