"...liberal beliefs are harder to come to terms with, because they challenge us to extend further than our own boundaries and comfort zones."

In all of the discourse revolving around families and working mothers, what saddens me most is that whenever a fundamentalist argument is preached (hey I'm practised at sniffing a sermon out at fifty paces!) there is never anything that you can say, because fundamentalists are inherently incapable of allowing the faintest glimmer of their own fallibility.

As you read further please understand that I am using conservative and fundamentalist in terms not of religion and politics, but of style of thought and philosophy. Conservatism in the context I use means restraint, caution, not embracing small 'l' liberalism. Fundamentalism in my context means adhering to a belief system that is dependent on a series of fundamental and absolute tenets.

Fundamentalist beliefs of any description are founded by definition on a refusal to grapple with complexity. Purely reductionist and borne usually of a stubborn prideful refusal to seek education and understanding, any attempt to crack through the concrete of dogma indicates to the fundamentalist only the possibility of attack - and therefore the fear of defeat. Religious fundamentalism for instance crumbles the moment any literary and historical analysis of the Bible takes place...instead of dealing with the issues of faith involved, it is easier to simply label education a satanic tool of disruption and refuse to partake in the 'forbidden fruit' of knowledge. The mental gymnastics involved in turning two thousand years and more of biblical scholasticism into a giant conspiracy theory are not a challenge because in the most part they are not engaged in - they are simply countered with the "I am right therefore you are wrong" argument.

In the context of rigid gender roles such as Stay-at-Home parenting, fundamentalists are threatened by any assertion that working women can indeed live balanced lives and raise happy children. To allow this is to highlight the potential for discovering hollowness in a role that is often the only one in which women of fundamentalist beliefs are able or allowed to find self worth. Staying at home, when chosen freely, is indeed a worthy and worthwhile enterprise. Staying at home, when forced upon one by a rigid belief system and not based on self examination and self knowledge, holds the potential to be soul destroying. In order to survive it, those who feel their souls being attacked (refusal to face oneself always wreaks internal damage) fall back to the habitual comfort of the external fundamentalist belief system - their sacrifices for their beliefs, their perceived nobility, their acetic lifestyles...all of these are *external* sources of validation, and to threaten these by saying 'they aren't really necessary' is to threaten these women with the idea that they are going to have to embark on a journey that may restructure and entire belief system and possibly turn their lives upside down.

Many of these women, if forced to examine their motives, needs, family of origin and the experiences of others, may indeed come back to the idea that a truly integrated and worthwhile choice for their families is for them to stay at home. But many equally may not, and that necessitates growing and developing internal systems of belief and self esteem, not the one handed out easily by fundamentalist belief systems. And we all know what the fear of the unknown does to people, don't we?

A cornered animal always attacks. No threat, no logic, no answer can be *allowed* to penetrate even slightly because the fundamentalist is bound to defend the brittle shell on which their beliefs are based.

I suppose the small comfort we can gain is that some of these women, by even reading some opposing opinions, will reach the point of no return where they are no longer able to keep their fingers in the cracks which will inevitably appear in the walls that surround them, and some compassion and externally focussed thinking will come pouring through.

Liberalism of thought is often touted as the slack, laissez faire symptom of undeveloped morality, but in effect liberal beliefs are *harder* to come to terms with, because they challenge us to extend further than our own boundaries and comfort zones. For a fundamentalist conservative thinker, the leap from the conviction only of self to the mind stretching concept of acceptance of others is a frightening and often painful experience. The easy way out is to believe in black and white, because even though common sense tells us that the world is *not* black and white, the pain of personal growth and self examination is far too intimidating for such restricted psyches to even comprehend.

People who feel this way have a vested interest in not listening to what you say. Every remark comes filtered through the jauniced eye of fear and prejudice, and will be interpreted not as reason or argument but as an excuse.

The circular logic is ongoing..."I believe I am right. You explain to me why I might not be, but because I am, I will not listen, because I am right. By definition, if you disagree with me, you must be wrong."

While in daily life such people are merely exasperating, in the political and economic spheres they can be downright dangerous, because those who live in the real world (the one with greys and colours) are often excluded from their own personal right to develop their lives and run them within a general societal framework, by the personal belief systems of others. That this is inherently against human rights and democratic ideals is once again something a fundamentalist cannot grasp because 'I am right.' Therefore anyone who disagrees is *wrong* and consequently doesn't deserve to be included in any societal protections and benefits.

© 2001, Jane Sill. All Rights Reserved.