Moms who build cathedrals

Right on. My wife (degree in Forestry) stayed home for 20 years to raise our three kids, and doesn't regret a minute of that. I'm proud of her. But society mostly dumps on women like her. The "building cathedrals" concept helps explain the significance of what such moms do.

Romantic. Idealistic.
I'll give it that.

Thanks for the smarmy sentimentality, Rod. Perhaps you've given female readers who are currently home raising children a little psychological boost for the day. Unfortunately, you have done NOTHING to address the real challenges they will face. Having grown up in a conservative community in NW Louisiana, I hardly new any mothers who weren't housewives (as they were called at the time). Now, a quarter century later, with the their children grown, I'm seeing how many of these women are struggling. Virtually none of them have retirement (no job, no 401K) and many have lost their spouses' income to one of the four Ds (death, disability, divorce, desertion). You see Rod, even women who think they are in solid marriages sometimes end up divorced; and as for death or a disabling health condition, well...that can happen to any woman's husband. Some of the women featured in your article and on the website you linked will also face similar circumstances.

It seems to me if you - and other traditionalists - really valued the hard work done by these mothers, you would begin advocating practical solutions to the financially precarious paths they've chosen, instead of wasting your blog space with another cliched paean to motherhood...blaaaah!

And a warning to female readers....don't let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security by this blather. Yes raising children is of immense importance, but there is a real long term financial risk we have to think about. And when we are old, its doubtful these champion of motherhood, like Rod, will be around to pay our bills.

JohnMcG,
I'm not convinced that this narrative of Mom becoming invisible to go build a cathedral is the healthiest and most sustainable model of family life. Both parents should honor each other for what they do to raise great children.

Amen and amen. My wife is homeschooling our daughter, and doing a brilliant job of it - she's at least a grade ahead in everything, and several grades ahead in reading. I know I couldn't do it, and I make sure she knows I know that.

Heather, yes, financial security is important and by all means that should be taken into consideration, but what about the importance of having a parent actually around throughout the day to RAISE the children? What would your "practical solution" be to the "precarious paths" that so many women chose?

I think Nicole's novella and the new blog you mentioned, Rod, are wonderful and inspiring!

It never ceases to amaze me, what ends up being controversial on this blog!

Erik and John, I don't think the father of the family is immune from being a "cathedral-builder"; I think the metaphor is directed more at our society, which tends to see stay-at-home motherhood as either a quirky and unnecessary choice, a foolish waste of a human resource who could be more gainfully employed, or something between. Society punishes fathers, too, if they're not willing to play the corporate game and put their job and their focus on career advancement way, way above the needs of their families.

And Heather, if you want marriage and stay-at-home motherhood to stop being a huge financial risk, end no-fault divorce. Oh, but that cuts into our society's highest and most virtuous notion, that little idea of sex without consequences, doesn't it?

Heather, I just saw your 11:50 comment, and would like to add something--unfortunately, requiring society to pay for the raising of one's children gives society a say in how they are raised.

However, if you are proposing much greater tax breaks for SAHMs I'd certainly support that, and feel pretty certain that Rod, and most conservative posters here, would as well.

And Heather, if you want marriage and stay-at-home motherhood to stop being a huge financial risk, end no-fault divorce. Oh, but that cuts into our society's highest and most virtuous notion, that little idea of sex without consequences, doesn't it?

Because no-fault divorce is what's preventing women in their 50s from having financial stability and security. I expect you will next blame contraception, runaway abortion rates, and gays.

I'll just second Erin's very good points, which haven't really been answered.

"And Heather, if you want marriage and stay-at-home motherhood to stop being a huge financial risk, end no-fault divorce. Oh, but that cuts into our society's highest and most virtuous notion, that little idea of sex without consequences, doesn't it?"

Eric...you're really taking a logical leap here.

First of all, divorce was already on the upswing before no-fault divorce laws. After no-fault divorce laws were passed there was a quick blip (increase) of divorces from the back logged cases, and then the divorce rates returned to the previous trend, which had been increasing for almost a century.

In addition, the only thing restrictions on divorce can do is force couples to keep a marriage license on file in a state office....the government can't force people to live happily together and share resources. (Ireland is a perfect example of this. Until recently, they had restriction on divorce, so many couples siply went their own ways when they wanted to split, took new partners, and simply ignored their marriage license as "pieces of paper files with the state"

Furthermore, most people who work outside the home aren't entirely dependent on their marriage status for financial security, so neither should mothers who are home doing the important work of raising children. That is truly the crux of the second rate status.

Therefore, I believe we should begin looking at ways the financial costs should be shared by government, business, and others instead of letting mothers bear the brunt of the cost.
I think we should also look at ways that the emotional costs of working outside of the home should be shared by the govt, business, and others because the day will come when I will be in the nursing home. If my wife precedes me in death, my kids may not visit me because they are so much closer to their mother since she gets to stay at home thanks to my paycheck.

Don't you feel sorry for me?

Sorry about the sarcasm, but Heather, you are just bemoaning real life. Everyone has to sacrifice. Everyone has a burden to bear that no one else can bear. Life, at least life as an adult, is not really about me, me, me. And nothing in life is fair.

We simply need to get over ourselves and realize that we all need to live for others.

Well said, Heather.

I'm not sure which book on cathedrals inspired the "mom's blog" in question, but I'm afraid her conclusions from it are not supported by the facts. The cathedrals were not built by volunteers who gave up paid employment and depended on the goodwill of family members for their support. They were built by trained cadres of expert masons, carpenters, and other artisans. These men were paid for their work, and recognized for it as professionals within their lifetime. Funds for the cathedral were raised by the whole town. So it seems it does take a village to build a cathedral. ; )

Nor is it true that we don't know the names of those who built the cathedrals. True, the names of the average workers aren't listed, any more than the names of all those who built our skyscrapers or space shuttles. However, the names of the chief architects and most important artisans are well-recorded, as, of course, are the names of the politicians and church members who promoted the projects.

Here are a few quotes from The Horizon Book of the Middle Ages, by Morris Bishop, a source easily available to the lay person.

The ridiculous legend has been spread that the cathedrals were built without plan, according to each day's inspiration. The existence of detailed plans at Reims, Strasbourg, and Siena give the lie to this story. . . . The architect was a man of substance and consideration. He was well paid and often received a house and other perquisites. It used to be said that he worked only for God's glory and not at all for his own; but in fact he carved his name on the fabric whenever possible. . . .

The workers were strictly unionized. Though zealous amateurs occasionally joined in to make cathedral building a communal enterprise, volunteer labor was not generally welcomed. There is a story in one chanson de geste of a pious soul who worked on a church only for pennies; the professional workers killed him. . . .

. . . even if the artist did not receive the adulation that was to be his in later times, we need not spend overmuch pity on him. He was better off than his cousins at the plow or in the workshop. He had full-time employment, decent pay, and jolly companionship; and he had the satisfaction of seeing his work not merely applauded but worshipped.

I'm all in favor of women receiving proper respect for the essential work we do--but I'd prefer to see us base our self-esteem on something other than sentimental misinformation.

"I'm all in favor of women receiving proper respect for the essential work we do--but I'd prefer to see us base our self-esteem on something other than sentimental misinformation."

Thanks, sigaliris, for that very knowledgeable response.

Where's the $ going to come from.
http://www.energybulletin.net/40989.html

Several things need to be cleared up regarding the name of the blog. First of all, the cathedral reference in the name is referencing an episode from the life of St. Josemaria Escriva. He would take students up to the top of a church in Spain and show them the intricate carvings craftsmen did on the spires, which were completely unseen from the ground and therefore only seen by God. He used it as an example of always doing work well for the glory of God and not necessarily for the world to see.

In terms of the use of the term "invisible", it is in no way referring to the concept that mothers should be seen and not heard, but rather that these Princeton educated women are, in general, looked down upon by their own university and their peers for choosing to stay home full-time for their children and "waste" their Ivy League diplomas. The world does not give value to motherhood. The world does not "see" the value of motherhood. The incredibly hard work they do is unseen by the world and they get no accolades on this side of heaven (except by their loving husbands).

What's insulting to dads is this notion that they should seek fulfillment in God's silent knowledge of their work rather than the person God put into her life to love her.

People will fail, and screw up, and be ungrateful for things they should be grateful for. God never fails; that's true.

But there still seems to be something off about an attitude of, "I'm invisible to my family, but it's OK, because God loves me."

As attitudes and behaviors opposed to family unity go, this is hardly the most pressing, is superior to alternatives, and may be the best that can be hoped for in some situations.

But I think it's less than the ideal, and shouldn't be presented as an ideal model.

Rob,

Thanks for the clarification -- from what I've seen of the blog itself, and your explanation, my concerns may be moot.

My reaction was to the original piece story, which, while espousing a noble concept, presents what I think is a somewhat broken notion of family life.

John, once again, who said that the mother should be invisible to her family??? I read this excerpt as saying that SAHMs can take comfort in the cathedral metaphor when they face the indifference, contempt, and even outright hostility their decision to remain at home and raise their children often earns them from the world at large. No one wants to create the martyr-mommy, whose husband ignores her and whose children walk all over her--but that's the ugly stereotype of stay-at-home motherhood that so often is presented in our modern age, especially in TV, movies, books, and the Democratic party platform.

And Heather, I question the assumption that "so many" feel they've lost leverage in their marriages once they stop bringing home a paycheck, though if you say you know lots of these women I'll take your word for it. However, I would suggest that the problem here might lie in marrying a man who primarily views marriage as the chance to gain an extra paycheck.

Here's the full story. It's made its way around the internet; I'm surprised by how many are seeing it for the first time. Here's the first half...

It started to happen gradually. One day I was walking my son Jake to school. I was holding his hand and we were about to cross the street when the crossing guard said to him, ‘Who is that with you, young fella?’ ‘Nobody,’ he shrugged. Nobody? The crossing guard and I laughed. My son is only five, but as we crossed the street I thought, ‘Oh my goodness, nobody?’

I would walk into a room and no one would notice. I would say something to my family — like ‘Turn the TV down, please’ — and nothing would happen. Nobody would get up or even make a move for the remote. I would stand there for a minute, and then I would say again, a little louder, ‘Would someone turn the TV down?’ Nothing.

Just the other night my husband and I were out at a party. We’d been there for about three hours, and I was ready to leave. I noticed he was talking to a friend from work. So I walked over, and when there was a break in the conversation, I whispered, ‘I’m ready to go when you are.’ He just kept right on talking. I’m invisible.

It all began to make sense, the blank stares, the lack of response, the way one of the kids will walk into the room while I’m on the phone and ask to be taken to the store. Inside I’m thinking, ‘Can’t you see I’m on the phone?’ Obviously not. No one can see if I’m on the phone, or cooking, or sweeping the floor, or even standing on my head in the corner, because no one can see me at all. I’m invisible. Some days I am only a pair of hands, nothing more: Can you fix this? Can you tie this? Can you open this? Some days I’m not a pair of hands; I’m not even a human being. I’m a clock to ask, ‘What time is it?’ I’m a satellite guide to answer, ‘What number is the Disney Channel?’ I’m a car to order, ‘Right around 5:30, please.’

I was certain that these were the hands that once held books and the eyes that studied history and the mind that graduated summa cum laude but now they had disappeared into the peanut butter, never to be seen again. She’s going, she’s going, she’s gone!

This piece seems to be specifically referring to a mom who sees herself as being ignored and stepped on by her family, and then the book of cathedrals is presented to remind her that God sees the work she's doing, and she should take comfort in that.

It seems that those who keep the blog see it as a response to society more than being ignored by the family, so my concerns don't make sense.

A good idea, Heather? Let's take a look at what you're suggesting. You're saying that a family's taxes should be cut if the mother stays at home with the children, but that the money from that tax cut should be taken from the family and placed in some government-administrated IRA account. Because unlike the family, who will squander that extra money on things like diapers and shoes for the kiddies, the government can be trusted to put that money into a secure lock box and never ever touch a dime of it, so that mom can be sure her declining years will be provided for not by a loving husband and attentive children, but by a government agency. I know *I'd* feel more secure...not.

And that's before we decide where and how we're going to raise taxes to pay for the tax cuts--probably a broad, across the board hike in income tax rates, which will mean that a family's taxes ultimately will go up to fund Mom's retirement, just so she doesn't have to depend on some evil untrustworthy man to take care of her.

Given the 'untrustworthiness' included such things as disability and death, I think that's a fair thing to consider.

It is possible that the children and/or husband will not be ABLE (or around). Even likely, given that last I checked, women tend to live longer then men, and the average marriage still consists of the man being the older of the two. (Especially traditional ones.)

You can feel invisible, even with a husband and kids that are attentive. It is more about us as moms, feeling like there is no harvest for our labor. At the end of giving birth, you have the result of a baby. But at the end of most days, it doesn't feel like there is any harvest. For the most part, we as moms do the same thing everyday. Laundry is never ending. I can wash 10 loads of laundry in one day and feel completely accomplished. But by the end of the day I have another two loads that I need to do. My husband THANKS me for doing these day to day things. I change innumerable diapers a day, there is no "harvest" there. Your kids don't thank you for a clean diaper (well your older kids ARE thankful that their younger sibilings don't reek anymore). All this to say that even with the best of kids and an awesome husband, it is easy to feel unnoticed and unappreciated. But, Dads feel this way too. Like Christ Rock (paraphrase)said; Everyone thanks mom for making dinner. Does anyone thank Dad for going to work? Gee, thanks for the roof over my head, the water for a shower and the heat!

Actually, Karen, it was "Do you worry that your husband and kids take you for granted?"; the sentence about invisibility which immediately precedes it references the world.

I'd argue that these are two separate and distinct problems. The world sees stay-at-home motherhood as a cultural relic from an earlier age in which women were allegedly subordinate and subservient; the invisibility comes from an attitude which says, in effect, "Why are you wasting your brains and education doing the kind of menial tasks an unskilled uneducated person can do? Why are you doing for free what those unskilled workers do for a very low wage--don't you get it that the net economic effect on you and your family is actually a significant financial loss, considering that the money you would earn would more than offset the trivial costs associated with paying someone else to raise your kids?"

People who approach child-rearing this way see no particular value in having a child be raised by her own mother; the world today thinks that "raising" children is done by working parents on weekends, and that "rearing" children, all the drudgery-laden tasks associated with full time care of children, should be done by the lowest-skilled people for the cheapest possible cost.

This is, of course, a different problem than the problem of being taken for granted by one's husband and children; may I suggest, though, that this problem goes both ways? Just as there are husbands and children who take their wives/mothers for granted, so are there wives/mothers who take their husbands and/or their children for granted. We all do this, from time to time. It's a common human failing.

How many times have I, as a SAHM, called my husband in the afternoon and dropped heavy hints about not wanting to cook dinner in the hopes that he'll offer to pick up some pizza on the way home? Now, I could decide to order pizza anytime--but I want to make him offer to do it for me. I'm running a script in my head, and am taking him for granted; if he misses his cue, boy, will I be put out!

How many times do I list, out loud, in the hearing of my helpful daughters, the number of tasks I plan to accomplish after we finish our schoolwork--knowing full well that they'll volunteer to pitch in? They have chores of their own, and they usually do them, but that doesn't stop me from taking advantage of, say, the youngest's eagerness to use the vacuum (with supervision, of course).

If a SAHM really is being ignored or exploited by her family, then that situation needs to change. But griping about the occasional tendency of the people in our lives to take us for granted is only fair if we're ready to examine our own consciences in this regard.

Paychecks are acknowledgements?

If you are married and have kids, go home and ask your husband how much he would appreciate it if his kids and wife acknowledged and thanked him for his work to keep a roof over their heads.

So we work only for acknowledgement? How much would actually get done if everyone did that? And if a man doesn't work triple overtime and put himself at the beck and call of his employer, he doesn't get kudos, promotions, pats and bonuses. He is told how much he needs to "contribute more." But if he DOES do that then his family is upset and feels neglected. If he does it at work he is given extra money, if he doesn't and spends more time at home his family doesn't notice. Gee, I wonder why so many men choose the corporate ladder over a full home life.

Men and women both shouldn't have a sense of entitlement. "I should be recognized for "X." And husbands and fathers deserve JUST AS MUCH appreciation as wives and moms.

Sure, a paycheck is an acknowledgment. Indeed, your rate of pay is directly tied to your performance, and value to the company. That's why they give pay raises with promotions, or 'bonuses' for going above and beyond.

Katherine,

I'm with you there. We should do things for their inherent goodness, not for acknowledgement, and sometimes with both the knowledge and intent that nobody besided ourselves and God will know what we did. And stories like the cathedral one might help you get through those times. That's fine.

That doesn't seem to be the point of the original piece; it was "I am invisible," not, "Sometimes, I feel invisible."

For someone to make such a statement, either they are somewhat overdramatizing the situation, or they are being treated in a manner that nobody should have to tolerate.

In that situation, it seems unlikely that the cathedral metaphor is strong enough medicine.

For someone to make such a statement, either they are somewhat overdramatizing the situation, or they are being treated in a manner that nobody should have to tolerate.

Yep. So, the problem is fundamentally an emotional one. Just like the feelings Dads sometimes have when he works all day, scrapes together some money, stays up late planning a day trip and then the kids complain because they have to bring a sack lunch instead of eat in the museum cafeteria.

I'm sorry to say that this is part of the fallenness of the world. The solution to this is repenting and working to reconcile these issues on a personal level, NOT advocating govt sponsored 401K plans.
Even if we have 401K's filled to the brim and tax breaks for SAHPs, and all the rest, those little slights will still be there. So, why not address the real problem which is simply that family members can sometimes be just as selfish as bosses, cabdrivers, co-workers, and customers can be.

There's a difference between Monday morning blues and clinical depression. If you've just got the Monday morning blues, a brisk walk in the park might be just the thing. If you're clinically depressed it takes more than that.

If you're having a bad day when nobody appreciates you, you might be able to take some solace in the cathedral metaphor. If you're at the point where you can say without irony, "I am invisible," then there need to be some more radical adjustments.

Exactly, sig....I suppose even a rocket scientist feels underapreciated at times....but they are also not likely to be poor in old age.

Sig,
I think I do get it.
Saying "funding" is the solution to poor family life and inconsiderate children seems to me a profound error. Encouraging people to look to an impersonal govt to provide what only a spouse or family can provide is very counter productive because it merely reinforces the very problem that needs to be addressed. A much better solution would be for me to cook dinner while my wife puts her feet up.

Oh, and as Erin said, ending no-fault divorce would work to correct the financial problems you are most concerned about because it would codify the vows that the two people made to eachother without allowing a 3rd party screw things up more than they already are by diminishing the importance of strong family ties.

Karen, I don't think we actually disagree. I think the occasional feeling of being slighted is very different from actually being treated as a nonperson by one's family, and I'd agree that the second is a problem, if and when it really happens. But how many mothers are *really* living like that? I've honestly never met even one.

Sig, the pizza thing might be a poor example, but my point was sort of along the lines that Quinault is better delineating. That is, that wives are sometimes seen as the invisible cooks/housekeepers/drudges, but it's ALSO very true that husbands are sometimes seen as invisible wallets/generic romantic leads in a movie they don't quite know they're in. Both are problems. If I treat my husband like a human being, I'm just gonna call and say, "Hey, I'm ordering pizza." But if I'm in one of those moods, where what I really want is some complex combo of emotional support, chivalry, intuitive grasping of a desire I'm unwilling to express, and an affirmation that I really deserve a break from that evening meal preparation for reasons that mainly exist in my own mind, then it doesn't "count" unless he, seemingly of his own volition, offers to provide dinner. Which is clearly unfair and an example of manipulative objectification; the point, though, is that it's no more unfair than the man who sees his wife as the simple provider of his basic needs who is otherwise "invisible." In other words, both men and women do this to each other, and I'm sure a man could write something similar to the "cathedral" article about being taken for granted by his wife and kids.

Heather, I'm not denying that women should be taken care of financially, even SAHMs; I'm just debating whether that should be the role of the government. I don't think it should be.

Besides, if the stats really are "1 in 4" then that would have to include at least some women who worked full time for much of their lives, wouldn't it? And since your stats include elderly women who might possibly be in nursing homes, I'd also wonder if the "poverty" description includes the fact that owing to our current Medicare rules, most elderly people must divest themselves of all of their money before the government will pay for their nursing home care.

The reality is that even a double-income couple will face financial problems in the event of a divorce or death; not all two-income couples are working in high-powered corporate career fields. There are two-income couples both working at Wal-Mart or the like, after all. If a family's combined income is $35,000, the loss of one of those incomes is probably going to put a family of four into poverty by federal definitions. I'm just not sure that the problem of female poverty is the direct result of staying at home to raise one's children.

Rod, that was a nice story. Thank you. Heather and John McG, you just don't get it. If the problem were money, we'd be in the workforce. (duh!) The problem is respect. Humility is a virtue but it's hard to practice it 24/7. My husband and family are generally appreciative but the rest of society doesn't have any respect for this 'alternative lifestyle'. (and it generally takes me being gone for at least 24 hours for my husband to remember to appreciate what it's like to handle eight kids and their schedules).

Erin, surely you realize most women do not have nine children to fall back on....they usuaully have a couple. Plus, many women do not WANT to be a burden on their grown children who are already trying to take care of THEIR families. If it is so difficult for most families to live on a single paycheck, how are they also going to take care of Grandma's needs.

Of course, there are many riches in life that are not financial...but money is still a necessity.

Also, a few more interesing stats I just found from www.theseniorsource.org:

-For every year a woman stays home caring for a child, she must work 5 extra years to recover lost income, pension coverage, and career promotion.

-During the last decade mid-life divorce has tripled in the United States. One year post divorce, the average mid-life woman remains single with an average income of $11,300.

-Over 58% of female baby boomers have less than $10,000 saved in a pension plan or 401(k) plan. In comparison, male boomers have saved 3 times more in pension programs.

-Women are less likely to receive a pension, and those who do receive a pension get half as much as men.

-The average age of widowhood in the United States is 56.

Im 55. My wife seemed a little too interested in that last stat.

Steve

Heather,

Most of the readers here are Christian, which means we follow One who instructed people to sell all they had and come follow Him, and who Himself freely accepted crucifixion.

So, while it is true that someone who becomes a stay-at-home parent gives up financial security and independence, that is not an overriding concern for us.

John McG what you're saying is right on. Very true.

I especially liked that idea of God giving us our wife/husband and we above everyone else have a responsibility to love and respect them.

Maybe it's not invisibility but insignificance that's the real problem for most moms.

Now really how 'significant' is it to get all that green marker off the walls or change those diapers or load the dishwasher and wash the daily sink full of dishes and wipe up the spills off the floor? Not very. Doesn't take a college degree. Not very mentally challenging. Doesn't take much more than discipline. And it probably never will be 'significant'. [But still it IS important. And it's nice to think someone sees and appreciates all the daily duties.] But I really don't want or expect appreciation for the insignificant details of life that I accomplish. [ex. Sheilagh, did you clean up ALL that spaghetti sauce under the table? Thank you. Thank you SO much!! :0) Please.] What I want is the opportunity to do more significant things. The teaching side of motherhood.

And Money while not even CLOSE to the most important issue in life, still does matter. And using it wisely CAN let you focus more on the significant. But assuming that you need to go out and get a job, good daycare and jump on the commuting wheel is not even CLOSE to the best option. I think it's telling that the fastest growing segment of the small business community is stay at home moms starting their own ventures. Lifestyle businesses can work out really well on all fronts. Just saying. . .

Heather, I'd take you up on that offer in a New York minute--provided we Christians didn't have to pay into those benefit systems, either!

If the economy tanks, will there be an end to these discussions?

Looks like the comments have turned nasty. sigh. I'm not going to bother to read them.

Thanks Rod, for the kind post. I'll remember it the next time the kids complain about a meal they liked last time I served it. Arg! :o)

It is interesting to observe how terribly threatened some seem to be by the very existence of stay-at-home moms.

Oh Erin Please....get off your high horse! Didn't you notice the :) I placed at the end of the comment I made about social security. You are just looking for something about which to act self-righteous.

And Rod, are you even reading these posts? Why would you think anyone who has posted on this blog is threatened by SAHM. I'm considering staying at home myself at some point. But I am also well aware of how it will impact my financial future years down the road.

And Jeannette, I wasn't concerned about your finances specifically but rather caregivers in general.

Thanks, sig, once again, for your very thoughtful comments.

After reading the article, I bought the book and read it. I think most people here are missing the real point of the book so I wanted to copy some:

"That is not to say that many men couldn't use some eye surgery to remove their sports cataracts or correct the shortsightedness that keeps them from being able to affirm and applaud their wives. But if I were able to find my deepest security in Michael's ability to see me, it's quite possible that I would never fully recognize the opportunity to depend on God for the greatness of a cathedral. The deepest identity and worth that my heart longs for will never be found in human applause. Although it feels good most of the time, it is far too short-lived. The deepest satisfaction of my heart is found in the faith to work and build and love for a greater purpose than my own."

"Everyone - and I include myself - wants to be a servant until we're treated like one. I want to look like a servant, but not have to suffer. And if I have to suffer, I would like to be exalted for my servanthood. ... It is possible that the opposite of love is not hate or even apathy, but showy, self-serving acts. Talking or writing about how much you love, demanding your right to be loved, or being loud and brassy about the way other people don't love will never reveal love's truest essence."

"Invisibility is no longer a disease that is erasing my life. It is actually the hard cure for the disease of self-centeredness."

I think, in the end, her point is to turn the situation around. Instead of anyone feeling invisible and wondering why someone else doesn't see them or love them as they should, it is more important for that person to ask themselves why it matters who sees them and why they want or feel they need recognition.