A situation, a microcosm?

Sometimes it's useful to construct a small-scale model to observe its workings and gain some insights about a larger system.

I may have been presented an opportunity to do just this, in the guise of what may be a disagreement between me and my dear longtime friend M. I'm not certain yet if this is a serious disagreement or not...it depends on whatever happens next. Will she respond to me? Or not? And if she does, how will she? If it's a serious disagreement, it will be our first.

Her son, D has babysat for me for the past couple years. He is 16, and recently got his driver's license.

Earlier this summer when he was watching the boys he used Connor's mountain board (kind of an off-road skateboard) and broke it. He told Connor he would replace it.

I knew from what M had told me at one of our regular breakfasts that he had no cash and was behind in a few situations money-wise.

I figured D. and I could handle this between the two of us. I didn't want to upset M by saying he'd broken something and so was beholden to yet another person.

I resigned myself to a process that I really don't like: tracking down the warranty , making calls, getting information. Turns out Connor's board has a weight limit of 100#. So the warranty did not cover this break. I opted to buy a replacement deck from the company. It cost $60. I suggested to D that he reimburse me for half that amount, and do the labor to transfer the hardware from the broken deck onto the new one. Since I knew he didn't have cash I suggested he work it off in babysitting and figured 5-6 hours at $5/hr would take care of it. He agreed to this. I didn't ask for a full reimbursement since there wasn't anything obvious on the mountain board that warned that there was a weight maximum.

The process of all this was slow, because of my own foot-dragging to make the calls I needed to make, times where I needed to wait for return calls, and some problems with D's cell phone. At one point I wondered if maybe I should let his mom know what was going on. So I did, and she said that D had told her about it. She was fine with him working it off.

We scheduled a weekend day when Gary was going on a ski trip. However, that was the w/e that Connor got injured skateboarding and so I canceled. (Regretfully; I'd really looked forward to having that day. But some things you just can't hand off to a teenager.)

In late August Connor started football which has practice on the evenings that I see my counselor. I leave before Gary gets home from work. Connor's been able to babysit Scott for the duration of the gap before Gary arrives but with him gone, I need someone to watch Scott. I asked D if he'd want to do this regularly on Wednesdays until the end of the football season. He said he would.

So, two Wednesdays ago he came to work. I told him it might be an evening when Gary got off work early, so it could be a short night. I told him we'd just keep track of his hours and when he got to 5-6 I'd call us even and start paying him again.

So that first Wed was only an hour's work for him. After this Wed Gary said he thought D had expected to be paid. I was surprised, because I thought we'd had it understood and agreed that he not be paid til he'd put in 5 or so hours. Something made me a little uneasy about this, and so this Saturday when M & I had breakfast I told her I'd start paying him again this Wednesday. She said something that gave me a strange feeling, something about it being hard for him to have 'driven over there for just an hour.' I meant to follow it up with her there, but we got talking about other things and I forgot. So once home I sent her this message:

Hi. I'm looking around for some good links to send you.

But I also wanted to be sure that we're square about D's unpaid work. I'd just hate to think you might think we're taking advantage of him. (You probably don't, but I'd still feel better if I knew we're both on the same page about it.)

The replacement deck cost $60. I figured that it didn't make sense to make D pay for all of that because he didn't know, and anyone might have thought it was ok to use. So I figured half would settle it, and to transfer the hardware to the new deck.

I figured that would be roughly 6 hours of babysitting at $5/hr.

Then the first week Gary came home after D had only been here an hour. I was expecting this and told D we'd keep track of his hours and after 5-6 start paying him again.

D was here 3 and a half hours this last time, so he's worked 4.5 hours. I figure since he has been driving over that I'd factor that in and call us good. So I'll start paying him again this week.

I hope there weren't any misunderstandings, or D didn't feel badly about not being paid this last week.

So I'll look around for some links that I think are good places to start in looking into narcissism and get back to you on that.

Love,

Last night I got her response:

Yes, the babysitting situation is kind of delicate.  I think that board is a very bad design and is extremely vulnerable to breaking. I couldn't believe it when D brought home the broken board and I saw the design of the axel positioning.   It's a horrible design and is so prone to breaking. I guess I feel  like D has definitely done his pennance.
It was especially hard to see him having to go over for just one hour.  I wondered if the entire sentence would be served out that way.

Looking at the bigger picture...D has  felt uncomfortable about his rate for a while and we've done some research on the internet. Considering that he is providing his own transportation he wants to change his rate to $7 an hour, or $6 if you pick him up.  I think this is fair.

I respect  your wishes in whatever your choice is. And I know you respect D's need too.



My heart sank.  There was something in her tone that gave me a message that she thought I'd been unreasonable.  I felt a hole at the pit of my stomach, and thought some more about it.

I responded:

M,

Did you think it was unreasonable for me to have D reimburse me for
the board?


The board has a weight limit; I'm not sure if you knew that.  Its
maximum is 100#.  So I think the design is probably ok within that
limit.  It didn't state the limit on the board, and that's why I wasn't
going to make D pay for full price for replacing it.  It never
occurred to me that he might use it, and that's why I didn't warn him
about it beforehand.


I guess I feel  like D has definitely done his pennance.


I wasn't trying to punish D.  He broke something, and it seemed fair
to ask him to pay for it.  At the time he'd told Conrad he'd replace
it.  And since he didn't have the cash it seemed having him babysit was
a good solution.  In a way it was as if I'd advanced him some money and
he was working to earn that advance.


It was especially hard to see him having to go over for just one hour.  I wondered if the entire sentence would be served out that way. 


That particular night Gary got off early.  Some nights Gary might only be
an hour before he gets home.  Does D not want to babysit for just an
hour?  Other nights might be longer.  But D and I had agreed on 5-6
hours before we'd call the broken board good and then I'd resume paying
him.  Did it really make any difference if he did it all at once, or
over a couple times?  Did you think that was excessive and punitive in
some way?  To me 5 hours is 5 hours whether it's all at once or broken
up.


Anyway, I had been thinking it was probably time to give D a raise,
especially, like you say, when he's driving himself over.  And I also
think that $7/hr is fair, so we'll do that from now on, if he still
wants to babysit for me.  Sometimes it might just be an hour, though,
and I don't know if that's a problem.  This particular gig is just
while Conrad's in football, so it goes to the end of Oct.


More than anything else, I want you and I to be ok about this.  Your
friendship means very much to me and I don't want any shadows on it.


And I still owe you some links.


Love,




I was still perplexed over why it was so "hard" to see him come over for just an hour.  If Connor had not had the injury and D had worked it off back in July so I was paying him, he'd still have only been here an hour.  It doesn't add up that somehow this is an 'insult to injury', and that it was making him suffer unnecessarily.  I told her this in another message and suggested that if they wanted I could pay him for these past 2 Wednesdays and then have him babysit free some other time in a lump of 5 hours.


I've not heard back from her and I'm apprehensive.

I'll write more later about how this little vignette between my friend and me is a sort of microcosm of a pattern that's manifested throughout my life.

Ethical Dilemma

The boys want a dog, I want a divorce.

I'm fine with them having a dog but the uncertainties of executing my desire impacts the fulfilling of theirs.

For example, I'm very clear about not wanting a puppy. And, having had such a great experience with golden retrievers (other than one we'd given our hearts to up and dying on us after 8 months) we're partial to that breed. It seems some sort of rehoming or rescue service is our best bet.

The golden rescue organizations are very careful about their dog placements. The Gold Bond rescue service has a 6 page adoption application form. And they ask questions like, "Will someone be home with the dog?"

And that's where I get stuck and quit filling in the form. Wellllllllll. I suppose the technical answer is " 'yes (for now)' ".

There's a very literal, concrete part of me that feels like 'yes' is a lie by omission. Yes, it's true for now, but it may not always be true, but I don't know when its trueness might cease.

I've never been good at 'yes or no' questions.

Excerpts

Disclaimer: long and unedited. Proceed at your own risk.

Hey! I'm my own guest blogger.

3/16/06

“The parent who is overwhelming the relationship”

I’m listening to an online interview with Diane Rehm; the topic is a book of essays about in-laws that the interviewee has compiled.

The phrase above is one that I gleaned from the interview. Very interesting…it seems a fertile subject to write about today—or at least use as a jumping point.

I listened with some apprehension at first because I wondered if something in it would renew the self-accusation that my dislike of Darlene is indicative of a personality flaw in me. Or there’s an element of an improper agenda about it. Or the idea that I need to correct something in myself to try to build a warmer relationship with her.

I suppose it’s a positive thing that I do approach my behavior and motives with skepticism: do I approach it with enough?

Interesting that Diane asked if there were incidents where the MIL asserts her primacy with the son, and the answer was only in phone interviews; no one is willing to put it on paper.

I just had one of those flashes of insight that kind of summarizes the particular dynamic that underscores our relationships within the families. It has to do with this sense of bedrock fact that underlies the dynamic: there are people in the families that have their own agenda, that is unacknowledged, but skews everyone within the relationships. And there’s a prohibition on talking about that agenda, or referencing it, and certainly on denying it. The underlying demand is for the family members to meet that person’s unspoken and unacknowledged agenda.

And the presence of that agenda sucks the oxygen out of a room—it’s the elephant in the room. The fact of the peculiarities of my parents’ marriage makes the environment uncomfortable after being within it very long. It’s nothing specific that can be pointed at, it’s just insidiously in the air you breathe. Nobody seems to notice, though, and that adds to the weirdness. Or, people around them get weirder, as in Gary’s behavior often deteriorating when my parents are guest—where he gets even more passive about offering help, more likely to accept being served—willing to let me do all the extra work myself.

I guess that’s something else I had a thought about: about an issue of loyalty that was an example of one of the stories in the book—in this case the husband objected to the pleasant relationship his wife had with his father, because this father had scarred him so growing up. Diane framed it as a latent struggle about loyalty, and who is more important—is the relationship with the husband primary, or the one with the FIL? What I thought of was about how the relationship with the HUSBAND remains primary, but not the relationship with something that he needs to deal with inside of himself. There’s an agenda at work: the husband is imposing the undealt-with fact of a horrible relationship with his father on his wife—despite the fact that his father is a super grand-father and amicable with her. His agenda is that he will have nothing to do with his father to punish him, and he wants his wife to present a united front with him.

Do I have an agenda? Something I’m trying to advance at others’ expense?

It’s easier to peg Darlene’s: “Do what I want so you don’t’ hurt my feelings”. I suppose mine is that I want people around me to behave reasonably. Reasonably as defined as keeping within appropriate boundaries, keeping your agreements, not imposing your own agenda on others and then expecting them to not acknowledge that they’re acceding to one’s agenda. I want people around me to JUST BEHAVE, and behave well, and I think my conception of what behaving well means is fairly universal. It’s just what I wrote above: keeping agreements and boundaries, not imposing something at someone else’s expense without direct and clear acknowledgement of that. And being able to take clear steps to repair any damages that might happen along the way.

Part of my father’s agenda is that he’s unable to apologize, or just be wrong. So his agenda is, “don’t do anything to imply I’m wrong about anything.” The trouble is, that then gets in the way of being able to be truthful with him, and having to bend myself into contortions around any fact that might IMPLY some sort of wrongness. So that’s uncomfortable for me to have to do all that to avoid offending his desire to not be wrong. My mom’s agenda is for people to take care of her without acknowledgment that it’s unusual for an adult to need this kind of care: she simply doesn’t have the resources to be capable of doing something on her own, like driving the van down to the store to get something. The illusion we’re supposed to maintain is that she’s fully functioning and very helpful. (In fairness to her, when we went down at Christmas the hospitality she showed me and her willingness to be the executor of Christmas was VERY helpful to me.) As well as to act as if the amount of alcohol she drinks is a normal, moderate amount.

Behaving reasonably in such a situation, from my perspective on MY behavior, is to be polite and courteous: one does NOT point out to a guest that they’re not doing their fair share to assist, one does not underscore a guest’s bad habits, but merely tolerates them for the duration of the visit. What results though, is feeling unengaged in the visitor because of all the stuff that cannot be acknowledged—because the VISITOR is NOT BEHAVING WELL: which in this case would be making an effort to help and make the visit be as un-burdensome to the host as possible.

That negative tone I’ve had in the company of my parents, that I’ve tried to describe—it feels so thick as to be palpable to me, even though they don’t acknowledge it—I’d thought it was a general air of familial disappointment and resignation; I suppose it’s possible it could be from ME. After all, I DO feel disappointed that conversation doesn’t flow freely from us, and we don’t engage ourselves with each other except in the most superficial of ways. Are they REALLY happy to be in the position of not having much to say to the people you’re supposed to love the most? How can that possibly satisfy them?

Back to the dilemma of if what I’m “asking” for is something reasonable and fairly universal, or if I’m merely imposing my OWN way onto others.

It’s just that it seems reasonable to me that there is lots of opportunity for conflict, and if we as a family have an underlying agreement that NOTHING is going to separate us and make us quit talking to each other forever—and if we have as a sort of first aid kit for any tears or abrasions in the relationship the skills to address it honestly and make things right with each other—isn’t that optimal? Isn’t that optimal for keeping relationships alive, and fresh? I guess I have an agenda of wanting to share more of myself with others; is that a self-centered-at-the-expense-of-others agenda? I don’t think that’s a trying-to-bend-others-to-my-will sort of thing; although the consequence of it is a deep sense of sadness and alienation that is oppressive to me when I’m around them for very long. (Is that just imposing my moods on them?)

Interesting where that thought leads to: that in light of the fact that they’re not ever going to relate to me in that way, the only other option is to OVERLOOK IT. Overlook the fact that things are interpersonally so weird in our families to prevent feeling a genuine desire to be around them instead of general dread. Overlook it and act as if we’re the kind of family that wants to be present, and very often in each others’ lives. And that’s an interesting parallel with my relationship with Gary, is the onus is on me to overlook the things that he does that are unreasonable. The implication is that I’m the cause of the friction in the relationship because I don’t overlook his trespasses, or irrationalities.

Perhaps that ‘s the agenda of MOST people: “Overlook my mistakes and flaws and we’ll overlook yours.” (And being frank about trying to heal something that was a result of someone’s behavior is NOT overlooking something. It breaks the pact.) (“Let me do my weird things without calling attention to them—even if it’s at your expense.”)

My family’s interpersonal dynamics are not lively and interesting and fun. Generative instead of regressional.

If we have understanding of why someone did something weird, it makes the bad feeling about the weird thing they did go away; or lessens it at least. When we can’t say anything about the bad feeling that results from the weird thing they did, it puts up a block against being able to be oneself with that other person.

And therefore sits the dilemma I’ve had my whole life: the only way to work in that system of relating, is to be able to suppress your feelings. Make it a moral issue—there are BAD feelings and a GOOD person will use willpower to banish them. So when feelings differ from what you are SUPPOSED to feel and do, you banish the feelings and do what you’re SUPPOSED to do—like “love God”, or “wear a coat outside”, or “children need meat”, or “respect your elders”.

The truth is, I love my parents, but it’s a complicated and difficult love, because it’s not based on really knowing who they are, because their own agendas keep themselves from being able to reveal themselves beyond the most strictured of ways. And similarly, it can’t be reciprocal because I can’t let them know who I really am, because some of it includes facts and feelings their agenda would find very offensive and threatening.]

Is all this to imply that I think I have NO FLAWS WHATSOEVER? I can imagine that it would seem to some people who would read this or know me…I think I do speak sometimes with a kind of certitude that might imply that—it’s just that in those instances I’m referring to a sense inside of me of having lived within something and have experienced its truth. A sense of knowledge born out of experience—and there are some, many instances of having learned something that I feel I came by honestly, through experiencing it honestly.

Gary said recently that he thinks I’m controlling. Darlene said it once, too. I suppose that’s a hard one for me to respond to with any objectivity—of course it’s very negative to be controlling, and so it would be hard for me to see my behavior as controlling, since our behavior often appears to us through the filter of its best light. However, the way it appears to me is that I’m objecting to behavior that doesn’t seem reasonable. Or I’m challenging ideas that seem irrational. I think Gary would use my insisting that he use a wet cloth to clean up a spill as trying to control his behavior; to me it’s rejecting the fact of his cutting corners to save himself trouble and it’s going to be at my expense later when sticky residue is left that then gets tracked through the house. It’s tinged with a feeling of irritation that he doesn’t “do it right”. But it seems reasonable to me that dabbing at a sticky spill with a paper towel is NOT an adequate solution, because it doesn’t prevent complications later—although like as not it won’t be HIM that has to deal with those consequences. It seems to me that he cuts corners sometimes in ways that are at my expense later, and I object to those instances. I suppose those are the kinds of instances he’s thinking of when he says I’m controlling. (It occurs to me that there is something we’ve touched on: the idea that he has a subconscious notion that since I’m the stay-at-home mom that EVERYTHING relating to the house and cleaning falls to me. So there is no imposing on my time and efforts—I’m SUPPOSED to do it. That’s why it makes a difference when HE doesn’t feel like something, but doesn’t make a difference when I don’t feel like something.)

But it seems like the very act of not overlooking someone’s behavior, (even if the behavior is at your expense) and illuminating it is considered to be controlling.

I think I can concede to some controlling impulses, when I want to influence the framings of a situation that I fear will be unpleasant if the frame goes one way and to me it seems desirable that it go another way. An example would be this summer going to Jeannie’s wedding. The scenario I fear the most is that we’ll all have to fly together, go in on renting a car, and rent a hotel room. The way I hope it goes is that our getting there and method of transportation and place where we stay is independent of her. But I have a sick feeling inside that it’s going to be the first way. And not only that, that we’re going to have to include her in any side expeditions as a family we go on. Because in the world of happy families that we’re trying to emulate, that’s what we would do—it would be fine, even desirable, welcomed for her to be included as a part of our plans, especially since we have the same destination. My only hope is that either our method of travel (if we decide to drive and take the ferry, say), or particular schedule doesn’t fit with hers, so we just all end up there at the wedding, but don’t feel obligated to do stuff with her. The demand here is to act like a happy family, and not betray that it really isn’t. Same demand as with my family.

Agendas, I think, are always at somebody else’s expense. It’s a demand that someone do what you want, but not let on that it’s jumping through their hoops.

But I think I’m on to something when I identify the notion that a widely shared agenda is to overlook when someone disappoints you. And that to most it feels like a huge betrayal of trust to acknowledge when something they’ve done HAS disappointed you. What’s not entirely spelled out, though, is what’s overlook-able, and what isn’t—the boundaries of that are unclear.

Part of my problem with Gary and his mother is that though the agreed-upon story is that I am number one in Gary’s life, when it comes down to a real-life situation where she’s demanding that her agenda be fulfilled and it’s in conflict with what I want, he will probably accede to her; without even considering it.

For me that’s a problem, although I’m letting go of it, I think, as I get more emotionally distant with him. It’s like I don’t care as much. We’ve been in a bit of a truce, lately, of trying to be pleasant with each other, and operate from more of a spirit of good will, that is, offering to help each other more. So the atmosphere has been much lighter. I don’t know if it’ll go any farther than that—but even if it stops there at least then we’ll be able to coexist in the same house together while not disrupting the boys. I may still consider my earlier resolve to look outside of this relationship for getting needs met that aren’t being met in the relationship with him.

Another basic truth I think I’ve stumbled on is that people want different things—and what determines whose wishes prevail? I think another unspoken agreement that we grew up with is that our parents’ do, even when we’re grown, because when we’re grown they’re getting weaker and so we give them what they want out of indulgence: that is, we let what they want be the prevailing desire. I happen to not agree with that unspoken agreement—I think that in order for someone to get what they want, in the first place their want has to be reasonable and not unnecessarily impose on other people’s boundaries. And, I also have a wish, though I know that this one is not realistic to hope for (because it asks from people something they’re unable to do)—that that want is articulated honestly. So that there can be understanding and therefore the one being wanted of can maybe permit some imposition on boundaries—because understanding takes away the feeling of trespass.

A thought just now: that I suppose it can be said that I have an agenda in how badly I want to NOT travel with Darlene to Alaska. However, I’m going to do my best to control myself and not try to steer the direction this goes in any but the mildest of ways. It’s a short-term prospect, and once it’s over it’ll be done; I suppose I can put up with anything for a week or two.

Confession

Scott, holding his tooth.






I lost it today with Scott. Publicly and embarrassingly.

He's not in school yet though Connor started yesterday. The charter school starts Monday. Have I said that this last 2 weeks since returning from Colorado/Utah has seemed longer than the whole of the other 10 weeks of summer vacation?

I called Felix's dad to see about getting the boys together in these final days before school. We agreed to meet at a park downtown. Since we're slow starters 1:30 seemed ideal.

We live out of reach of public transportation. Our road is too narrow and the road up the ridge too steep and windy to permit one of the city buses. Downtown is congested and the parking prohibitive. So I parked a distance away where parking is easy near the streetcar line.

I'm unpracticed and inept at public transportation. I'm easily bewildered by fare zones and ticket machines. I fumble for dollars, I stare blankly and get really rattled when there's someone waiting for me. We always walk longer than necessary because I don't see the stop that's close and walk to the further one; we get off prematurely when there's a stop right on top of where we need to be. Riding public transportation with Scott adds another layer of anxiety because his sense of space and self preservation is undeveloped. I need to watch him because he's just not reliable around streets and crowds of moving people. Having my attention divided sets my teeth on edge.

We walk to a stop (having passed the closer one) and sit down to wait. This stop happens to be right outside of a large hospital (where I worked once upon a time. Connor was born there.) Scott became enamored of all things medical and was certain that everyone around us was a doctor. We were in harmony; he asked questions and I answered respectfully.

Then down came hubris. I got self-conscious. I dared to think that I was parenting impeccably and that people were noticing. The second the awareness of that thought crossed my mind alarms began to go off. I've had thoughts like that before, and it never turns out well. Life is preparing to humble me, and pride is my first warning. Shit. I tried frantically to drown out the thought, the pride in my parenting, but it was like trying to not think of a white elephant. I was doomed.

We made it to the park, me nervously watching the stops and wondering if I needed to press the 'stop' button, or if the streetcar would stop automatically. We got off at the north end of the park and had to walk past at least 2 other stops on our way to the play structure. Walking with Scott downtown is not relaxing due to the number of streets we need to cross. On the sidewalk he lags behind so I need to stop frequently and look for him. If he's not lagging his path is cutting across the front of mine and then he stops. This really irritates me.

Felix and his dad were there when we arrived.

So we passed the next 2 hours or so pleasantly. I knew that Connor would be getting on his schoolbus at 3 and thought that would be a good time for us to leave too. It would take about an hour to get home when taking the train ride into account and I didn't want to leave him alone at home too long. Felix's dad & I walked over to the play structure to collect them. They were enjoying a second wind of playing. Not 10 minutes before they'd been both in a lag and ready to go. I should have taken the hint.

Felix came to his dad right away. Scott remained at the top. "Come on, Scott" I said, and I saw The Look cross his face. Something contrarian behind the eyes. "No." he said.

I really don't like to be challenged and I don't like what happens to me when I am. It's an age-old trap. Al-Qaida used it on the United States; Hezbollah used it on Israel: provoke a Greater Power into an excessive response, lock it into a Power Struggle for the world to see. I immediately placed myself into a position that would be hard to back down from: "You will be really sorry if I have to come up there to get you." Splat goes my fist into the tar baby. And yet there was still room to get out of there without further struggle. He did come down and I didn't have to go after him. He wanted to show me something he could do before we left and so I waited while he did it. Then I said let's go and he started climbing again as if I'd said nothing. I took him by the arm and pulled and in his attempt to pull away I scratched him.

Now he's furious. And of course it's completely lost on him in his fury that had he not ignored me I'd have not needed to take his arm and it was his jerking his arm away that hurt him. So he's righteously indignant and I'm feeling under a microscope when he took a swing at me. So now my ears are filled with the roar of all the ghosts of authoritarian parents past who whisper, "if that was MY kid..." and "what a horrible child", and "gee, she's ineffective".

He didn't humble me. Life didn't humble me. In the same way that he'd hurt himself when he struggled when I took his arm, I hurt myself by sliding down the slippery slope of a Power Struggle. I'm a parent. I'm supposed to be Better Than This.

I grabbed his arm, gripped him too tightly and pulled him down the street hissing menacingly and making little shakes for emphasis. We found the stop and to take vengeance on me he laid down on the cigarette butt-laden sidewalk. Pawed around in the dirt at the base of the decorative shrub planted there. This is Old Town, once the primary abode of indigent and homeless. The street people now have to share the streets with the upscale people who've moved into the high-density lofts-turned-into-condominium developments. Old Town has gentrified, but I really didn't want him rolling around on the sidewalk or scrabbling around in the dirt. So I made him get up, he looked for a moment at his dirty hands and then wiped them on my pants.

I grabbed him by the arm and marched him away from the stop. I told him that I couldn't have him behaving this way on the streetcar and so we were just going to have to walk all the way to our car. After going a few blocks he was complaining of how tired he was. With uncharacteristic foresight I'd kept our route on the train's line and up ahead was another stop. The train was right behind us and I feared for a moment we'd missed it, but it was paused just long enough we could get on. If his behavior seemed to be building up to a scene I told him we'd get off and walk at the next stop.

By the time we reached our (one stop short) destination the storm had blown over. He was back to good humor and I was regretting my misstep. If negotiating a difference of opinion with a child is like running a race, I didn't even make it to the first hurdle before I fell. If avoiding a Power Struggle is like a high wire act I fell on the first step. Shoot, I fell before I even got to that.

Damn my inability to see Options and think on my feet.

Memememememememememememememememe

Got serious, no, obsessive, yesterday about figuring out backing up my data onto my external hard drive. For about a year now I thought I was doing just that, only to discover I'd had a false sense of security. My only "back-ups" were stored on my internal hard drive because the external drive was formatted in a system that my system could only read, and not write to. Not to mention it was taking up tons of room on my hard drive. Discovering that fact was a major piece of effort, and that was before I began to dig for the solution. 6 hours later I was feeling utterly defeated, in bad need of a geek. Then I stumbled accidentally on the solution.

I don't know whether to be glad, or exasperated.

It's amazing how time can just ooze by for me when trying to navigate my way through technology. Gary had taken the boys to the beach, and that's not really my desired way to spend the gift of alone time. But I'm trying to see it as an "investment" that makes my "sacrifice" worthwhile.

I've been thinking about my last post and feeling a little uneasy about it. I love my father, and didn't mean to trash him in public. Nor was I trying to exploit him as a relic. The conversation I reported was emblematic of many with him which leave me feeling disturbed at the underlying conflict that we stop just short of.

And it makes me wonder if it's emblematic of deeper themes than political differences. Underneath the differences lies a deeper split--about how to orient oneself in the world. From what posture do I choose live? I sense that for him the debate becomes personal--it's about more than politics, it's about a way of life.

It seems odd that a posture of deference to authority should so naturally include nationalism.

But then I look at a framework that Ken Wilbur writes about, which in turn he has borrowed from other sources , the theory of Spiral Dynamics. It is a sort of hierarchy of consciousness, and the development of humanity along that hierarchy over time. It was pioneered by Clare Graves, then refined by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan who coined the term. He calls the levels of consciousness "memes". Each level has its own internal system of perspective and social structure. Eight are identified. Level 4 is described:

"Life has meaning, direction, and purpose, with outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or Order. This righteous Order enforces a code of conduct based on absolutist and unvarying principles of "right" and "wrong". Violating the code or rules has sever, perhaps everlasting repercussions. Following the code yields rewards for the faithful." (pg 9, 10, A Theory of Everything, Ken Wilbur)

Sounds like the meme of nationalism, and religious fundamentalism. Such a meme would be inherently authoritarian, with the goal of maintaining order. A guiding principle would be an ultimate Authority, God, and one's worth determined by how closely aligned they are with this authority. Authority would be delegated hierarchically, from God, to the church, to the leaders of the church (and/or government), to parents. (And in the old days, to man, to wife, to child).

What's interesting is that each of these memes cannot appreciate the existence of others: Each of the first-tier memes thinks that its worldview is the correct or best perspective. It reacts negatively if challenged; it lashes out, using its own tools, whenever it is threatened." (pg 12)

And:

"This is why many arguments are not really a matter of the better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of those arguing. A person who operates from one meme will never be convinced by the arguments at the disposal of a different meme.


Wilbur writes that each level, or wave is "crucially important for the health of the overall Spiral", and development's goal is humanity's "transcending and including" each preceding wave. The 'higher' order includes the lower, the way that molecules contain atoms. It takes a leap into higher order thinking though, to permit this process. He calls the squabbling among the levels as an "autoimmune disease", and until humans can move into higher order thinking we are destined to more violent struggles for supremacy.

This is a context that helps me to understand the underlying heat beneath my father's and my differences. When Bill O'Reilly champions "traditional American values" in his book Culture Warrior he is defending the meme he lives in with my father. He claims these values are under attack by "Secular Progressives". To answer to the claims and accusations of this meme I find I must enter it, and in entering it I'm stripped of my perspective and vocabulary. I'm forced to speak on their terms. I suppose this can account for the sense of helplessness I feel when I do try to engage, the feeling of gasping for air.

George W. Bush appealed directly to people's sense of loyalty to an outer authority. Somehow this authority is aligned with obedience to God and parents, and to the sense that one's own goodness depends on that loyalty and faithfulness.

This was the stuff I breathed growing up. Is there anything comparable to this in England, Canada, Australia, any other nationals reading this (because it would be interesting to go beyond nations that began as England's colonies)? I'm curious what others' bedrock core group identity is based on.

An interesting exchange

It started with a link my SIL sent to the members of my family: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1.000.html It's an op-ed written to a military affairs news site, by a man who had served with John McCain in the Navy. The piece explains why he will not vote for McCain. The author is an activist in the group Veterans For Peace.

My father responded:

This opinion is one of many. Some pro and some con. The writer has every right to it. However, it does sound a little like one who is jealous of the successes. For example, the passage on how McCain is only one of thousands of heroes. Everyone has a right to join whatever group they choose. Veterans for Peace is an honest, if mistaken, organization. Freedom is not free. It is paid for by the blood of thousands of "heroes" . And if the payment is not made, freedom will be lost.

In general when my father makes these sort of cliched remarks I let them stand and pass. They seem indicative of a stance that the remark is only the tip of the iceberg. To tug at that thread threatens to pull up everything that's ever been dropped into the pond. For some reason this day I chose differently and sent this message to the group:

When you say that Veterans for Peace is 'mistaken' and then say 'Freedom is not free' it makes me wonder what you mean by 'mistaken'. Do they believe that freedom is free? Or do they believe that each of the lives of these heroes is precious and should be spent with only the greatest of care and grave consideration? Is digging a hole and then having to expend lives and treasure to repair the damage a responsible expenditure?


Our freedom is as much at risk from within as from external enemies. I've been troubled by the quiet ways that George Bush and Dick Cheney have increased executive power, and the way they've done it. It appears to me that their means and rationale have been dubious and don't pass the smell test. I'm curious about the people who say we're defending our Freedom and then in the next breath say we should surrender our civil liberties in the name of security. They don't seem to realize the internal contradiction.


The increased power the executive has taken to itself isn't limited to a Republican administration. I was just reading an article about how neither presidential candidate has clearly renounced the increased power Bush has taken for the presidency. Our constitution is based on checks and balances among the three branches of government. I think that people who say that the president should have the power to overrule the other branches of government are saying that our republic is functional only during good times. I think that reveals a lack of faith in our democratic system that has endured for 232 years, both in times of peace and times of war.


Just my .02

At this point he responded to me privately, opting out of the group discussion:

Hi Debora,

As I understand Veterans for Peace, they believe peace at any nearly price is desirable. I do not. They also believe they are better suited to decide when (and if) to fight. I do not. That is why we elect a president and a congress. If we don't like their decisions, then unelect them next time. They have much more information than anyone else about the threat to our country and to our liberties. There are things for which I would fight and die if necessary although I dislike war about as much as anyone. As for the loss of civil liberties from President Bush and Vice-President Chaney, I have not noticed that I have lost any. By what means have they accomplished this piracy of our rights? The Patriot Act? It seems to me that Congress passed that bill. The interception of communications from foreign suspected terrorists to someone inside this country? It seems to me that to allow terrorists to communica te with each other in order to plan our murder is stupid. With all the "curtailment" of civil liberties, there has been not one major terrorist act in this country since 9/11, and it has not been for lack of attempts. Let's give some credit to those in authority who are charged with protecting the civilian population for this record. I do not want a "dirty" bomb or nuclear device to be exploded in a city in this country so that I can say my civil rights are not infringed. I am willing to be searched in an airport to ensure no one carries weapons on board. I am willing to make similar concessions to ensure detection and interdiction of plans to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc.

I am sorry if I am a dinosaur. This is the greatest country in the world. I do trust our government to a large extent, even those who are not conservative. I think they want the best for the country even though they have some misguided positions, according to me. Please forgive me for my out dated and perhaps short sighted thinking.

The biggest threat to our country is the exploding National Debt, now around $9.5 TRILLION. President Bush shares some responsibility for this, but the Congress is the main problem. They consitutionally are the organization that approves the budget and authorizes the spending. We can defeat the terrorists, but I wonder if we can defeat the congressman who wants to get reelected so badly that he promises a "Bridge to Nowhere", as most of them have.

I love you all

I thought about this for a couple days and wrote:

Hi, finally getting back to you.



I half wonder if the 9.5 trillion dollar debt in a backward way is GOOD for American security: a great deal of that debt is to China, and I can't see that it would be in their best interests to go to war with a nation that owes them that kind of money! Their best interest is to have us working away.



I think the main threat to civil liberties comes from the executive branch of the government accumulating power to itself. Under steps that the Bush administration has taken it can and has declared American citizens to be unlawful combatants and therefore can be held indefinitely without charge or access to a lawyer. No, it hasn't happened to many Americans, but you can see the potential for abuse.



Under the Material Witness Law immediately after 9-11 at least 70 men were taken into custody without charge or access to lawyers. Most were kept for over 2 months, one for 6, and another for a year. Many were never brought before a grand jury to testify or were asked for information about ties to terrorists. This was through the Justice Dept, an executive agency.



We have been informed that the FBI is found to have mis-used it's power to issue National Security Letters and has accessed information about people with no remote connection to terrorism. The Pentagon and CIA have their own versions of national security letters (although recipients have the right to refuse; recipients of the FBI NSL do not) The Pentagon and CIA are both much more involved in domestic intelligence than ever historically. We know that peaceful groups, such as Quakers have been monitored and their names entered into data bases. Again these are the actions of the executive branch.



We also know that over 700,000 people have found themselves mistakenly on 'do not fly' lists with little recourse and that Americans' bank data is being electronically surveilled.



Though we have not (yet) been personally affected by these actions (at least, not that we know of) and so might be inclined to dismiss them it matters very much to the people who have been. And what makes our country great is that it has enshrined in our Constitution basic human rights for individuals. All individuals are entitled to being treated according to the rule of law. So if an individual is deprived of his/her civil rights for arbitrary reasons and no just cause, we are all at risk--and from the government that has sworn to protect those rights.



America is a great country. However, this greatness is undermined by its government when it doesn't live up to the high standard set by our Constitution. It's not America that's been 'hated' around the world--America is still loved. It's when it fails to live up to its ideals that it draws criticism.



Love,
Debora

To which I received a rather terse reply: (the subject line was "sorry")

Hi,



I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject. I don't know where you got your numbers, and I am not disputing them. I just have a hard time imagining the FBI or the Justice Department coming up on a completely innocent person on the street and saying "We are going to hold you for the next year, we are not going to give you access to legal council and you can't argue with us". Sorry, but if a guy like Padilla was detained for a time, he probably did something to cause it. At least we do agree that this is a great country.



Dad

I had kept some of the web pages open that I'd cited my statements from, and I considered sending him some sources. However, his email seems to be a pretty clear door-slam, no-more-discussion message.

There's an interesting division among conservatives. It seems there are some who want to 'conserve' the human rights (also known as 'freedoms' in this country) guaranteed by our Constitution. And there are conservatives who claim allegiance to "freedom" but they're really about loyalty and obedience to authority. I suppose they are the ones who don't see the internal contradiction between talking about 'fighting for our freedom' and in the next breath ridiculing someone who expresses concern about erosion of our civil liberties.

Peculiar Dry Period

The feeling of being scattered and not-quite-caught-up has persisted, and it's impacting my ability to write posts, and comment on other people's.

Maybe to break the logjam I'll post pictures of a desert (to mirror my inner state).

A synopsis of the trip:

We drove approx 1200 miles to Breckenridge, CO, for a family reunion. My father is the oldest of 3 kids, each born 7 years apart. My parents had two girls (one who died in 1988, and one yours truly) and twin sons. (I am the firstborn of the grandkids.) My father's younger sister had three daughters, (the oldest of whom is about 6 years younger than me) and their youngest brother never had children. He's about 9 years older than me.

Gary & I have 2 kids; my cousins have 5 sons and one daughter among them, one of my brothers has a daughter and a son, and my sister had had one daughter--the firstborn of the great-grandchildren of the grandparents my cousins and I share. So, 17 adults, 10 children, one house. One week, with some variation in duration to meet school and sports obligations.

It went quite well, all those personalities together. I was puzzled at how I seemed to naturally gravitate toward my aunt's family, much more than mine. There was just better chemistry there, and our conversation was spontaneous, very pleasurable (not forced, as with my parents and brothers), frequent, and frequently long.

We, Gary & our kids & I, left a day before the house needed to be vacated. Gary had ambitions to visit and re-visit some of the canyons and formations of southern Utah--we honeymooned there over 16 years ago.

First stop was Capitol Reef National Park, a very long, narrow, north-south oriented tract of land. In this portion of the trip I alone shot over 800 photos. Gary said it's a 'common mistake' with a digital camera. I suppose I epitomized that common mistake--everywhere I looked there was a picture. Obviously, this was shot while on the road.

There are petroglyphs here.

















Next day we drove through an aspen forest and then onto the most amazing of roads. It's hwy 12 toward the town of Escalante, and it's like driving on the spine between beautiful canyons. At places the drop-off below us on either side is hundreds of feet. To the west we're tracking the Calf Creek drainage on its way to the Escalante River (on it's way to the Colorado). I'm not sure what creek drainage is to the east. There's a little BLM campground, just 13 sites, and we were lucky enough to get one.





We had to ford Calf Creek to get to it.

Then we went for a hike upstream to find the falls. Scott didn't feel well, so Gary took him back to camp. Connor and I pressed on.

And on and ended up here:
As I arranged the photographs the obvious metaphor dawned on me.

Pressing on.

Leave of Absence/Exerpts

Back from the 12-day road trip/family reunion and still playing catch-up. Feeling scattered and unconsolidated. Way behind in my blog list, since I was only rarely able to get online while gone. I'll post a proper post soon, but wondered if in the meantime I could post another early 2006 diary entry:

01/26/06

I wrote some more about this in a message to Valerie, so I’ll put it here:


Answering the question you asked me, at the start of your message ("What do
you think you can do about it?') was a good focusing point for me. I think
what I'm doing right now about it is having a conversation with myself (sort
of like the more pleasurable, but still rather stressful conversation I was
having with myself about x). In this conversation I'm clarifying the
dimensions of the situation I'm feeling stuck in. And I'm trying to find
the stamina to keep myself focused on this dilemma, because I think
sometimes if you hold 2 seemingly intractable ideas next to each other, that
an unforeseen way might open, just from the tension of those ideas. Make
any sense? Here's what I've come up with so far: The nature of my
dilemma--In order to be happy in a relationship, I need to have a means with
which to restore intimacy when there's a breach. I need to be able to name
my feelings about the breach, and I need to be able to discuss the breach
with the other person involved. I believe I have the skills to be able to
pull off this kind of intimacy + PROCESS for restoring intimacy. (For I am
being realistic in assuming that as long as there is more than one person
there will be potential for conflict, since we each have a blind spot about
what the other person is thinking, feeling, and wanting.)

Anyway, to get back to the Basic Situation: In order to be happy in
relationship I need to be able to communicate wants, needs, and feelings and
have a partner who does it too, as something *functional*, to keep things
cleaned up between us so intimacy can flow.

This is all very difficult when the other half of the partnership has no
skills at all in the area of communicating. I suppose I would say that I
need to have a partner who is able to cooperate with me in using words to
heal breaches in connection.

I don't have this in Gary. And it's very likely that I never will. So I'm
married to a man who not only doesn't have these skills, but reacts with
hostility when I use them.

That's the crux of this situation. I need something in a relationship that
is totally out of his nature and inclination to provide.

So it's an affront to him whenever I, no matter how respectfully, (And no
matter how reasonable the issue is, ask something of him, or point out
something to him. He also is passive aggressive and frequently acts or
speaks with hostility to get back at me for something that he's mad about
(but not saying)--and something that's not even related to the current
circumstances.

The by-product of that dynamic is that very often in our day-to-day moments,
out of the blue he will behave with animosity. It's often very quick--I
just know that all of a sudden I'm feeling kind of crummy, or a little angry
myself. And it comes down to being a result of something loaded in a moment
that Gary and I just participated in together.

There are 2 requirements for peace in that moment: one is that Gary simply
do whatever is required of him in that moment without slipping in a *zing*.
(That is, not behave with animosity in the first place.) The other thing
required is for me to not react.

This part has been, I think, the focus of counselors and the advice from
helping books--that is, that the only thing I can change in a partnership is
me, so I should be the one to change. That means that somehow I would have
to not feel the sting that he intends, and therefore be unaffected, and so
not feel that anger/hurt that comes as a response to an act of hostility.

And, I'm not sure that I can do that.

I can't see myself as being completely unaffected emotionally by this stuff
when he is just plain rude or disrespectful. I can't see myself being able
to let it pass, either, without insistence that I be treated well.

Anyway, this is all a long way of saying that what I want and what he is
able to give in a relationship seem to be mutually exclusive. For whatever
reasons, he's not up to what it would take to heal things between us. And
he is not able to maintain well-ness in a relationship through communication
and self-disclosure.

That's what I mean by the stuck place, and I'm trying to think of it as a
kind of crucible to see what comes of holding these contradictions next to
each other.


I sent that a little while ago and feel a bit vulnerable. Like maybe there’s some sort of fatal flaw in the way I view my situation that’s obvious to everyone but me.

I think I have a realistic handle on why Gary and I don’t get along. And what I’ve laid out here isn’t even the only deeply divisive issue that we have. It’s a big one, though: the fact that we as a couple are unable to communicate using words and use it functionally on even a basic level as a tool to maintain connection as well as heal rifts.

He seems to take the fact of a conflict very personally, and hold it against me when I’m open about a situation where there’s potentially conflict. Many people believe that it’s a deep affront to them if someone admits they’re less than happy with them. They believe that the right thing to do is to just put up with something someone’s doing that is having a less than positive impact on them. And that therefore there’s an agreement that neither of you will ever say anything that bothers you. Gary seems to come from that place—which means that any time I ask that something be different, that he takes it as an insult. And yet he feels constrained against talking about it with me and instead holds it against me. So he’s got years of resentment against me because I’ve always been honest about my feelings, even if they aren’t complimentary to him.

A little later—back from getting Scott:

I think what was worrying me, was a sense that maybe what I wrote to Valerie is over-dramatizing my situation, or being histrionic or something. That’s what I feel vulnerable to, being taken that way. That someone out side of me might see it that I’ve created this big drama and the intractable situation is just me being dramatic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm painfully aware that 2 and a half years have passed since then and I basically could be saying the very same things now. With some variation in the level of hostility nothing has changed. I suppose it's time to make preparations , serious ones, for leaving this marriage. Looking over my financial assets, getting a handle on investments and that sort of thing. The biggest question mark for me is Scott's emotional state which I have an intuition is fragile.

That said, the vacation was largely positive and I'd like to post a few pictures once I put together a real post.

Provo, Utah

Heading back to Portland. If we can endure it, we'll be there late tonight. If not, sometime tomorrow.

More later.

Uh...

Checked into a hotel tonight and came to visit my site, and saw that it makes no sense. I wondered if 'blogger' might have exercised its judgment and a little (deserved) censorship. Turns out in my efforts to euphemize I'd used this sign (<) in place of a certain (k). I guess I'd inadvertently used code and altered my text.

I hesitate to have the bad taste to clarify an obscenity, but it WAS an authentic sentiment, probably not the last time I'll have it (and certainly not the first). So I stand by it.

And I corrected the post below.

Road Trip

Today 5 driving hours.

I hate f#ck'n9 kids

10.5 driving hours tomorrow.

_________________________

Do I get to keep the Arte y Pico award?

Awwwwww, Gee

Lori has given me this award! It's called Arte y Pico. I looked for a translation in google and got these.


Here are the rules: (from the Arte y Pico site itself)

1) You have to pick 5 blogs that you consider deserve this award, creativity, design, interesting material, and also contrubutes to the blogger community, no matter of language.

2) Each award has to have the name of the author and also a link to his or her blog to be visited by everyone.

3) Each award-winning, has to show the award and put the name and link to the blog that has given her or him the award itself.

4) Award-winning and the one who has given the prize have to show the link of "Arte y pico"blog , so everyone will know the origin of this award.

5) To show these rules.

The original site is in Spanish. I'm still new to blogging, so I'm sure I could figure out a way to translate it, but it's 11:00 at night and I'm leaving on a major driving trip to Colorado tomorrow, so I'm going to plead laziness and not try to do that tonight.

Of course I have to give this award to knitter Mrs. Spit, since it looks as if a great deal of the award site is devoted to knitting (some of it to crocheting...and I'm not sure how much due to my language limitations. Maybe it's a crocheting site...in which case is it an insult to give such an award to a knitter? Regardless, Mrs. Spit's site is a work of art from its web design to her stunning essays. Please go read her.)

And Doug is a natural, since his entire site is devoted to art. His photography and paintings are amazing.

Another knitter, artist and wordsmith is Maddy. I also recommend Mercurious, and Andrea.
Gee, I wish I could say something eloquent about the pleasure I get from reading their blogs, but my brain has just checked out. I really need to put it to bed.

Thanks, Lori. But you're my Cuz, you have to like me! (See you in a coupla days.)

Excerpts

From January 2006

1/12/06

Yow, that feeling is so strong, the feeling that time is slipping out of the hour glass. It makes me feel anxious to see anything but a huge swatch of untracked time ahead of me, and I start to feel anxious about its passing, almost immediately. Already it’s almost 1;30, a little over an hour before I go get Scott, and it feels so not-enough.

It occurs to me to tell the truth here—I mean, to summarize in writing what I see the truth of this situation as…to try and get it down into as bottom line, bedrock language as possible.

How I see my marriage to Gary, my relationship with his mother, my own family.

I guess start with me and Gary. I see us as not being very good partners for getting things done. And the bottomline issue underlying that, which makes it unrecoverable, is that we have no mechanism to talk about it. His default is to resent, and get back in passive aggressive ways later. What I need from him is for him to have the capacity to observe himself, take note in a moment that he’s upset about something, and say it respectfully. Not ACT it, in irritated disrespectful tone of voice, or eye-rolling…or in making a negative remark later, under his breath, as he’s passing me. Yes, it’s a hook, yes I suppose I’d be better not taking it—BUT WHO THE FUCK IS HE TO INTEND TO HOOK??? Doesn’t he have a responsibility as well, being the person who starts something? I think what I react to is the underlying discount, and dislike that would give him the permission to treat me that way. This is not the way one acts toward someone that is loved.

OK. So put us, in with those communication strictures, in a situation where we have to cooperate with each other, and communicate with each other—to have to use words to bridge a misunderstanding, to get understanding, and if necessary, healing. We can’t do it. Time and time again, from something as simple as getting ready for a camping trip, to child raising, if we cannot agree on something then we have no language to negotiate it. For me to even use words offends him. He feels harassed by them. He will do something negative, out of something that he’s mad at me about but hasn’t told me. I call him on it, and he tries to brush it off. He doesn’t acknowledge that he just did something hurtful, and often, unreasonable.

Here is a place where I can change my behavior. I can refuse to call him on it. Let it pass. Then the argument that comes from him stonewalling when I call him on it (and then stonewalling on THAT, layer upon layer) will not be born. It’s just that it seems SO WRONG that he do what he did that I’m not able to be silent.

So, basically we are a married couple with no tools at all for handling conflict. Well, I have tools, but I might as well not because I need him to have tools, too, for these conflicts to be able to be worked through healthily. But he goes to his default, each time. Clam up about something he’s angry about or wants a change about; show his anger in unrelated ways, later.

I was thinking about this in terms of Peter Kramer’s talking about “differentiation”. I was first thinking about what this means, his theory that couples seek someone who has a similar level of differentiation. I was thinking that that’s not true, in Gary’s and my case: I have the tools to communicate, work things through to resolution, and heal. Gary does not. In light of that I think that I have more differentiation than Gary. Then it occurs to me that the way I express my lack of differentiation is in being susceptible to the passive aggressive things Gary does and says. My being unable to let them pass.

I’ve got to think about that.

Another bottom line I see in our relationship is his capacity to deny that something is wrong. How terribly far he has to be pushed before he looks at his responsibility, before he takes action. And how he chooses inaction, consistently. Even when he says something like, “This year, I need to win back the boys’ respect and yours too (I’m not sure he said that)” he means it in the moment, but then puts it away. He accepts a tremendous amount of pain in his life-enormous losses (a viable sex life with me, respect of his children, love of his wife) by refusing to acknowledge that he’s in pain.

These two things, the inability to communicate and his unwillingness to face facts, are things I see as bedrock in our relationship and I’m thinking that it’s not possible to feel love in a relationship like that. Oh, you can do what my family does: You’re supposed to love your family. Therefore, you DO. That means that you don’t acknowledge the things that are painful between you. You don’t acknowledge when something isn’t working, because to give voice to that is to NOT love you. It is better to have the appearance of loving, the agreement of loving, then to have the underlying intimacy that love springs from. The trouble is, to get to the intimacy, people have to go through what they’ve been denying. It really is like the woman said in her book: “She couldn’t see. But she believed she could.”

And I know we can’t. But the willingness of my parents, and Gary, for that matter, to be able to face certain fears about themselves, and pain they’ve locked away…is very unlikely. So I have to love on THEIR terms: which is, don’t admit that there’s not really much intimacy basis for the love that is professed, don’t admit that things are wrong.

Perhaps Al anon really would be a good place for me.

My boys are suffering from living in a relationship like Gary’s and mine. Gary may want to do something about it, when he thinks about it or I bring it to his attention, but he doesn’t follow through. I can’t model a good back-and-forth-using-words-to-resolve-differences example when my partner in communication doesn’t have the tools. It’s like trying to dance with someone who absolutely can’t dance…but thinks he can.

Weekend Away

I spent the weekend at the beach, about 10 miles south of Newport, with a long-time friend I went to physical therapy school with.

There were 30 in our class. When we graduated I worked for a year in Long Beach in southern California. I lived in a household with 2 other women, 3 blocks from the beach. I had taken Serena's place; when she moved out I moved in.

The house didn't look quite this tricked out when I lived there in late 1978--1979. But it was a very happy time in my life.

I moved to Portland in late 1979. A few years later I was delighted when Serena moved up too, then with a husband and her 4 year old girl, and an infant daughter. When her husband finished medical school they moved out to the coast.

Serena is one of those people that I naturally gravitated toward. She is someone whose presence is restful, and I always feel inspired around her. In her presence ideas are catalyzed that nudge me toward the "getting warmer" feeling.

No matter how much time goes by this is the way it is with Serena.

I hadn't seen her in at least 12 years. And it was the same.

She'd had to leave to tend to her mother, so I arrived to a note and an unlocked door. I'm glad the house was empty, so I got to take in her surroundings. I think of her place as being an extension of herself--just her generosity of spirit overflowing and filling her house and then overflowing into her garden. The house was filled with light from the skylights, plants, and art. No matter where I looked my eye fell on something beautiful and intriguing. It was completely still, the quiet broken only by the scales of the wind chimes. I followed their sound to the back patio. I'd removed my shoes when I came in, but found a pair of thongs, so I put them on to walk the path that led through the many island beds she'd planted.

It was so beautiful I wanted to cry.

When she came home we walked on the beach. We talked for hours, awakening the next day to converse some more. Did I mention that I always feel enriched and replenished when we talk?

It was very hard to leave this space.

It is rare that I find it as replenishing to be in the company of another as I find in being alone.

Taking Mrs. Spit's "Vive Le Livre" challenge

(I was really tempted to put "Vive Le Liver" in my title)

(I'm neglecting my kids and packing for a beach trip to do this)

If you want to play, post on your blog, bold the books you've read, highlight the ones you loved or write a little about it.

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (I was spellbound in this world and cried when I finished, because it was done, when I was 14)

3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible - (the New Testament, and a big bite of the old, but unlike Mrs. Spit, I couldn't make it past Numbers)

7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte - Liked it a lot when I read it, in high school; don't know if I would now.

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens

11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller (understanding what a catch 22 was, and being able to see examples of it in life around me was very enlightening)

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulks

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot -

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy -- I have read the whole thing. It got confusing. . .

25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams

26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh - On my list.

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky - I don't know if I loved it, but it was powerful and profound.

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens

33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis

34 Emma - Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini - Not one of my favorites

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden - On my list.

40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne

41 Animal Farm - George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown -

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez--I tried this book, and put it down. Mentioned it to a friend who said to get past the 1st hundred pages. I did, and it pulled me in. I suppose it took that long to 'speak' the language of magical realism.

44 A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding --I can't bring myself to read this, even though a friend gave it to me last year. I just can't bear a story of boys turning to savagery.

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan--Loved it, wonderful book

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel -

52 Dune - Frank Herbert--liked it a lot when I read it, about 30 years ago

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon - This is a great book. An amazing tour behind the eyes of an autistic boy. Wow.

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez - it was ok.

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold (a book about the soaring human spirit. Hard to believe, given the subject matter; I guess that's why I'm so impressed with this author.)

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac--had to see what the fuss was about. Didn't love it.

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding - Cause Celeb is also really good!

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie - On my list.

70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville -


71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72 Dracula - Bram Stoker -


73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75 Ulysses - James Joyce

76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome -

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray -

80 Possession - AS Byatt--tried, I just could not get into it.

81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro Great book

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry -

87 Charlotte’s Web - EB White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom --I'm just not interested

89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - I've read some of them.

90 The Faraway Tree Collection

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94 Watership Down - Richard Adams - It's about bunnies. Way too many bunnies for me.

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare - I think Hamlet's a whiny jerk. I really hated this play.

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

I don't think I'm as literary as Mrs. Spit. And I'm sadly lacking in classics.