Self care

I read this post this other day, and despite no longer being an active mormon, I can relate.  I too would not make it through the holiday season without boundaries.  There is simply a lot to do.   And I prioritize what I do. 

And - I don't do busy work during the holidays to make the holidays the best ever for people around me (which I used to try to do). 

I have a habit of trying to do too much in order to ignore whatever is going on around me (and the holidays are a great excuse for this).  Trying to please others constantly is usually a recipe for disaster.  Being kind to other people, being other-focused are fine; but focusing on my feelings and needs are important. 

Some things that have helped me during the holiday:

-I try to work out regularly and plan time to work out
-I make sure to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables (it's easy to try to get one's kids to eat veggies, it's much harder to remember to eat them yourself).
-I try to sit underneath one of those SAD lights on a regular basis
-I take fish oil and vitamin D
-I don't go overboard with baking

I'm mentioned it before, I wasn't really taught how to do all this stuff growing up. I was taught how to bake, wasn't necessarily taught to say no if someone asked me to do something. 

I agree with the "be the change you want to see in the world" philosophy.   So I have to take care of myself first, be aware of my own needs, and then reach out to others.  I focus on the present and what's going on now instead of outcomes. 

Empowerment

A handful of friends of mine are going through some challenges at the moment.  Weddings, pregnancy and break -ups, to be specific.  I have to admit, going through each of those things have been some of the hardest challenges I've faced in life so far. 

I've discussed some of my experiences here before, but not really how difficult things were during these specific rough times.  Some of the feelings like the raw disappointment and despair when my first boyfriend broke up with me are gone, long gone.  They were very real while I was going through them, but life moves on.  I've had so many other beautiful, maddening, insane experiences since then...it's hard to remember exactly how I was feeling without the haze of time.

All this is to say, I have a strong belief that each person has the ability to figure out their own problems.  It is within them.  If the answer is not within them, they have the ability to ask for help.

This is a different reaction for me than my nature.  Typically I am the type of person who will tell you what to do with your life.  I've realized how smug and arrogant that can be. I've also realized that I simply don't have all the information and never will about another person's life. 

I don't know what's right for them.  I can't know what's right for someone else.  The only person I can hope to understand is me.

self control and mormonism

I heard this article on npr the other day. It brought up some great points about allowing children to be responsible for themselves, delayed gratification, etc.

Like many mormons/former mormons, I grew up in an environment that was not terribly permissive. I was raised to be independent, but there was quite a bit of self-denial. It's that line between being cheap and being frugal - some of it was necessary for survival. I think it's safe to say that in many mormon families, there wasn't a lot of choice or accountability. One didn't get to "choose" to go to church, stake dances or seminary. Choice and accountability are important. If you don't choose to clean up your room, you miss out on a fun activity, etc. It's hard to explain, a person needs to be able to actually choose to do or not do something, not some sort of half-hearted attempt at "you *chose* to get baptized" (yeah right!).

For the baby boomer/conservative mormon parents, often something needed to be done simply because the parent said so and it was the right thing to do. period. And this method has its place as well, in moderation.

What the strict authoritarian family structure leads to people who don't have a great deal of internal knowledge or working boundaries. It's hard to internally figure out what *you* want, what *you* are feeling, to know your limits, if you're never allowed to explore them.

Some people leave the LDS church and really push the boundaries with self-destructive behaviors. It's a stereotype. Of course, I found many non mormon freshman who had the exact same response to leaving home. As soon as they were no longer under mom or dad's thumb, they threw caution to the wind. It happens. I'm not suggesting that experimenting isn't a part of life - and an important one. Not everyone reacts the same way - I have found over the years one can not make any generalizations about former mormons (and some current mormons).

The point of all this rambling is, raising children mormon does not necessarily do them a service in developing these internal compasses. Mormonism is intensely external. If nothing else, there is this belief that if you feel differently, if you receive a different answer, you're wrong, it's your problem (you're not righteous, whatever that means) or ask again. (I'm referring directly to the book of mormon, book of abraham, but even thorny questions about Joseph Smith's polygamy).

I can't say as a parent that I will be any better at this. From what I've figured out so far, limits and boundaries in parenthood has been critical. Routine has been important.

But I'm trying to also respect my kids for who they are, and allow them some age appropriate freedoms. I think moderation is the key. Moderation with important boundaries, health, safety, violence towards themselves or others.

I think kids are also watching parents (and other adults) to figure out how to respond to life. How to resolve conflicts. How and when to do stuff you don't want to do. How to handle grief and loss. How to have fun and let go. How to find that life between extreme self-denial and healthy, responsible self- control. And it should go without saying that the self-control is very different for each person/family.

Putting Up with Anything

I've talked about a bad work experience I had here.  I started thinking about my crazy boss as I was reading about Stella's work experience on her blog here.

Believe it or not, it can be difficult in a job situation to know what is normal or acceptable.  It's not really something you learn in school - where those boundaries are.  What you will or will not put up with in a work environment. 

Looking back, I was only at that job (with the con artist boss) for a month.  I was a temp.  Why did I stay so long in a crazy environment?  It's what I was thinking of reading Stella's blog.

I'm glad I woke up and left.  (I tried to train my replacement. For  whatever reason, my boss didn't think she would work out - perhaps she was less of a mark than I was?)  But there were some clear signs that things were not normal, and were not where they needed to be.  My boss screaming at people on the phone was probably a good sign.  One or two people, maybe.  But anyone who said no, anyone who said they had to follow procedure, they had to check references.  He would start screaming and ask to speak to their supervisor.

The customer is not always right.

I realized the other day that I've changed.  I used to be proud of the fact I could put up with anything.  It was a badge of honor of sorts. 

I'm not sure when that changed, but it has.  It's not that I couldn't get into that situation again.  I could.  I have an affinity for insane work environments.  But I'm older.  I won't put up with anything anymore.  I don't have to.  There are things I won't put up with-life is too short. 

Out of touch with Feelings

Some years ago, various well-meaning friends and counselors/professionals mentioned to me that it sounded like I "was out of touch with my feelings".

At first this statement really p*ssed me off. I had no idea what they meant, AND even worse, I had no idea what I could do about it. It sounded like a bunch of woo, or even worse, horse pucky. Being someone who excelled at lots of things over the years, it was also hard to hear that maybe there were some things I wasn't so great at.

Perhaps this is a nice way (euphemism) to say "heavy denial", and if so, it was/is true.

I was in denial about lots of things for many years - even long after I had been an active mormon. Through study, time and cognitive behavioral therapy, I think I have a better handle on what this means, on what it means to be out of touch with one's "feelings".

Basically, when growing up, some people are raised in families where authentic feelings are *not okay*. If someone is angry, scared or sad, these are not acceptable feelings. It's not good to be negative, and particularly be negative outside the family. There are rarely appropriate outlets for these feelings, and if there are, they are rarely taught/learned. Even at a time where someone was very sick or at a funeral, sometimes these feelings are not accepted. Think ("you're going to take drum lessons and you're going to like it - no matter what you want").  For the record, I am not saying that my own family never allowed outlets for feelings, just that it was something that I believe we struggled with.

Another friend talked about "choice" and "accountability" within families. This goes hand in hand with acknowledging and honoring feelings. Having choice means that children/family members are free to decide if they want to do something. They are free to say no. They are free to be sick (if they are sick).

Accountability means that if a person says no, or show up or does something, that there are consequences (positive or negative).

So for me, getting in touch with what I'm feeling is to think about specific feelings (anger, sadness, fear). I no longer focus on what other people around me are feeling. Other people and their opinions are important, but it goes back to that internal boundary I have talked about before (is it true? is it not true? and letting the not true stuff go).  I may have another post on the internal boundary thing.

Again, figuring out what others were feeling was a skill I learned very well from a young age (either from being raised mormon or being raised mormon in my family). It was better/easier/a coping mechanism to keep track of how everyone *else* was feeling, than my own wants, needs, likes or dislikes. What I liked wasn't so important, how I felt wasn't important because it wasn't useful. It didn't get me anything.

What was important was the family, the church, my peers, people joining the mormon church, etc.

I'm not suggesting that people should be completely self-focused or self-indulgent (that's another can of worms). But when I was able to start to separate what *I* wanted, my expectations of myself vs.other people and their expectations of me, it became easier to navigate relationships. Also, separate out what I could control, and what I could not control (other people's feelings or responses).

Talking about those authentic feelings can get scary for some families/some family systems. Sometimes people will claim someone is being "selfish" for setting boundaries, for being accountable for the things they offer to do and don't. A big part of being accountable is saying yes, but also being accountable to say no and not feeling guilty about it.

I would much rather any friends of mine said "no" to a party or gathering than show up and complain or be in a bad mood the whole time. I'd rather they took care of themselves. Honestly, gatherings where everyone genuinely wants to be there are so much better. You can tell when someone feels obligated or doesn't want to be somewhere.

I think this is a different message than what's given in some organizations (the LDS church, but other organizations as well). And it's unfortunate - because it means that people "fake" what they are feeling, fake friendships or relationships.

It's certainly an easier business model to force people to do things no matter what and not accept no for an answer. Or to use guilt, passive-aggression, intermittent rewards, etc. to get what you want. But the people who actually want to do something and be somewhere...they're the most motivated, and their enjoyment and gratitude shows.

PS. I don't know how mourning and grief play into this, but I think part of the feelings thing is accepting that some things/people/relationships are not the way you want them to be. Then after that acceptance, figuring out what you can do about it.

Each person comes up with their own answers to these questions, and their own decisions (and accepts the various consequences).

And PPS. This is even more complicated for men, who are taught from a very young age that most feelings are not okay. A good reference for that (I still need to read it myself) is "I Don't Want to Talk About it: The Secret Legacy of Male Depression" by Terence Real.  I'll read it and review it here at some point.

An emergency on your part

I've been thinking about crisis living recently. I learned about living full of drama, crisis to crisis from an early age.  There was always something to be worried about.  There was always something to be concerned about. 

If nothing else, I remember (distinctly) sitting at the breakfast table with my mother, while she talked about her dreams the night before.  One dream/nightmare was that we would have to pack everything up and move to Missouri (in handcarts, because there wasn't any gas for cars)**.  We didn't live in Missouri at the time, so it would have been a long trip

As an adult, I've worked very hard at breaking free of this cycle.  Some days I succeed.

Currently there is some stuff going on that I could be freaking out about.  Five or ten years ago, this would have looked very different.  But I've learned that just because someone else is freaking out - doesn't mean *I* have to. 

It's like the classic copied sign behind the school secretary - an emergency on your part doesn't mean an emergency on my part.

I'm not feeling heartless.  Just that, living here in the present is pretty d*mn important to me. 

Figuring out whether or not something is a big deal (and worth getting upset about) is also critical.  And figuring out who I'm responsible for, and what I can control is what keeps me away from the drama.

It can be frightening; it has been frightening. 

It's like stepping back and asking yourself - who do I want to be?  Do I want to be someone caught up in what everyone else is doing, thinking and feeling each day?  Or do I want to focus on myself, on the beauty of what's around me, on the people I love? 

When the choice became that obvious, it really was no longer a difficult choice.



**(btw, for the non mormons out there, one of Joseph Smith's revelations was that all the Saints would gather in Independence Missouri in the "last days" before Christ returned.  Whether or not this is still the case, that most active LDS believe this, is debated amongst some mormons).

Selfishness and Obligation

Recently I was having a conversation on a message board I wanted to write about here.

Sometimes, I think a person can be accused of being selfish when they are just trying to fulfill their own needs. But it's also possible that someone is so self-focused that they become narcissistic - or unaware of the needs of others' around them. 

It's a continuum - at any point a person can be protecting their own healthy self-interest or infringing on the rights of others. The line is not always obvious or easy to tell. 



A great example, when someone raised mormon decides their needs are not being met in mormonism and chooses to stop attending church. Other people (some active LDS) may call this "selfish" but making a personal decision to stop attending a religion is not selfish.

And yes, I have heard people say leaving the church (not attending regularly) and not working for change from within is, indeed, selfish. But is it selfish to take ownership of one's own happiness and beliefs?  Is a person obligated to a belief system simply because they were raised in that belief system?

But, I also agree that me some people are very self-focused, and really can't see how they affect others - and they can be controlling and passive aggressive.

Situations are different and it is not black and white. One person may seem selfish and controlling to one person and not to another.



Quote from the person I was having a conversation with:

"And the ideas that 'I must love myself before I can love others,' or 'my every need must be met before I can help someone else' are demonstrably false.  "

I don't know about being false - but it seems to me, if you are exhausted from spending every waking moment doing things for other people or a religion, you can't really help anyone else. If you (a person) takes time to take care of some basic needs (their sleep, etc.) or their responsibilities - the rest will follow.

When I was a new mom, getting little sleep - there was no way that I could do much else but focus on my kids and myself. Now that my kids are older, I have time to myself, they can entertain themselves (and sleep through the night!!) and I am much better able to focus on other things (myself, my career, education, volunteering, etc.).

Viktor Frankl (the therapist who survived the concentration camps) was, seemingly, able to help others in the most desperate of circumstances. So it's true, a person can always help others.

But focusing on meeting your own basic needs is not wrong - getting enough sleep, eating well, keeping up with health, etc.  **

So it's true that some of these things can be over-used, and used to justify bad behavior. But some of the theory is actually sound.

I think a person can be selfish and generous at any given point, in any situation. I don't think (for most people) that they are (at any time) all one or the other.

I may be "selfish" in terms of my co-workers by leaving on time and not working overtime - but not selfish because I'm going home to take care of my family.

I do not think the concept of co-dependence is overused - particularly in an LDS setting/framework. Any religion that implies that what *you* do has an impact on others' religious beliefs - that it is *your* fault if someone leaves the church is not healthy.

Did my grandmother really cause me to leave mormonism? No, of course not. But she believes that there was something she did, something she could have done. This isn't idle speculation on my part, she told me so - asking if there was something she had done that caused me to leave the faith. The conversation was a difficult one, for both of us. 


Granted, all mormons do not believe this, and many disagree with this, but some still do talk about and teach this on a regular basis.

I'll make a vast generalization here. I believe cultural mormonism encourages people to believe they have control over other people's lives, decisions and beliefs. Until a person realizes how much control they have over other people's actions, decisions and beliefs (not much), there is no way to move forward - to be healthy. 

It is not selfish to take responsibility for one's health and well-being.  To be aware of the needs and requests of others around you - but to ultimately take ownership for yourself.  Deciding to not help another adult, to not take responsibility for *their* actions or beliefs is not selfish. At each point, we can choose what we will participate in or not participate in. 

For me personally, the notion of "obligation" is very different than what I previously believed.


**The person I was having a conversation with did agree that it was important to take care of your own needs, health, sleep, etc. later in the thread.

2009: Questioning Assumptions

It's the time of year when people make top ten (or top thirteen) lists.  Reflecting on this year, what jumps out at me is that this year, I worked at questioning my assumptions. 

Questioning, for me, is nothing new.  I've toyed with writing my own "This I believe" essay, and usually when I think about it, it goes right back to being curious and inquisitive (for me personally).

The cliche is that life is a journey, change is the only constant, etc. 

When I started out on my own, however, I didn't realize that so much that I knew or intrinsically understood would change.  That some things I depended on wouldn't be there, but other unexpected things *would* be there.  And, this isn't an every five years or every ten years exercise.

Yearly, monthly, even daily, I come into contact with things that force me to adjust my expectations, to process new information and to set new boundaries.  On my good days, I recognize just how much I have to be grateful for (which is, frankly, quite a lot). 

Some of my more jaded readers might question - isn't that what everyone does?  Doesn't everyone ask lots of questions and take inventories of their actions/behaviors?  But the reality, which I see here in my 30s, is that not everyone does.  Some are just trying to survive - or to make it through the day.  For some, it seems to me it goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. 

This must sound out of touch without concrete examples - but since I have such a wide variety of reader(s), I don't want to give away too many details. I do think this post "the hamster wheel" is a good example.

Figuring out that I had to take care of myself, that I am responsible for myself and my feelings.  Again, the assumption I had was that I would take care of other people, and in return, when I was in need, they would take care of me.  All of this unspoken, of course.  I'm not advocating radical selfishness here, just that setting boundaries, saying no, speaking up about my feelings was/is important.  No one else is going to do it for me, or is even able to do it for me.  As always, this sound painfully obvious, but it really wasn't for me.  Not inconveniencing other people, disappointing people (particularly loved ones) was a greater motivation. 

Various relationships started and ended this year of friends and family members.  And this year, for the first time, (see here and here)  I realized that what these loved ones were doing, which relationships they were in (or not in) was really none of my business. 

I confess, I had always assumed that other people's relationships did affect me. 

I don't know why I thought this.  And I knew that before (people's relationships are their own), but I had never acknowledged that there was a part of me that really did want to get in the middle, wanted to understand, wanted to label whatever else was going on for other people. Now it's true, figuring out whether or not to invite someone to a gathering (if the relationship is rocky) or whether or not to send a request to someone (an ex) on a popular social networking site can be difficult/tricky. 

But in the end, however, it goes back to letting go of control, and the illusion of control.  And without question, I have no control over other people or their relationships.  Again, seems obvious to other people, but for some reason it just wasn't for me.

So all in all, it was a good year.  I'm glad to keep growing and re-evaulating everything.  Thanks for staying with me throughout this journey.

Triangulation (Family Dynamics)

A good friend of mine explained this concept to me a few months ago. I had never heard of it defined or labeled before. But I understood the behavior all too well. Here is the definition on wikipedia.

I come from a long line of people who are skilled at this game (no offense to anyone who may be reading this blog..).

It's a pretty simple concept. If you have a problem or issue with a person, instead of addressing that problem or issue with the person themselves, you bring in a third person.
**
You complain, kvetch or gossip with the third person, knowing full well that third person will tell the original person you have a problem with.

The third person gets to do your job for you. They get to decide what to tell, what not to tell, how to "spin" it so that a desired outcome is met.

My, it makes life a lot easier! I don't have to ask my siblings (for example) for anything! I don't have to say "would you be willing to do x" or say "I would feel more comfortable not exchanging gifts" or whatever. You can tell a third person, another sibling or a parent - and trust that *they* will relay the message.

Not only that, but it gives weight to any opinion that I have. Instead of just being me, aerin, my humble opinion and perspective, now I can say "well, mom agrees with me." or "one of my siblings agrees with me, so I'm right". And if that person has passed along a message, it's implying that they agree with it.

It has been so freeing for me to start addressing issues with the people themselves in my life. And refusing to let other people put me in the middle.

Because I genuinely thought I was responsible to keep up all this communication - this structure of "he said, she said". To soften the blows of shame or blame from someone else, but still communicating a part of that message. "Why don't you talk with this person? Why won't you come to this gathering? This person's feelings are hurt."

I thought if I didn't say it, it wouldn't be said - and the two people in my life would never know how the other person felt.

I love the fact that it's not my job or responsibility. If two people don't want to directly communicate - that's not my problem. I can maintain individual relationships without being the "heavy" or the enforcer of the status quo.

How this all relates to mormonism? Well, I believe mormon culture is one of the skilled players at this triangulation shell game. From other members running to tell the bishop ("I heard so and so drank diet coke the other day") to being told that *you* were responsible for your family's salvation. If they left mormonism, it was *your* fault.

You had been told a message, by God or the bishop or both - and you needed to communicate that message to everyone.

Not only that, but it was your responsibility to enforce or punish God's (righteous) judgment. That was your sacred responsibility as a home or visiting teacher, teaching children or as a priesthood leader. You get to tell everyone else what "God's" plan is for them.

It brings legitimacy for someone who is otherwise powerless - so you can often find women who do this. But not always. ("I don't think watching rated r movies is wrong, but *the bishop* thinks it's wrong. Or this General Authority back in the 60s said watching rated r movies was wrong").

Of course, not all mormons buy into this culture. Many see it for the unhealthy pattern that it is, and will only try to control themselves, not other people. They are able to live and let live.

It does make people really uncomfortable to be called out of this pattern, if they are someone like me who learned this as interaction 101.

What it forces a person to do is to talk/address something with the other people in their lives, or let it go. Stop the gossiping or manipulation.

For me personally, I feel it has strengthened so many of my relationships. Particularly with the people that I used to use to triangulate with (I asked them how someone else, a third person we were both close to, was feeling, what they were thinking, etc.) When I stopped doing that, I had to find other things to talk about (instead of other people). I'm working at communicating my own beliefs instead of other people's.

**this ruler is an antique we got from my husband's grandfather - standard, of course.  And yes, that is a candy land figurine in one of the corners.

Picking your battles

This is a concept I've been thinking about a lot lately.

For a long time, I used to think that there was a right way and a wrong way. One person, institution or behavior was right, and the other was not. There was no gray involved.

I thought I had an obligation to speak up, to change other people's minds about something. As a good friend would ask me "How's that working for ya'?"

I also felt I had to defend certain things - even if these things or people didn't directly impact me. Even if I wasn't remotely responsible for that person, place or institution. Defend that friendship, relationship, political system. Again - it was my responsibility.

Because it did have to be a battle - one person had to be right, the other person wrong. There was no "agreeing to disagree". There was no respect that each person has a basic right to their own perspective and opinion (and preference). And those perspectives may be different and that's okay.

People could not be equal. One person had to win.

I talked about little bit about standing behind your own opinion here.

So I agree that sometimes it makes sense to speak up - to defend one's "truth". And to stand behind what you say.

But I have just been thinking that some people may never understand or be convinced of some things.

So what is the point of engaging, if my opinion has not be directly asked? What do *I* get out of expending the energy?

For me, personally, it goes back to minding my own business. Figuring out what *is* my business and what is not.

I don't have to sit back and allow wrong (hurtful) things to be said, to sit back and watch abuse happen.

BUT - on the flip side, I get to choose whether or not I want to be involved, and choose if I need to be directly involved.

It is a gift, in my opinion - to have this choice. That way I can spend my energy on things I *can* change, on having a reasonable discussion where everyone's right to their own opinion is respected.

And it's not a hard and fast rule. I simply no longer have to convince the world that my way - my personal perspective is "the right perspective".

Lists of Five Things

I am not a fan of November weekday mornings.  I am not a fan of waking up in darkness.  The time recently changed, giving me an extra hour of sleep - and yet, I'm still not a fan.

Someone mentioned recently that each day, they make three lists of five things. 

I loved the idea, so I'm sharing it here.

They start with five things they are grateful for.  (btw -my kids and my health are two things right up at the top of the list, every day.)  I am also grateful for my job. 

I don't have to say what I'm grateful to - as far as I'm concerned, it can be the universe.  It's just the process of recognizing I have quite a bit to be thankful for.

Then, they list five things they are proud of themselves for.  Basically giving yourself props for something difficult.  Again, getting up and getting to work - something I am proud of myself for doing.

Finally, a list of five things to work on or process.

Strangely enough, getting up on time for work is not on this list for me.  :) Things like being open about my feelings and setting boundaries (and not feeling guilty for setting boundaries) are on there.

The hamster wheel

I wrote about taking care of myself here:

It's not something I learned growing up.  I just need to be honest about that. Setting basic boundaries, saying no gracefully, dealing with guilt were things I didn't learn.  There were many reasons for that, it isn't as if everyone in my life started from scratch thinking "how can we be more codependent??"

And the codependency thing - it's that it wasn't okay to ask for things for oneself.  It wasn't okay to admit to feelings that didn't go with the overall family/religious narrative - feelings of anger and frustration.

So it is always really interesting to me when I come in contact with people who have an unrealistic perspective of family or family interactions.

A healthy family, it seems to me, is one where people can feel free to say no without consequences.  Where family events are flexible - given family members' time, money and child care concerns. 

There's a form of acceptance that this takes.  That hasn't worked for some very mormon relatives of mine.  To my mind, it is actually a little sad for me when I interact with these family members. 

Because I realize - they don't understand it yet.  They don't understand that we're not the perfect family, that I am not the perfect granddaughter, cousin or niece.  I have other priorities.  

And I realized that there was quite a bit I was ignoring while I kept trying to do things to make everyone else happy.

It's so much easier when a person can sit back and appreciate what is there.  What we do have.  Instead of trying to make all these grandiose plans.  I want to say to them - I understand.  I have been there.   

There are these concepts of love and honor  - if you really loved so and so, you would do x.  That's the rub - that's how a person gets caught.  If you loved this person, you would not listen to what you need to do to take care of yourself and your family. You would attend this event. 

To my mind, it is very important for each individual to do what they need to do to make themselves happy.  Not to get on the hamster wheel trying to live up to these expectations. 

From my understanding, the only thing you can do in these types of situations is decline gracefully, hold boundaries and let it go. It still feels awkward, however.  It doesn't feel natural. 

There's a part of me that says "I can make it work - I can adjust".  In the end, however, I know where that's got me in the past - and where it will probably lead. 

And as a success story, the more I set boundaries and speak up for myself, in some situations the better I feel.  Some people respond really well.  I stay in the present - and so do they.  We don't get involved in what happened in the past - and we talk about expectations instead of assuming we're all on the same page. 

PS.  I know I have some family members reading this blog, although not the family members I'm specifically thinking about.  Please feel free to email me personally and I can explain more about what I'm talking about.

What's in it for me

Some boomers would argue that my generation (gen x or gen y, who knows) is very self-focused, and perhaps has a disproportionate sense of entitlement. In other words, we expect the world to give us everything, without working for it ourselves.

I think there are times when hard work is required. When thankless work is required. When service just for the sake of service is necessary.

But in many places in our lives, I believe we absolutely can ask ourselves what we are getting out of the deal. I believe that is necessary and healthy. And if we're not getting what we want - figuring out if that can be changed, or if it can't be.

Some may say this is selfish. I don't think so. I think it helps everyone. There may be some pain involved, when volunteer organizations realize they can't call on person x every time they have an emergency. Or when they will no longer have a strong alto in the choir.

And maybe this is actually healthy. Other people grow and step up to the plate. OR, maybe the volunteer organization stops the operation or stops working as hard.

In families, in workplaces, this is part of life. People accept what they will do, and when something stops being fun, when something stops being rewarding, they look for other options. And that is okay.

There are polite ways to step out. You can train your replacement. You can offer advice on who may be a good replacement. And let go of the control of what will happen. It's not fair, for example, to leave a volunteer organization and then criticize them for not having an event they always had that you organized. Or maybe they didn't advertise in the paper like you always did. It seems to me it's worth more that you backed out and let go - and if it still matters to you, you go back.

I don't believe we should get everything handed to us on a platter. I do believe in working hard and in sacrificing. But I believe in being aware of what you are working towards, and what costs are involved. And if you're not willing to pay the costs - if you don't know if the outcome will be worth it - I absolutely think it's worthwhile to take an inventory of it - measure the pros and cons. Being long-suffering is not always positive or healthy. It's okay to question the statement of a lifetime of work, time and service will be "worth it in the end".

I don't think that's an appropriate question.

In this post, I talked about taking care of myself (which I didn't learn growing up).

I have to say, this week I set some minor boundaries. But I find, after all this time, after all the things I've worked on and through - I confess I still sometimes feel guilty for setting those boundaries. And they are not invasive boundaries or terribly momentous boundaries.

In one case, it was a simple "I don't want to talk about this with you." and "I don't think I can talk about this particular issue with you and be kind and loving".

And, despite all of that, I found that to be uncomfortable for me.

I read a handful of articles, which mentioned that feeling guilty when we set boundaries means we're doing it right.

At least I can now recognize it (boundary setting) in others. I was at a party recently where a friend was asked her opinion on something her partner/significant was doing. It was a long conversation that I don't want to give the play by play here. My friend replied "I don't think that's an appropriate question". Not in an unkind or shaming way - but in an "I'm not going to answer that" type of way. I remember thinking "Right on!".

I'm sure my friend probably does have an opinion, and does have an interest in what her partner does. But she's saying that it's private, and between the two of them (not with some group of friends at a party).

Because I rarely saw that modeled growing up - I rarely saw someone (anyone) refuse to answer a question they thought was inappropriate (well, aside from responses during congressional hearings...'on advice from my counsel'...)

Such a simple gesture, sometimes so difficult for some of us (me). But important none the less.

Such a simple concept. I get to say no. I need to say no if by doing something, I will feel anger, bitterness and resentment. I get to say that a question is not appropriate or if I'm not comfortable talking about something in a group - particularly if I will feel uncomfortable or resentful by answering.

Not so easy in practice.

It's not easy being a parent - understatement of the year...

I don't, honestly mean for this post to sound whiny.

I love being a parent. I sincerely do.

But it is difficult to be a parent, and even more importantly, difficult to be a conscious and aware parent.

There are other difficult things in life. Joining the military, getting a Masters or PhD, passing the bar, rebuilding a motorcycle, putting a roof on a house.

Yet with each of those things, there's a fairly standard way to do them. Typically, you don't have well-meaning family, friends, strangers telling you "UR doin' it wrong" (in LOLspeak).

There isn't an entire section in a book store entitled "How to go to grad school".

And if there is a section about how to re-build a motorcycle, the advice in those books is not contradictory.

I suppose contradictory parenting advice is nothing new. When my twins were babies, we read some of the sleep books - which were incredibly contradictory. Never wake the baby up, wake the baby up, co-sleep, don't co-sleep, keep your house silent, do everything you normally do (don't turn off your phone, etc.)...

I read this article in the NY times earlier this week, and I'm still thinking about it. Because really, I want to be a good mom (don't most people want to be good parents??). That is one of my goals. I want to be thoughtful and loving - I want to raise a child who will be a good, productive citizen.

And I am willing to change canoes mid-stream - I'm willing to re-evaluate what I was doing and change how I parent. I realize I can't control my children, but I can control my self and learn as much as I can.

I also know that each parent is different, and each child is different. Perhaps that's part of the reason for those contradictory parenting advice books.

I believe children need lots of love, but I also believe they need boundaries. Because the world is full of boundaries, which people use to protect themselves.

And the other two irrefutable truths are 1 - you can't always get what you want and 2 - sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to do. (What that stuff is that you don't want to do is debatable, and a subject for many additional posts). It's not that I can never give my children things they want, or that I have to always force them to do things they don't want to.

So what's a parent to do? There has to be some way of enforcing boundaries. There are rules, like no hitting, that have reasons behind them. Or requests, like eating one's vegetables. So when one of my children hits the other, or calls the other person "an idiot" (both of which have happened) - as a parent, it is up to me to step in. And usually that involves one person or the other apologizing, and possibly sitting in time out. Or having a favorite toy be put in time out.

Which is why the above article was very difficult for me to read. I hate the idea that my children may feel that I didn't love them unconditionally because I put them in time out.

I don't know what we would do as a family (for consequences) without time out as an option to
enforce boundaries.

We (my children and I) did have a conversation about calling people "idiots" the other day. I asked the person who called their sibling an "idiot" how *they* would feel about being called that name. They admitted that they wouldn't like it.

Sometimes my kids get out of control. They're four. It happens. Sometimes I get out of control. Sometimes I just need a minute to myself to re-collect my thoughts and breathe.

So, I'm going to read the book by the author of the article. I'm going to think about it. In the end, however, I'm still going to set boundaries with my kids, and reasonable expectations.

Not hitting your sibling is a reasonable expectation.

A Distinctive Lack of Drama

Believe it or not, dear readers, I am experiencing a distinctive LACK of drama in my life recently. It's really very nice and a definite change of pace.

Things are pretty steady. For anyone who knows me, this is a very odd place for me to be in.

I admit there is a part of me that wants to shake things up - to cause drama, to make life more interesting in my personal relationships. (Those buttons are just so easy to push!!)

To focus on something else aside from myself and my own journey.

But the realist in me works hard at just enjoying what I have today, enjoying the peace I currently have and realize that this too shall pass.

People *can* change

Or, at least, our perspective can change.

I've written about this before, at least about changing opinions due to new information.

But I've found it works the other way as well.

A few years ago, a woman I work with really upset me. She chewed me out - at least she spoke harshly to me. I admit, I had partially screwed up. But her rebuke still got under my skin. I felt a mixture of embarrassment and righteous indignation. I didn't feel I needed to confront her about it (since I had sort of screwed up after all), and I just figured maybe she had a bad day or something.

When I found out her office was going to be moved closer to mine, I was wary. But I kept an open mind. And so far, she and I have gotten along just fine. I have a deeper appreciation for her. She doesn't read this blog, as far as I know. We're not best friends (and we don't need to be), but we respect one another.

People make mistakes, or at least they have rough edges. And I believe, contrary to popular belief, some people can change. We can't necessarily expect them to change, sometimes we have to confront them or request things, but it's not true that your first impression of someone or a situation is always the right/true one.

I was discussing this with a good friend of mine the other day. Her wise observation was that just because someone holds a distasteful (to me) belief, doesn't mean they always will, or that they can't change that belief.




I'm certainly not saying that all people can change, as some things don't change.

Some aspects of a personality may never change, and it may not be fair to ask a person to change a core part of themselves. Or to assume that they are capable of changing. Asking someone to not be depressed, for example, or to not read (if they are a voracious reader) is probably not helpful. But just because I drink coffee each morning today, doesn't mean I will for the rest of my life. Or if I find out information that coffee is incredibly unhealthy for me, I might choose to stop drinking it.

It's finding that balance, of what you can put up with in another person/relationship, and what you can't abide that's the trick. To figure out what you can accept and letting the rest go.

I've found peace in personally accepting that people and relationships are a work in progress. To believe otherwise is to miss out on quite a lot.

Well, how should we react?

In this post, I talked about how in Russia, people would be openly unhappy and no one was perturbed by it.

Sometimes in our (American) culture, it seems like we're supposed to feel certain things. The proper reaction is x. It could be mourning, or soul-searching. Or being so upset about something that you don't try to laugh or enjoy life.

Just because a person has gone through a difficult experience, doesn't mean that's their entire life, or should color their reactions throughout the rest of their life. That's not fair for me to determine how much power that experience should have over someone else (it's actually rather arrogant of me/one to assume how another person should react).

Recently, a friend was talking about a divorce (note to any readers who may be wondering, no regular readers/posters online), and how one of the people in the divorce was still giving upbeat status updates on a social networking site**. Oh, and keeping up friendships. My friend was distressed about the upbeat status updates.

It's true, the original person (getting the divorce) may be in denial. This can be a difficult situation, and very painful for everyone. I can't say.

On the other hand, if there's anything I'm learning, it's that I have no idea how other people are feeling or "should" be feeling.

I can give support and listen - but I'm not going to prescribe that someone wear "ashes and sackcloth" (isn't that from the bible somewhere??)

No doubt, if the person WAS constantly dwelling and talking about their misery over the divorce, people would judge and say they should just "get over it" and "stop being so negative".

A person can't win.

I appreciate it when people are trying to mourn their losses and show authentic feeling. And if they are happy and able to enjoy life (no matter what the circumstances), I say that's great. Not to be mean or spiteful, but to find some measure of serenity.

Worrying about other people's reactions to your happiness (or anxiety) will only drive a person nuts.

**If nothing else, people aren't always completely "real" on social networking sites anyway, so this may be a moot point. I'm certainly conscious of what I write, and share things with close friends, not with everyone on the networking site.

letting go

I talked about letting go a little here.

I just have to say, there is so much that I let go of on a daily basis. I let go of situations I can't change or impact. When I start worrying, dwelling or arguing about a situation/belief - that's when I remember - oh yeah - I gotta let this one go.

I let go so I have time and energy to appreciate what I do have.

I stop trying to figure out why some things are the way they are.

I'm not severing ties with some of these relationships or situations, but I am taking a step back.

There is a ton of beauty out there. I'm glad I'm able to appreciate it.

PS. I can sit back and try and figure out - why didn't I get this before now? There isn't an answer to that...I can just be grateful that I figured it out with lots of help from various friends, writers, etc.

Human Being 101

To move on from venting and not allowing people to make missteps here...

I don't often go into mormon/LDS stuff or related stuff here.

One of the things I never really learned growing up was how to take care of my self. (to put myself and my needs first). Not in an arrogant, egotistical way, but setting basic boundaries and enforcing them. I don't think this is solely an LDS thing, but mormonism certainly didn't help some of the time.

A great example of this (taking care of myself or NOT taking care of myself) was when I was in high school and going to early morning seminary.

For those who haven't heard me complain about this (in person) or who weren't aware of this torture for teenage LDS high school folk, early morning seminary is a daily church class BEFORE high school starts. So typically, an LDS high school person (outside of Utah, where it's a part of the school day) has to wake up around 5:30 and rush around to drive to this church class before 6 a.m.

I don't know about anyone else here, but unless you are an extreme morning person, this is not an easy task. Oh, and if you have a paper route (like my cousin had), you would have to wake up even earlier.

The stated purpose of this is for young mormons to start their day out the right way - to study the bible and LDS scriptures.

So, now that you have the background, I was thinking of the cold wintry morning I shut my finger in my front door as I was rushing to get to seminary. My carpool was waiting (my parents traded with another local family to drive us). What's interesting to me is after I shut my finger in the door, while my fingernail was turning blue and purple (and it hurt), I didn't go back inside my home.

Looking back on it, I try to figure out why.

My first instinct was that I was late and that I was making these friends of my family wait. Partially, I didn't want to be teased for breaking a nail ("you're just weak!"). Trust me, if you've never had a nail fall off, it can be painful. Overall, at the time, I was also getting all sorts of messages (from friends, family, teachers, etc.) about seminary attendance, how important it was, yadda, yadda.

I can't remember if I went to the nurses' office when I got to school? Or got a band-aid from a well-meaning fellow seminary member or my teacher? Whatever happened, my fingernail healed, I made it through my school day.

I bring this up because this is something I'm re-learning - that I'm watching about my own reactions. I hit my fingernail today (the same finger), thankfully not breaking the nail and remembered this experience.

Now I acknowledge that my first instinct (to not inconvenience others) may be wrong. That I may need to go back in and skip the church class one morning. That I may need to tell someone to wait (just as I would give them time if they slammed their finger in the door).

Other people might wonder - how is this possible? This is human being 101, right?

You would think so, but no, it's not. Not necessarily.