What I miss

I don't miss a great deal about being married.  Is that heresy?

It seems like there is a lot of societal pressure to get married, to stay married, to be part of a couple (particularly for women).

These are some of the things I miss.

-Seeing my kids every day
It's not really part of marriage, but because their dad and I lived in the same home, I saw my kids every day.  Now that's not the reality.

-Changing light bulbs
As someone who is relatively short, it was nice to have someone taller around to be able to reach the light fixtures.

-Being able to easily drop my car off for service
It's a lot less complicated when you have two adult drivers.  I can drop my car off now, it's simply takes more effort and coordination.

-Comparing notes about my day
When you live with someone, it's nice to compare days and to support one another (daily).  I have lots of friends but it's not the same as having someone physically there.

-Having someone who could attend work events, etc. with me
It's a bit awkward at typical couples' events to be there by myself.  On the other hand, it's nice to only have to entertain myself, and not other people.

-Taking the babysitter home
It's a longer process to return home, pick up the kids and babysitter, take the babysitter home and then return home myself.


My former partner and I get along, so we're flexible when one of us is sick, needs to watch the kids, etc.

I know many divorced parents don't have that option.

Perhaps what's more strange is there isn't more that I miss.  Like anything, marriage has its advantages and disadvantages.

Thriving

Rose bush 2014

I received this rose bush as a gift, a few years ago. I wasn't sure if it would survive, if I had enough time to take care of a rose (on top of everything else).

It turns out I did.

And it survived this past winter, which my lavender bush did not.

I wasn't sure that it would weather being re-planted and moving to a new place. But it hasn't just survived (as the saying goes) it's thrived.

My husband and I recently announced our separation and pending divorce.  I don't want to go into all the reasons for what happened.  It's between the two of us.  It was not an easy decision, we are both responsible, and we both tried really, really hard to make our marriage work.

It just wasn't to be.

As I mentioned in my fb status update, we are committed to putting the kids first and making the transition as easy as possible for them. And so far, both he and I have really been successful in that.  I've known too many divorces/separations that haven't been that way, so I am incredibly grateful.

And it has been hard, despite how amicable everything has been.

I have also received an amazing amount of support from family and friends, which is humbling (and makes me tear up sometimes when I think about it). It appears that some of the stigma of divorce is fading (thank goodness) and that our culture is changing.

I don't know what the future will hold.  I do know that so much of my life appears to be unexpected.  But it also has pleasant surprises - and gifts I didn't expect.

I won!

It was earlier this week, but I won a Brodie! I'm so thrilled!

It was for this post last March about traditional marriage.

Thanks to everyone who voted!  There were lots of great entries (as always).

Trust and Money

Recently I read an editorial which stated that if you don't trust your spouse/partner with money, then you don't trust your spouse.

It's true that many couples have issues surrounding money.  Money is very important in our culture.  It is true that in our culture, people are more comfortable talking about sex than about money (their salaries).

When I read the quote above, I get the impression that one needs to have all money in common (in a couple), even asking permission from the other partner before spending money.  And perhaps that's a good goal for many couples.

I know money was a huge deal for my parents growing up.  With six kids and one working parent, there was never enough.  It was stressful.   At some point for parents, when money is really tight, you think about whether or not your child will get glasses, or you'll get something new for yourself. 

In my own marriage, we disagree about where to spend money sometimes.  My husband and I have different priorities.  There are things he values and will spend money on, and things I value that I will spend money on.  A simple example is lunch; I will often buy lunch.  Usually what I buy can be a little pricier - since I try to buy healthy, fresh food.  If I bought a hot dog from the gas station, it would be much cheaper.  But long term, for me, healthier is more important than less expensive. 

On top of navigating money issues when there isn't a lot of money, and with different priorities, there is also always the chance of things going wrong.  When my grandfather passed away in the 70s, my grandmother struggled for the first few months because nothing was in her name.  She couldn't get credit.  I haven't been able to talk with her about it, but it must have made the loss even that much more difficult. 

Other friends separate and divorce. As fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, it seems reasonable to at least consider the possibility.  If all money is in common, if all the retirement accounts are in common - it could be difficult separate them fairly.  That doesn't stop some divorcees from making poor financial decisions. 

So it's more complicated than just not trusting the other person in a relationship. 

I agree that it's important for each couple to be working towards common goals, and have common priorities.  I completely agree that couples should talk about money, and about all the emotional baggage that can go along with money.  But I'm not sure that it's advisable for all couples to always handle finances in the same way.  People are different.  Couples are different.  And more than anything, I think both partners should be financially solvent (where possible) and maintain credit. 

Traditional Marriage

My fb feed has been lit up this week about the marriage equality issue. 

Many people have written eloquently about this issue, much more eloquently than I could.

I was listening to a commentator today explain their position against same sex marriage.  First, he started by saying that he appreciated that we were able to agree to disagree, to disagree peacefully (specifically in the protests in D.C.). 

I agree. I'm glad that the protests (on both sides) are peaceful.  Violent protests help no one, and violence with this issue would not be helpful.

Then he explained why he supports traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.  This is where his opinion offended me, a married mother of two.  From what I could surmise, his argument was that society had changed, that marriage was no longer a long term commitment.  That many children were being raised in single families without fathers.

Now I can't explain the causes of poverty, and I can't speak to parts of the community where fathers don't take an active role in their children's lives.  But it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not related to this at all.  The argument is that same sex marriage "cheapens" the marriage brand, and therefore makes fathers unwilling to marry their children's mothers.  Or divorce is easier and children suffer.

Again, I can't speak to some of the community issues.  I live in a middle class area, I have an education.  I have friends who may not be married to their children's mothers, but they all support their children.  I also know people who have gotten divorced - and for some - it was really the best solution.  I am thankful that divorce is an option for everyone.  Sometimes people do get screwed in divorce, and perhaps there should be divorce reform.  That's not an argument against gay marriage.  I

I enjoyed the pbs "Makers" program that recently aired.  And I can't help but think, when some people talk about traditional marriage, it's a euphemism for returning to the bad old days.  Where a woman couldn't divorce her husband, even an abusive a**hole non-providing husband.  Where it was perfectly acceptable to beat and/or rape one's wife (there was no such thing as rape within marriage).  Where women were routinely paid less for equal work and were not given promotions.    

I don't want to go back to that society.  Maybe there are parts of our society that have been lost, and perhaps that harms us going forward.  There are certainly values worth maintaining.  A wife who is property is not one of them. A marriage where the wife is a slave is not one of them.

My husband and I lived together before we married - I was shocked by how many people told us we were on the road to divorce (at least nine).  And these were not necessarily my conservative mormon relatives either.  (And yes, they were almost saying - maintain two separate residences before you make it legal - even if you never actually live at one of them).

While living together first can be complicated, I will recommend it to my children (if they ask my opinion).  As long as children from a union are supported (physically, financially, emotionally), that's what matters. 

Some people simply can't live together, and some relationships are better off ending.  I would much rather my friends and loved ones had happy, fulfilling relationships, than just staying together miserably. And legally, it seems to me if two people want to commit to one another, we should support that. 

The Hills are Alive....with Big Mormon Families

Over the holiday I caught a portion of "The Sound of Music", a musical that pops up every year around the holidays. Frankly, I'm not sure how the holidays and fighting the Nazis became intertwined - but there you are.

I watched this film a lot as a child, and I know the words to most of the songs.  The biggest surprise came when I was 6, visiting my cousins and found out that there was more to the movie after the wedding.  (In order to get us to go to bed, my Dad would let us watch the movie until the wedding, and then say "they're married now, the movie's over"). 

original poster from wikipedia

Watching it now, in my thirties, I'm amazed by how coordinated and coherent the family of seven children is.  Granted, this is the 1930s and it's a musical - meaning a completely idealized life.  No one thinks "Oklahoma" or "West Side Story" are real (one would hope). 

But still - it seems so perfect, this large family of children (led by the sixteen year old Leisl) who works together to play tricks on the governesses and jokes about champagne. 

I was thinking about it - I don't remember one time (perhaps my brother will chime in here) that all the kids went anywhere together without our parents.  Not once.  We would go out together, but not as a full group (that I recall).  So the scene in the film where they visit the abbey rang very hollow. 

Trying to get everyone in my family to do anything (by the time I was sixteen) was like herding cats. 

So I thought - this movie must be what people think growing up in a big family is like.  It's everyone working together, singing, watching out for one another.  They get through their troubles together. 

But that's not what big families are like (at least, it wasn't for my family).  Is anyone really that naive?

.It's true that the Captain had a lot of money, and that definitely helps in large families. 

Being in a large family is being raised to be competitive.  You have to compete and out-shine to survive. My Dad also used to say "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease" (For the record, this is a saying that has never made any sense to me.  It sounds like you're encouraging someone to squeak if they want something - it's a backwards way to do anything).

There are only so many resources, and they have to be divided amongst everyone.  It's not a matter of everyone pitches in - it's not always that simple or easy.  My Mom would talk about a large family of girls she remembered from Utah, they all learned to sew and made their own clothes.  In the 1980s, in the suburbs - all handmade clothes were unrealistic.  Sure, it could happen.  It's just the place where reality hits - life is not all re-made curtains. 

You had to pool your resources, and you had to be very careful what you shared.  I read someone who talked about hoarding Christmas gifts in a large family - and that was almost what it was like sometimes.  You wanted to have your own stash of whatever because it could be gone tomorrow. 

My parents have finally re-arranged the kitchen to not have food "hidden" in various cabinets - but for the longest time, the chips were in one cabinet SOLELY because they might not get eaten as quickly.  At the end, it stretched believability as everyone knew exactly where the chips were. 

I have a lot of advantages for being raised in the family I was.  I love my siblings, and the big family reunions.  We did work together, and I learned a lot. 

All I'm saying is, at times I am not sure that people see the downsides to large families or challenges after watching the media portrayals.  There are important pieces that are left out. 

No Way to Live

It can be problematic to put modern values on past societies.  We don't know what influenced their decisions, why they made the choices they did.

I've told this story a handful of times over the past month, so I thought I would share it here.  My feelings about divorce and separation have not really changed over the years.

Some of my ancestors are rumored to not have had a happy marriage.  She would make dinner for him. He would eat at the table, alone, while she would sit on the porch.  Then she would come in and eat. They couldn't bear the company of the other one that much - not even to eat together. 

Now, this story is just a rumor, I can't confirm it.  And perhaps there were other reasons for a married couple eating separately - perhaps it wasn't that they couldn't stand one another.

But divorce was a difficult thing back in the 19th century.  In many states, one person had to be at fault.  That's not considering the financial costs of divorce, as well as the social stigma.

Some couples may have decided that the cost of divorce wasn't worth the benefit. 

Each person and couple makes their own decisions, what is right for them.  But for me, it seems that there are times when divorce and separation are okay - and even preferred.  Everyone deserves a chance at happiness.  No one should have to live that way; where they hate their spouse so much they can't even be in the same room. 

Nice

On my recent visit with my grandmother, she brought up a relative and their recent break up. 

(No offense to my Grandma meant, but I know exactly where my "in other people's business" gene comes from).

Anyway, her comment to me was, "Well, were they [the former partner] a nice person?" When I admitted they were, my Grandma concluded "well, they should get married then". 

Readers, you would be proud, I did not roll my eyes.

To her mind, if the person was a nice person, that was all anyone needed.  I've mentioned this conversation to a few of my readers already.  My grandmother is very traditional and religious.  I love her, and sometimes she does think outside the box, but not about this issue.


I guess it's progress that the statement is not as simple as "Are they mormon?  Yes?  Well, then they should be able to get married then".

But I think back to everything I know, and there is so much more to marriage and relationships than simply being "nice" (or religious). 

I've known people who have loved one another but couldn't make it work. It happens. 

That's not taking things like money, cleanliness, family, kids, friends, mental illness, addiction, goals, values, etc. into account either.  Life throws quite a bit at most of us.  It's fortunate (for some of us) to just keep our heads above the waves.

To assume that all a couple needs is for one person to be "nice", well, it just doesn't work that way any more.  What if you disagree on monogamy?  Or whether or not to have kids?  What if you disagree about religion and/or raising children in particular religions?  These are difficult issues that couples wrestle with.

A friend wisely observed that perhaps we over-analyze love and relationships now, that perhaps we have too much in terms of expectations.  That may also be true.  But there are quite a few relationships where some of these conversations need to happen long before a couple decides to marry.  And people change.  It happens. 

I certainly won't pronounce anyone's relationship as "doomed to fail".  I'm pretty sure mine was/is pronounced as "doomed to fail" because I lived with my boyfriend before we got married. 

I believe people deserve every happiness.  I believe every couple can figure out what works for them, and some couples are just not meant to be.  Period.  I think believe marriage and relationships are infinitely more complicated than they seem, and I try not to make assumptions about what works and what doesn't work.

I'm not going to argue with my grandmother.  I did sit back and muse about her comment though...I completely disagree with her on it. 

Marriage in and of itself isn't the most important thing in the world.  Better a happy, well-adjusted marriage or person to my mind than a miserable one.

Louisa May

I recently saw this documentary on pbs.  I really enjoyed "Little Women" when I was younger.  I read lots of classics (even at that time) and I knew many teachers/relatives who appreciated the novel (and Anne of Green Gables, and Little House on the Prarie). 

I thought the documentary was well done. (I loved the images of the actress running in nineteenth century dress - Alcott was a runner).  I confess that I associated Ms. Alcott simply with Little Women and that series, not realizing how far ahead of her time she was.  I knew her father was friends with many of the transcendalists (Emerson and Thoreau).

I also wasn't aware that she had added the ending about Jo's marriage after many letters from fans imploring her that Jo needed to be married.  Jo's marriage always seemed a bit rushed and out of character for the novel (in my opinion).

Louisa herself never married.


I also hadn't known that for years, she had supported her family (her parents) through writing "pulp" fiction novels using a pseudonym.  And that she supported her family through many, many other types of jobs and positions - everything/anything that would be considered "proper" for a woman at that time.

I've lamented before that I didn't know many happy, successful, stable single people (particularly women) growing up. 


But what I didn't realize was how many of my favorite female figures or authors never married.  In the nineteenth century, unfortunately, it seemed as if the only way a woman could have any sort of career was to not marry.  (I think of Florence Nightengale as a great example of that, by the way).

So now I will go back and read Alcott's descriptions of working in a hospital during the civil war. Those essays were critically acclaimed at the time. 

It's nice to be reminded of just how far women have come, and the additional opportunities we now have.  Women no longer have to "choose" between marriage and other pursuits.  And they are (now) much better able to support themselves. 

The Social Dynamics of Greeting Cards

I was buying a wedding congratulations card for my husband's cousin (we will be attending her wedding later this month). This should not be surprising to my readers as sometimes I feel like I single handedly keep the greeting card industry afloat. I know I don't have to send cards (or could easily send e-cards), I just like picking out and sending something.

I was impressed to see, here in this conservative midwestern state, a small but vibrant section of same s_ex wedding congratulations cards. They were about 5% of the total cards in the wedding section.

I realize that greeting cards are not on the cutting edge of cultural acceptance, but I take this as a positive sign. Many midwestern states have voted in gay marriage bans or amendments, not many years ago.

So it's interesting to me, although a majority of voters voted in these types of amendments, clearly there is a a market (even in my corner pharmacy) for gay marriage congratulations cards.

I think it's a great sign. I don't think it would have been possible fifteen or twenty years ago. Our society is changing and becoming more accepting - even in this conservative midwestern state.

#7 in my advice for mormon leadership series

Some of you might be wondering why I even care what the mormon church does or says about anything. And you would probably be right since I haven't considered myself mormon for 15 years.

**Any believing mormons/LDS will no doubt find this post offensive and should stop reading now**

I was thinking the other day about how pervasive American mass media is about weddings. There are magazines devoted to weddings and receptions. There are conventions with wedding planners, hair stylists, florists, pastry chefs, photographers, etc. It is an enormous, billion dollar industry.

Whether or not it's empowering for women - the vast majority of little girls will be sucked into this culture. Bridal gowns are costumes for halloween. Music videos are filled with weddings and wedding imagery (Think a simple kind of life with Gwen Stefani). Many successful movies (Father of the Bride, both versions) are based around this pie in the sky wedding fantasy that many women have. In an episode of the sitcom Friends a few years ago, one of the characters brings out a binder filled with clips and cutouts for her wedding she had come up with at the age of 10. I saw a children's cartoon (Little Bear) with a fake wedding with an aisle the other day. These fantasies all have aisles and brides in gowns and veils. It's literally everywhere.

So - with this tremendous pressure on mormon women to marry and to marry a mormon, what kind of planning does a mormon woman get to do for her actual wedding ceremony? Nothing. She actually has no idea what the ceremony will be like. No one, not her mother, teachers or friends are allowed to talk about what happens. There is no beautiful strapless white gown in her future as she walks down the aisle.

There is no aisle.

In popular culture - people can choose to do lots of things. They can exchange vows in front of immediate family or just a justice of the peace. Getting married outdoors, on a beach, on a baseball diamond is trendy. She can wear pants. While a gay couple can't get married legally, there are plenty of gay weddings. In the end, who cares what a couple decides to do? It's what the couple wants. A mormon woman has no idea what she is in for.

As an adult, I've read more about the mormon ceremony - it's published lots of places on the net and in books. Of course it's seen as horribly offensive to active mormons - who feel the ceremony is sacred and should never be shown to outsiders. (Never mind the fact that it is directly lifted from the Masonic rituals). Many might argue that I should respect others' beliefs - yet this is one part that I find hard to respect. The sacred part of the ceremony should not be the knowledge of the ceremony itself - but the spiritual reaction. AND at this point - when anyone who looked could easily find what happens - why does the secrecy matter? What purpose does it serve?

I agree that some of the wedding culture (like prom culture) is just plain sexist and bullshit. Some women spend so much time planning for their weddings that actually being married seems like an afterthought. Others become depressed after the wedding is over in a "what now" type funk. And yes, at one point the wedding and dowry were an exchange of property (women) from their fathers to their husbands. Weddings and marriage have not always had a glorious tolerant history.

Yet Utah LDS/mormon leadership is (as usual) completely out of touch with popular culture. This isn't surprising since most of them are over 90, white, male and rarely leave Utah.

There is no cultural comparison for a mormon woman to look forward to her wedding ceremony.

I'm not suggesting that I would have stayed mormon if I had actually been able to look forward to my wedding. There are so many reasons why I left - this wasn't even a blip on my radar.

All I'm suggesting is - how can a wedding or marriage be an ideal for a young woman if she doesn't even know what she's in for? It's not an attractive prospect. It's terrifying. Not only does she not know what she's in for, she has to remain pure and chaste in order to get to that pinnacle. Again - she has to sacrifice, possibly lie to herself and others about something in which she is completely in the dark about what happens there.

I cannot imagine how I would have reacted at my wedding in the temple when I saw the men putting on green aprons and chef hats. Then - I would put on a veil - covering my face! Because there is a definite separation there of what the men do and what the women do.

Sure, the leadership does a phenomenal job of indoctrinating children into going to the temple. "I love to see the temple" is a common primary (young children) song - or "My body is a temple". Songs like this are sung by little mormons (as young as three) all the time. They never sing about how going to the temple requires 10% of your income to the mormon church. I guess that's not as important.

It's simply not fair to keep women (and men) out of the process. I'm sure by keeping everything secret that people don't think about how wacky everything really is. It's a method of control and manipulation. There's no question the mormon/LDS church is moving towards a more non-descript, not as separate religious order. If so, this ceremony will have to go - or at least, the secrecy will have to go.