Confrontation

When I was growing up, I remember my Dad often saying that contention was of the devil, or a soft answer turneth away wrath.  Usually these scripture quotes were brought out after a particularly contentious discussion (most likely between my sister and me).  We were bright, active kids with limited resources living in a strict culture.  Contention was bound to happen - even without extenuating circumstances.

As an adult, however, I've inventoried what skills in my past to let go of or work on.  I've learned the importance of confrontation and conflict. With so much passive-aggression in mormonism (and particularly among women), it's rare that people say what they mean. Or that people directly ask for what they want (or express an opinion).  Some of it is cultural - for the longest time, women were not encouraged to be direct - they had to seek power through other means (manipulation, etc.)

Gourds 2013

What happens when you don't confront other people, when you don't ask for what you want (or need), usually feelings are suppressed and resentment pops up.  Resentment that you are being taken advantage of, that you aren't valued, that you are being ignored.

But sometimes confrontation is not useful.  Growing up, it seems as if the only time confronting someone was acceptable was when you were enforcing church standards.  I remember my Dad losing his temper about some kids in the church building on Sunday.  That was acceptable conflict, standing up for mormon principles.

But saying no to a calling, to the PTA, to the casserole sign up sheet, that's not socially acceptable.

Another thing that tends to happen for me with conflict is that I would build up so much anger that when the conflict (inevitably) happened, I would be too angry to listen to the other person - to negotiate.  So this is what has worked for me to learn more about confrontation:

*I determine if the conversation is necessary
If I talk with someone (like my boss) about a promotion, and they say it's not going to happen - confronting them weekly is not a good strategy.  I need to make sure that I know what's possible and what's not.  I need to make sure my expectations are reasonable.

*I determine if things are likely to change - and I figure out if I don't confront the other person, what choices I have
I'm thinking specifically of the current protests/requests for the SLC LDS church.  Many NOMs and others have determined for themselves whether or not participating in these movements is useful for them.

Sometimes confrontation can bring change,other times not. For example, if I confront my boss, will things change?  If they aren't likely to, I need to make some hard choices.

*I make sure I'm not angry
If I go into a conversation angry, it's sure to undermine my position.  I need to be as calm and rational as possible.  I'm not talking about venting or ranting, but if there is someone I legitimately need something from - getting angry at them is not useful.

*I find a good time to talk
For difficult conversations, I make sure I'm not hungry, angry, lonely or tired (HALT).  If I'm any of those things, I can't be focused on communicating effectively.  I need to take care of myself first, and then come back to the conversation - the next day or next week.  If it's still important, I will remember what I need to say, and what specific requests I want to make.

*Determine whether or not to discuss when something comes up or later
Sometimes it makes sense to talk about things as they happen.  But difficult conversations are not always appropriate (particularly in public).
A great example - the third time in a month my boss asks me to work overtime at the last minute. Not getting angry about it - but a solution could be to agree to working and then having a conversation about it.  I found growing up - either the conflict would happen when someone was overwhelmed and the follow up wouldn't necessarily happen.  The follow up discussion is crucial - where the employee lets the boss know that last minute requests are not okay - and works to prevent it in the future.  Setting boundaries to say it won't be okay next time.  And the next time, reminding the boss of the boundary and enforcing it.

*I focus on what's going on now (the present) and specific requests
While the past informs the present - bringing up past wrongs is not useful if I want to move forward in a relationship.  I need to focus on my direct requests today.  I need to figure out what I want (specifically) and make sure my request is reasonable.  An unreasonable request would be asking someone to stop bring themselves in some way.  It's about having an open conversation.

It's a balance. But the better I get with these skills, the more satisfied I feel with my relationships.

Taking one's lumps

My grandmother told me a story about being pulled over by a police officer (or perhaps my Mom was telling the story about her Mom.  It works either way).  My grandma said she just started crying.  She couldn't stop.  I don't know if she was deliberately trying to get out of a ticket, or was simply under an intense amount of stress.  In the end, the officer (male) let her go with a warning.

I tend to be outspoken and opinionated, which I've tried to reign back in recent years.  I don't have "feminist" tattooed on my forehead.  I believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender. 

So I was surprised to find out an acquaintance had figured me out. The acquaintance observed (to my husband) that I was not the type of woman who would cry to get out of a ticket. 

And he's right.

I wouldn't (and haven't) cried to get out of a speeding ticket.  To my mind, if I was speeding (or I ran a stop sign), I will own up to it.  Some would argue, in a flawed system, I should take every advantage I can get.  And yes, it is a flawed system. But things have changed (quite a bit) for women. And it's legal for us to drive (unlike some places in the world).  And despite all of that, it's quite possible that I would still get the ticket, despite the waterworks.

The observation was an amusing anecdote.  It's always interesting to find out what other people think of you - if they're picking up on the messages you're sending (or misreading them).  Nevertheless, I took it as a compliment, because it's true. 

I expect equal treatment and consideration, and I'm not about to tap into the patriarchy/ "Fascinating Womanhood" if it will limit my choices or the choices of other women.

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 Good Earth

I've become more aware of female characters in fiction - particularly classic fiction.  I re-read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck for book club.  The novel is a classic - Pearl Buck won the Pulitzer for it.  The descriptions are vivid; and the characters, despite differences in culture, are timeless.  Yet I was struck by the novel's misogyny and sexism.  Of course it's historically accurate.  A woman gives birth to a daughter and exclaims " another slave". 

The main character's first wife, O-lan, is the patriarchal female ideal.  I would give this book to someone to explain this ideal that women are fighting - consciously or unconsciously.  Sold into actual slavery by his parents, she is sold from the family she serves to her husband. 

Without being asked, she takes over care of the home, cooking for the main character's (Wang's) father.  She asks for nothing for herself.  When she gives birth, she goes alone into her room.  She doesn't make a sound - after giving birth she goes out into the fields.

In the book club group, we agree that she is the reason for the family's success.  But she remains unrecognized and unacknowledged.  The husband takes her only treasured possession, twp pearls, to bring a second wife into their home.

She is never supposed to complain, show anger towards her husband.  She is the ideal long-suffering, patient, devoted wife and mother. In the end during her terminal illness, she refuses to die until her daughter in law moves into the home to care for everyone.

The mother/martyr archetype is still the ideal, whether or not people want to admit it.  A woman (particularly a mother) should never want something for herself.  She should never admit she is sick, never directly ask for what she wants or needs.  She should never demand recognition of what she does.  This is the stereotype my grandmother and mother have had to fight against - and yet I wonder how they see themselves.  Would they (would I) have the self-esteem to refuse to give their prized possession to their husbands?  And would they withstand the criticism from their husbands (and society) for being selfish or narcissistic?  A good measure is whether or not men would ever be asked to make the same sacrifices. 

There is a great deal of narcissism and selfishness in modern American culture.  But let's be clear.  Women getting an education, waiting for marriage and motherhood, are not being selfish.  Families limiting their family size to those they can financially, physically and emotionally care for - not selfish.  Women having an identity outside of wife and mother - not selfish.

I'm certainly glad that times are changing.  That this explicit misogyny is no longer the status quo for the majority of American women.  I'm grateful for all the people (women and men) who fought to get rid of this second class status for half of the population.

Tank Park Salute

I might never have met my friend Laura if it hadn't been for her grandmother.

I was working as a page in the children's section of the local library.  I can't recall exactly how our conversation started.  I believe I was checking out Laura's grandmother's books, which happened to be either "The Hero and the Crown" or "The Blue Sword" by Robin McKinley. It was probably one or the other, because I must have remarked that it was one of my favorite books.  Her grandmother, being the amazing person that she was, mentioned that she had a granddaughter who also liked those books.  At some point, she must have encouraged me to write to her granddaughter, who normally lived in Iowa but who was away in Maine at camp.  Somehow in the conversation it must have been discovered that Laura and I were the same age and also both about to be incoming freshman at different schools. 

It is an odd story.  It was difficult to explain to people who aren't letter writers (this is the early 90s before the wide adoption of the internet) how I met Laura.  She and I started writing back and forth, and became friends.

And it was always lovely visiting her grandmother when I was home on break.  She lived around two blocks from my high school.  She was an amazing woman.  She was the same age as my paternal grandmother, but they were (are) different in many ways.  Laura's grandmother didn't pay her taxes for seven years (a la Ralph Waldo Emerson) because she disagreed with some of the actions of the federal government.  She was active in the league of women voters.  She was someone who believed in her community, and loved her family (particularly my friend Laura).  She divorced in an age before divorce was completely socially acceptable, and continued to be a strong, independent, stable woman. 

When I think back of memories of her, it's always at her home.  Some years ago, she moved to a posh assisted living place in my home town.  But I remember her best in her home surrounded by books and papers.  There were quite a few books and papers (note the cook books in the left side of this background photo - there were quite a few of those as well).  I remember the rows of peonies in the back yard.  I remember that when she retired, she decided she could finally "grow her hair out". And she did.  And that she didn't want us to put tomatoes in the refrigerator - everything had to be done a certain way (which she admitted about herself).

Her kitchen circa 1994 - cluttered but clean

I remember wonderful conversations.

When I introduced her to my twins, she had thoughtfully surmised a game with spools of thread and a jug.  It takes a special kind of person to really think about the visitors you might have, what might interest them, and how you can entertain twin one year olds.

Sadly, she passed away last weekend after a brief illness.  I hadn't been up to visit her in a long time.  But I have wonderful memories of her and our conversations.  I'm glad she's out of pain, and I knew this day might happen.  She was an inspiration to me.

When I think about what kind of person I want to be in my 80s, I want to be like her.  She had a laugh and a wry grin like no one else.  This week I am filled with memories of her and her family. 

Large Families

I've been meaning to write this post (or a similar one) for awhile now.  Each time I try to reasonably explain my points, I find myself getting fairly emotional about the topic.

As many of my readers already know, I'm the oldest of six.  And from what I've read, my experience is not all that unique.  I fit the stereotype of an oldest daughter of six...and there is a reason there is a stereotype!

From my experience, I think it's safe to say that I disagree with the practice of large families.  I will define a large family as six children or more.

If a person has a choice, I think choosing to limit family size is a good idea. 

Here are my two reasons why:
1 - The older children end up raising the younger children
I struggle with this, because I understand the notion of a family sacrificing together, trying to make the most of it.  I don't think children should be handed everything they want, I don't think children should be fully shielded from the world.

But in general, it is simply unfair to have too many children that you (or your spouse) can take care of, where you will depend on an older child to do a portion of the day to day parenting.    In other words, the excuse of  - we can care for this many children because the older children help out!

It's not fair to the older children.  They have a right to be children.  They didn't choose to be parents at the age of eight or ten or twelve.  They don't need to be changing diapers or helping with homework.

There are other, better ways to teach children how to be other-focused. So children can focus on themselves and becoming successful people - not focused on making sure their siblings are cared for.

There are advantages that I've had from being the oldest child who filled the void.

But I don't think this "the older children will take care of the younger ones" should be used as a defense of your choice to have more children than you can physically, emotionally or financially support.  It is irresponsible and doesn't always lead to a good outcome. 

2 - A disproportionate number of women are negatively impacted by this choice.
This was pointed out in this slate article, and I agree. It's easy, as someone who is not raising children day to day - to idealize large families.  But if you're not participating in the day to day, I don't know that you really know what it's like.  I was the oldest daughter, and I have a good idea what parenting a large family is like.  But I don't really *know*. 

In traditional male/female families, I think women are negatively impacted by large families.

Some women have boundless energy.  Some families are able to support a large number of children and have enough financial, physical and emotional resources to be good parents.

But there are just as many women who are stretched too thin by having too many children.  They are not able to focus on all their children's physical and emotional needs, much less their own.  They may not be able to support themselves and their children if they lose a spouse or are divorced.  Raising six or more kids is a lot of work, and the idea that "it will pay off" is not always true.  What does that mean anyway?

Pregnancy is hard enough - much less all the diapers, homework, economical, healthy meals, etc.  In the traditional family, the father usually has to work so hard to support the large number of children - they are typically exhausted themselves.

It's not up to me, of course, and I have no control over this choice or other choices that people make.  I'm just a blogger on the internet, spouting my personal opinion.

But I have some knowledge about this particular subject, and I don't think it's selfish of people to decide to not have children or to have smaller families.  My own personal theory is that there can be stronger family bonds if the parents are able to be present, and not hopelessly overworked all the time.

Limiting a woman's fertility has been one of the best gains for women in the last century - and I wholeheartedly agree.

Parents have a responsibility to themselves, to all their children and to the planet to be mindful of their fertility choices.  To ignore those responsibilities is short sighted at best, and neglectful at worst.

Cultural Change

From an idealistic perspective, one would think we would have examined many of these issues and addressed them as a society/culture. For the most part, I think people agree with these principles in theory.

Perhaps I've just been hanging around a liberal college educated crowd.

Here are the principles, in no particular order:

1 - Women need to be able to provide for themselves and their families in case of death or disability (even if they are stay at home moms).

2 - There are times that married people should be separated.

So, for my first point, I heard about a mother who just recently lost her husband. They had five kids. He was in his forties. Their youngest child is 14. She never worked outside the home and has few skills/little education. At the funeral, a family member suggested to her that she should be able to live (without getting a job) on the social security death benefits and (perhaps) some small life insurance. Before he passed away, her husband was working two jobs. Again - they both were living their lives as if a mom staying at home (even when the youngest was 14) was the ideal - no matter what the reality was. Obviously, I don't know the entire situation. I'm just speculating for some of this and heard other parts of the story third hand.

I don't know if she will need to get a job now or not. But so often (especially in mormon/LDS circles) this is not emphasized. I do believe this is changing somewhat.

But it frustrates me that any family has to face this. With 50% of marriages that end in divorce (even among devoted religious families), and the chance of a husband's early demise - it is incredibly risky to not be prepared (somewhat) on some sort of career/education to fall back on. It seems to me that it is not against "family values" to ask that both partners' in a marriage to be prepared. And to encourage young women to get a good education.

For my second point, this is a sensitive subject at the moment. What I can say is, my husband's grandfather and his second wife are currently legally separated. On the good days, I think their immediate family agrees that this is in both their best interests. They had reached the (sad) point where she was interfering in his medical treatment.

For example, it's a little like what would happen if my grandmother had another stroke and my grandfather refused to call the hospital.

Anyway, it's just a messy, difficult situation.

So despite the fact that they are legally separated, various people are still treating them as being married. The local church's women's group (very conservative) sent them flowers - addressed to both of them. My grandfather in law was incredibly stressed out with how to separate the flowers.

Perhaps they were being kind, but also likely is that it was a subtle jab - we know you're separated, but marriage is a lifetime commitment in God's eyes. It's a little like my friend whose mom still received mail addressed to her and her ex-husband from the local Roman Catholic parish.

Then, this past weekend, another well meaning family member chose to ignore the separation - taking them both out as if nothing had happened. This is the same niece who wanted to take them out to buy a new car a week after their last accident. Again - going back to someone being married and the marriage vows/honor of that marriage meaning more than any logic or well-being/interest of the people involved.

I am not someone who feels that religion is always a bad influence. But in both cases, people were using/citing religious/cultural beliefs to promote unhealthy/unrealistic behaviors.

That women who focus on motherhood do not need to prepare their education or for a career and two - that marriage vows trump a person's health. In both cases, the people involved are incredibly religious, both (I think) in fundamentalist religions. I do not respect either of those beliefs - and I am separating the person from the belief. Typically I try to respect other people's beliefs, but these are two categories where I'm not able to.

The majority of religions agree that women need to have the security of their own education and careers. And, most religions agree that separation or divorce are acceptable in cases of abuse.

So why is it so difficult to get these messages to the laypeople? To people and families involved?

How do we continue to promote change within our culture?

A boy for him and a girl for me

Can someone explain this statement to me?

Because if you can explain it and where it comes from, I would appreciate it. Because I am having a hard time understanding it. This is something I've heard in the past few years, not a quote from the fifties. Is it just a midwest thing?

Specifically, I spoke with someone who was unhappy to hear he was having a daughter, because the daughter would be his wife's.

It seems to me that most parents are lucky to have a healthy child growing up in a safe, nurturing environment.

Yes, there are still lots of gender roles and stereotypes. I may yet write about my company's dress code as a glaringly obvious example of different standards for men and women. Women struggle to make gains in public life, balance family concerns and be successful in their careers if they choose.

So in American society, it comes as no surprise that men and women are different.

But the idea that someone's daughter wouldn't be "theirs" since their wife would raise them or that a son would be the husband's - just sounds odd and foreign to me. Frankly, I think it smacks of sexism. It limits what the son and the daughter can do and what things they will enjoy. So your daughter enjoys watching football with you? Or your son enjoys cooking? Who cares??!?

Maybe this is so foreign to me since my parents raised me to think for myself and to question. I don't remember being told I couldn't have a career (when many parents told their girls they would be wives and mothers). To some extent, my parents don't follow strict gender roles.

I remember my Mom visiting my apartment in college and flipping over the vacuum cleaner to fix it. I had just mentioned that it wasn't working. My dad would let us watch while he fixed the cars. He would prop up the car hood and show us where the radiator fluid went, how to check the oil. They worked very hard to make sure I got the best education possible. Never did they say - why waste the money for college on our daughter! She'll just get married anyway.

I guess all I'm saying is, it is a little sad to hear a mom say that the son is not hers or a dad say his daughter is not his. I think it leaves out just how complex these relationships are. And children really benefit from both parents (and people in general) who love and support them. No matter what gender they are.