| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 99.1 | hugs | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | Sedat Fortuna Peritus | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:28 | 9 |
| Anon:
IMO, You did the _right_ thing. Everyone deserves to have an SO
who is truly committed to the relationship. It sounds as though
Your friend either had one foot back on the dock, or he just wanted
to avoid to cost of being subdivided. Hold out for someone who is
good enough for You. We tend to get no more than what we set our
standards for.
[dale]
|
| 99.2 | Index of Availability? | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:32 | 53 |
| The following reply is being posted anonymously. You may contact the
author by mail, by sending your communication to me and I'll be glad to forward
it on. Your message will be forwarded with your name attached, unless you
request otherwise.
Joe
* * *
Hi,
I'm sorry to hear that this relationship hasn't worked
out better for you. I don't have any particular to
offer so I'll talk about some of my own frustration.
I've been going with my SO for several years now and
I find myself feeling a growing discouragement. I love
her and would like to spend lots of time together, plan
more of our activities jointly, and talk about a future
together. She seems to keep certain fixed boundaries on
the relationship, sometimes pulling closer and sometimes
pulling back.
She seems comfortable with the friendship, companionship,
and sex, but uncomfortable with any kind of greater
commitment. A few weeks back, after I told her my reasons
for feeling that our relationship had peaked out, she
called me to suggest that she come and stay over at my
place for the weekend. We see each other for the next
several weekends. Then she calls me with some tension in
her voice to tell me that she is not going to invite me to
her company's annual picnic. She had invited me last year
to this event. She seemed to be saying that she didn't
want me to come but she also didn't want me to feel left
out.
With more directness than I usually muster, I asked
her if she felt that she'd have to entertain me if she
invited me. She said that no but she didn't want to
have to introduce me to people. [I met all her business
associates last year.] I don't know what this means but it
exasperates me and I feel snubbed.
I guess if I want a better relationship, I have to get off
my butt and move along but, sigh, she's so cute.
I kinda wish the Surgeon General would come up with
some kind of labeling system for single people to let
others know that person's IAR (Index of Availability for a
Relationship).
Good luck and take care
|
| 99.3 | | TALLIS::NELSON | It's not the years it's the mileage! | Fri Jul 21 1995 17:38 | 72 |
|
For whatever it's worth, I think you've done the right thing. I
think you've been more than patient and more than understanding.
You've given him plenty of time and you've explained how it's important
to you -- NOT that you should *have* to explain *that*!!! Goodness
gracious guy, wake up and smell the coffee. I can't understand why
someone would need an explanation for why they should get a divorce
when they're living with someone and talking about marriage. Has he
indicated that he wants to get married?
>I'll explain further, he moved in with me about 3 years ago, things were OK
>but it always bothered me that he never divorced. Well two years ago I
>gave him an ultimatum, either get the divorce process started or leave me
>alone!! Deep down that's not what I wanted, but I felt he needed a major
>nudge! Since then he did get things started, somewhat, and since that was
>all I had asked for he didn't move out or get a divorce.
>If I was to bring the D word up, he would say, well if I get a divorce
>then everything will be OK? Or will there be something else?
You know how I read this? Major BIG-TIME cop-out. It doesn't
sound to me like you're always making demands on him, so where in the
world does he get off thinking there'll be something else? You've
asked for this one very simple, reasonable thing!
>How could I answer that? I don't know, but I do know that nothing more has
>really happened with the divorce thing. So maybe it sounds like I'm
>obsessed.
Doesn't sound like you're obsessed to me.
>Well I needed to get on with my life, we talked about getting married, I
>would like to but something stands in the way (sarcastic comment).
>I purchased a home because my son and I deserved that and my SO also moved in,
>but for obvious reasons couldn't actually own it with me.
>He had asked me to wait on buying it, why? He said he'd have more money in
>a year. (his daughter would be out of college and no more child support)
>He didn't say he'd be divorced?!
I have to say that I know so very little about this situation it's
hard to comment accurately, but I think perhaps deep down he's afraid
to get the divorce because then the *next* step would be marriage --
while he may love you very much, that doesn't mean that is necessarily
enough to overcome a fear of marriage -- something he might very well
have depending on how his last marriage went and ended. As long as he
isn't divorced, he doesn't have to face the big 'M' again. He may very
well be using it as a crutch to avoid facing unpleasantness.
>He doesn't live with us anymore, but we do see each other, and I'm heart
>broken. This isn't what I wanted, but I felt I had no other choice but
>to ask him to leave and get the divorce and then we could talk about
>marriage.
I'll reiterate -- I think you did the right thing. If he does love
you, he'll likely come to his senses shortly and realize some/all of
these things and get the divorce. If he doesn't, then you doubly did
the right thing.
Best of luck,
Brian
|
| 99.4 | Basenoter replies. | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:43 | 49 |
|
The following reply is being posted anonymously. You may contact the
author by mail, by sending your communication to me and I'll be glad to forward
it on. Your message will be forwarded with your name attached, unless you
request otherwise.
Joe
* * *
Hi,
I just want to thank everyone for their wonderful support in regards to
note 99.0. I know I did the right thing, but I guess it's human nature
to always second guess and wonder what we did wrong.
I never mentioned in my first note much detail of the situation in regards
to my son's involvement in all of this. I feel my son never gave my SO
a real chance, and vice versa. I know that with my son you have to have
a huge amount of energy, physically and mentally. He'll challenge you
every step of the way, if you allow it. I'm guilty, yes he challenges me
quite often, but I feel a need to discuss if he needs an explanation.
I believe that every answer can not be cut and dry, many times there is
a level of thought that should go into a decision. This does not take into
consideration the many times he can drive you nuts and then the answer is
NO! Anyway that's the way life is, IMO.
All my SO required, so he says, is to have my son respect him. Well I believe
he got the respect, but my son made no bones about how much he disliked this
person. My son feels that my SO is a grouchy person and not a good match
for me, plus he knows my SO isn't divorced. Now the flip side to this is
my SO felt that my son didn't like him being there because he couldn't have
me all to himself. He may not be too far off from the truth.
My SO has grown children(out of the house,last one finishing up college), and
many times I felt that he had been there, done it, got the t-shirt!! Maybe
he,(SO) was hoping the situation could have turned itself around. I think
sometimes he was holding back from pursuing the divorce because he didn't
have the oomph to go after it since his homelife(living with me and my son)
was the pits. Mentally and physically he felt no drive to get this divorce
because he felt I wasn't supportive to him and the way he felt.
This I believe to be a very very complex situation. I'm not happy with
what has happened, but I feel it was for the best. Since my original note
we (both of us), have decided that it is best for us to go our seperate ways
and not hurt each other anymore with unresolved issues. It didn't work out,
and no one is to blame. I'll always treasure what we had.
|
| 99.5 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Mon Jul 31 1995 15:45 | 25 |
|
re.0 and .4
There are a few of things that came to mind.
- IMO, you absolutely did the right thing.
- Respect is earned, not demanded. It is not
right to ask your son to respect your SO just
because he is your SO. Life is not that simple,
unfortunately.
- It does not seem like your SO is interested in
being part of a family, ie. help to raise your son.
He may be interested in you and a relationship, but
that is not good enough. You have a son to raise and
if anyone is going to stand between you and your son,
that anyone does not really love you.
- Any person who is not strong/caring/rational/honorable
enough to get a divorce before getting involved again
is not worth your time and energy.
Eva
|
| 99.6 | love is not forever, it's for real | HANNAH::OSMAN | see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240 | Wed Aug 02 1995 14:16 | 14 |
|
Eva, your title of the last reply which was "love is wonderful, but
reality hits" sounds so similar to a song by BOB FRANKE, a great folk
singer. His song is called
Love is not Forever, it's for Real
When I heard that song, I just *had* to go to a Bob Franke concert.
The song was quite moving, emotionally, for me.
I recommend him when he comes to your area.
/Eric
|
| 99.7 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Wed Aug 02 1995 15:31 | 21 |
|
Eric,
Thanks for the pointer.
I haven't truely listen to folk songs for a long, long time,
since Joni Mitchell and Joan Biaz were in. Back then, it was great
listening to the songs, since I didn't have a clue what they were
really singing about, I was too young! But now I hear some of the
folk songs on the radio and I said to myself "Geez, this stuff is
depressing! If I listen to these songs all day, I would kill myself."
It is like I know they are telling the truth, but they don't have
to rub it in ;-(. I do admit that some folk songs are funny and
uplifting, but I haven't found a station that would play mostly
emotionally positive music. So, I stay with alternative/grunge rock -
it makes me angry instead of sad ;-) Kind of a cop out, I guess.
Eva
|
| 99.8 | Reality is a relative term... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Aug 02 1995 16:42 | 87 |
| RE: .5
Eva,
> - Respect is earned, not demanded. It is not
> right to ask your son to respect your SO just
> because he is your SO. Life is not that simple,
> unfortunately.
Sometimes it is that simple... fortunately. Don't you believe that every
individual should be accorded respect and consideration until proven
otherwise? Don't you, initially, do that in your everyday dealings with
people?
When you first met your SO, priest, rabbi, future mother-in-law, employer
etc. etc. etc., did you not afford them respect and courtesy? Things may
have changed after your initial (or second or 10th) meeting, but at first they
got that respect... no?
And what lessened them in your eyes? Was it that they failed to "earn" your
respect, or because you didn't like what they had to say, or the way they said
it, or their conservative/liberal/whatever outlook on things ('you' being
generic here and not directed at any one person)?
Perhaps this child is not used to what is considered normal discipline and
might have been taught that by pulling the right strings, he/she can get away
with just about anything. Along comes someone who was taught right from wrong
and what is considered normal/average discipline/responsibility/accountability
and is now resented for upsetting the apple-cart. Mom's "reality" may be in
not dealing forth-rightly with this child by letting him get away with murder
and deflecting her responsibility as a parent, the child's "reality" is seeing
that Mom doesn't want to deal with disciplining him/her and therefore anything
goes...
If I'm at someone's house for the first time and the child persists (in what
they consider playful) in kicking me in the shin under the dinner table, and
is asked to stop repeatedly by me and does not, need to "earn" my respect
first before doing so?
You are therefore correct in your first statement... Life isn't as simple
as some tend to portray it.
> - It does not seem like your SO is interested in
> being part of a family, ie. help to raise your son.
> He may be interested in you and a relationship, but
> that is not good enough. You have a son to raise and
> if anyone is going to stand between you and your son,
> that anyone does not really love you.
What if this "SO" was not "allowed" to be part of the family? What if you
(Eva) were told during your relationship with a man who stated to you point
blank:
"I'm never going to change... My son/daughter is never going to change...
deal with it!!"
"This is the 90's!! You're too old-fashioned!!"
What would you do? Would you think there's some sort of middle ground and/or
compromise that can be possibly worked out?
> - Any person who is not strong/caring/rational/honorable
> enough to get a divorce before getting involved again
> is not worth your time and energy.
> Eva
Kinda quick to judge without knowing all sides of the issue, aren't you?
What if there's extenuating circumstances? What is a man/woman to do who is
is looking for a divorce and faced with a vengeful mate? What if this mate
prolongs the agony... what is the person to do? Enter a monastery until the
proceedings are over? Eschew any sort of relationship? What?
Some things to think and mull about I'm sure. The thing to remember is that
there's always two sides to every story, and no matter how hard you try,
balance can never be achieved until all aspects are presented and known...
which in this forum is difficult at best...
Andy
|
| 99.9 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Wed Aug 02 1995 17:24 | 34 |
|
Andy,
There are always two sides to a story, but in my world, there
is only one set of values and principles. Values and principles
do not change with circumstances, IMO. What is honorable does not
all of a sudden become dishonorable because of a viewpoint change
and vice versa. Not everything everyone does everyday is honorable,
me included. But the goal, IMO, is to live by these values and
principles. When one does something dishonorable, one needs to
admit it and live with it, one can't change the principles to make
appear one honorable.
Every individual should be given a ground zero, IMO. I respect
people's rights as in the Constitution and I extend my courtesy, but
I do not automatically respect people's values and judgement just
because. That sort of respect is definitely earned. You don't believe
everything you hear, do you? You don't do everything people tell
to, do you? That is what I meant.
I don't know if you have children around that age or not. Since
I do, I tend to read the entry from the point of view of a parent of a
child of that age, as well as from the point of view of a child of
the age. In the preteen years, it is not enough to ask a child to
just-do-as-I-say, children are learning to exercise their own judgement
about people and things, using the values and principles that they
have learnt in the earlier years. Children need to think for
themselves, looking for facts and data to form their judgement.
Children are not sheep and should never be stifled to blindly follow
the mass.
Eva
|
| 99.10 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Aug 02 1995 17:53 | 45 |
|
Eva,
The issue I believe, is not the respect of certain people's "values
and judgments", but respect for those people.. such as you stated with
your ground zero comment. If this child (or any child) doesn't have
this as a basic grounding in values, then they can't know, and don't
know about respect.
How about some of the other issues I addressed?
My children (1 son, 1 daughter) are adults now, but they were this
child's age at one time. Rearing a child does not mean having a robot
to jump at one's beck and call. Every child should be allowed to grow
as an individual. They should also be taught respect, responsibiltiy,
accountability, cause and effect etc. Having a child at the other end
of the spectrum from a robot is just as bad...
My children were disciplined, harshly at times by some of today's
90's standards, but who today realize that it was for their own good.
I'm not talking about abuse or brutality, but common-sense-for-their
own-good-discipline. I suppose you can start a brand new note on
discipline and "how to"... but that's another story.
The main focus in my initial reply was what you stated in your first
sentence... "There are always two sides to a story," that's all. We
tend to forget about that when reading one-sided sob stories (no
aspersions on this note btw...).
You also stated in your first sentence "but in my world, there is
only one set of values and principles." Your world may be very
different than .0 and .4 (and mine and so many others), so how can you
blanketly state "You did the right thing"?? This person's child may
scoff and sneer and ridicule your values and principles just as he
might have done to her SO.... no?
All I'm saying is that if I listened to my friends and acquantances and
not filtered everything with the knowledge that I was only hearing one
side of the story, I'd have nothing but enemies and ex-friends...
(unless of course, I was intimately aware of both sides of a
relationship and able to make a valid, judgment call from KNOWING what
really happened).
Andy
|
| 99.11 | Addendum | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Aug 02 1995 18:10 | 42 |
| re: .9
Eva,
Some more thoughts...
> I don't know if you have children around that age or not. Since
> I do, I tend to read the entry from the point of view of a parent of a
> child of that age, as well as from the point of view of a child of
> the age. In the preteen years, it is not enough to ask a child to
> just-do-as-I-say, children are learning to exercise their own judgment
> about people and things, using the values and principles that they
> have learnt in the earlier years. Children need to think for
> themselves, looking for facts and data to form their judgment.
> Children are not sheep and should never be stifled to blindly follow
> the mass.
You cannot be definitive in your statement above and say "it is not enough to
ask a child to just-do-as-I-say,"
Sometimes you have to. They have not progressed to your level of maturity,
understanding and knowledge in a wide range of things. If your child were
running haphazardly towards a cliff or precipice, would you gently call to
them to stop and think about what they were doing. Would you try and reason
with them to see the error of their ways? Or would you yell and scream and
bolt towards them, and probably man-handle them roughly.. even tackle and
potentially injure them to save them from certain death?
There is plenty of time afterwards to explain calmly and lovingly why you
needed to do what you did, and that is every parent's responsibility. That is
what I did with my children... explained to them why they were punished and
why I did what I did.
Yes, they need to do all those things you stated above, but not all the
time, certainly not when they conflict with common sense and with your values
and judgments.
Maybe you feel the same way and it's just the way you've phrased your
responses. This medium is not always the best to convey certain ideas, ergo my
grain of salt for .0 and .4 and a lack of balance therein...
|
| 99.12 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 10:46 | 16 |
| Eva,
Your circumstances and situation may be entirely different than the
author base note. It's one thing to have a childs father rearing the
child than to have another male come into the picture.
In my view you can't even begin to relate to that situation or you
wouldn't be saying some of the things you're saying.
Your universe or world may be different from another persons world.
Unless you were to go through divorce and have another relationship
with someone else...you haven't got a 'clue' as to what that means.
I'm saying what that means with your children. I'm sure you can
somewhat relate...but in this circumstance you are not even relating
closly.
|
| 99.13 | | TP011::KENAH | Do we have any peanut butter? | Thu Aug 03 1995 10:59 | 16 |
| > Sometimes it is that simple... fortunately. Don't you believe that every
>individual should be accorded respect and consideration until proven
>otherwise? Don't you, initially, do that in your everyday dealings with
>people?
>
> When you first met your SO, priest, rabbi, future mother-in-law, employer
>etc. etc. etc., did you not afford them respect and courtesy? Things may
>have changed after your initial (or second or 10th) meeting, but at first they
>got that respect... no?
Courtesy and deference, yes. Respect, no.
Respect is earned, based on actions.
andrew
|
| 99.14 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 11:22 | 46 |
|
re: .13
>Courtesy and deference, yes. Respect, no.
> Respect is earned, based on actions.
I beg to differ....
So, if you were to go to a funeral, and there was an announcement made
such as...
"Such and such will/will not be done out of respect for the family and
the deceased..."
What would you do? Wait for the actions of the family before affording
them any sort of respect?
I would direct you to the following:
The American Heritage Dictionary
respect n. 1. Deferential or high regard; esteem. 2. respects.
Expressions of consideration or deference.
It seems we're talking about the same thing, although your perceptions
are different.
If you have a couple over your house for dinner and they bring along
their 2 year old would you not say something like:
"I would ask you to respect my wishes and not have your child climb all
over my brand new furniture..."
I would qualify your statement in .13 like this...
>Respect is earned, based on actions.
"Continued respect is earned, based on actions."
Respectfully,
Andy
|
| 99.15 | All IMO, of course | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 11:23 | 53 |
|
Andy,
I think you and I have some basic differences. Yes, respect,
responsibility, accountablity, etc are the values we need to teach
our children, however, *HOW* we teach them was what I was concerned
about. Respect is not a rule we follow. There are people I am
courteous to, since my behavior towards them really reflects on
my character rather than theirs, whom I do not respect. One does
not have to be rude to people one does not respect. It seems to
me you consider them the same thing. To me, how I deal with people
and whether I respect them are 2 separate items. As I said above,
one is my action and the other is my reaction to their actions.
IMO, people should live by their conscience - making decisions based
on principles and their heart and soul, rather than living by rules -
do things because they were told. I believe that humans are not born
bad natured, malicious nor self destructive. Your examples of jumping
off a cliff, kicking people in the shin, IMO, are not realistic.
Yes, I can how some children brought up in the do-as-I-say environment
can go down the wrong path. FWIW, all the principles and values (the
rights and wrongs) that people used to make decisions are learnt in
the first 5 years of our lives. Respect is mutual, an adult cannot expect
a child to respect him/her without showing respect towards the child.
When I meet a child, I do not expect a child to respect me just because
I am bigger in size. Sure, I have more experience in living, but those
experience could be bad influence for the child. A ten year old is not
a puppet. A ten year old may be clumsy and novice in the expression of
his judgement. It seems to me that you see children as naturally bad,
thus your examples of wild behaviors. IMO, bad behaviors are learnt
and are symptoms of parental neglect and failure. Yes, there are cases
where physiological problems cause behavior problems. But, in the
basenoter's entries, the son sounds very mature and caring, for someone
his age.
As far as the right thing is concerned, you can look at the case
from the SO point of view - the kid is out of line, SO needs a second
chance, etc; OR you can look at it from the objective top down view -
this woman has a son to raise, this child's happiness (short and long term)
depends so much on his family interaction in the next 8 years or so. This
child has not had his first chance yet. IMO, our sole purpose of existence,
the purpose of life, is to ensure that propagation of our species is secured.
If one is committed to have a child, the child's well being should be #1
priority in the next 18 years, like it or not. It seems to me the mother
had to choose between his son and this guy who had all the chances in
the world to fix his life. To be fair, honorable and dutiful (add in
your accountablity, responsiblity), shouldn't the child come first? Since
both the mother and the SO had plenty of opportunities to look for
happiness per their track records, don't you think it is time that the
child can be raised without competition from an *adult*?!
Eva
|
| 99.16 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 11:28 | 14 |
|
re .12
>In my view you can't even begin to relate to that situation or you
>wouldn't be saying some of the things you're saying.
Can you elaborate? I don't have a clue what you are referring to.
My values and principles may be entirely different from yours,
so please enlight me.
Eva
|
| 99.17 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 11:44 | 17 |
|
Folks,
It seems like some of you have problems with my values
and principles, thus things that I say. No one has to agree
with me, wonderful democracy. No one has to read what I write
either, hit next unseen. No one has to value my differences,
there are weirdos all over, count me as another one. Maybe the
way I look at things make you not-honorable in my world. Well,
you are not in my world, congratulations!
I never pushed my values in you folks, I never belittle any
your view and experiences, so what is the problem here?
Eva
|
| 99.18 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:19 | 26 |
|
re: .17
Eva,
Why are you becoming so defensive? I thought the reason for this
conference was discussion. Isn't that what's occuring?
Out of "respect" for you, Digital, and the moderators, I've toned
down any rhetoric which I might have wanted to express.
>It seems like some of you have problems with my values and principles,
It's more like differences of opinion rather than "problems". No one
is considering you a "weirdo" for your beliefs and stand on things.
Might you not take some of your own advice and NEXT/UNSEEN too?? At
least you can try and be a little more objective and realize that it's
a big, wide world out there with a myriad of peoples...
You've given your opinion on certain things, so have I... but we have
to remember that that's all they are is opinions and that not everyone
will agree on them...
Andy
|
| 99.19 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:36 | 28 |
|
Andy,
>Why are you becoming so defensive?
The only person I have directed my initial replies to is the
basenoter, not you, not CALL. *You* questioned the contents of my
replies to the basenoter, directed to *me*. This is the what happened.
If you replied to the basenoter, and I questioned your replies
then I would be interrupting, agree? If you have something to say
to the basenoter, go for it. I have the right to say my views and
so do you. But, I don't see why I should have to defend my views,
getting into a rathole here. And someone, like CALL, comes along and
say that I had no clue - so why don't I shut up, then I think the
line is crossed. It is up to the basenoter to decide whether I have
a clue or not, not you, not CALL.
Eva
|
| 99.20 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:52 | 16 |
| Eva,
This is not about being honorable or about principals. It's not
about values or respect. How could you get so far out of what
the whole issue is all about?
I'm just saying that if you haven't gone though a divorce. If you
haven't spent a couple of years trying to raise a child on your
own without a mate then how can you come in and be an authoritarian
on the subject.
It's your remarks that tell me that you really don't 'know' what
you're talking about in 'this' instance.
|
| 99.21 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:31 | 193 |
| re: .15
Eva,
I hope we can continue this discussion on an even keel. If I've offended
you, I apologize.
>I think you and I have some basic differences.
Obviously... that's what makes the world go round... no?
>There are people I am courteous to, since my behavior towards them really
>reflects on my character rather than theirs, whom I do not respect.
Why don't you respect them (rhetorical question)??
Did you ever respect them to begin with?
What caused you to lose respect for them (their actions)?
>One does not have to be rude to people one does not respect. It seems
>to me you consider them the same thing.
That's a mighty big assumption on your part. I've given plenty of
examples and analogies as to what I consider respect, and continued
respect. Upon further reading, it might become clearer to you that
your assumption was incorrect.
>IMO, people should live by their conscience - making decisions based
>on principles and their heart and soul,
I suppose pedophiles have (sort of) a conscience too and certain
principles they abide by... and I'm sure they make decisions based
on their heart and soul too... this is an extreme example, granted,
but do you see my point?
>rather than living by rules -
Do you work for Digital? Do you follow their rules for the workplace?
Do you follow the "rules of the road"?
Do you follow the rules your financial establishment has?
Do you "Keep off the grass"?
Do you jaywalk?
>I believe that humans are not born bad natured, malicious nor
>self destructive.
When was it your child first defied you? Said no to you? Looked at
you sideways to see if you were watching and then did exactly what you
told them not to do? How long have they kicked and screamed and held
their breath because they were told "No!"?
Self destructive? You haven't read all the recent stories about children
falling out of windows? Drowning in pools..etc.?
>Your examples of jumping off a cliff
>are not realistic.
Okay... how about crawling towards an open window 5 stories up? How
about a child running towards a hot stove?
> kicking people in the shin,
>are not realistic.
I used that particular example because it happened to my SO as I sat
there watching the whole thing...
>Respect is mutual, an adult cannot expect a child to respect him/her
>without showing respect towards the child.
Here's a test for you... next time you're in the vicinity of a 4-5 year
old, ask them to give you a definition and/or example of "respect". I'd
be interested in the answer...
You stated it yourself that respect is earned through actions... Why
should I show respect to a child if their actions warrant otherwise?
If my child is acting spoiled by ranting and raving and holding their
breath, I'll "respect" them enough to let them figure out on their own
that lung capacity reaches a certain level and you have to, at some point
in time, take another breath. I will respect them enough to not whack
them during this particular learning curve...
>When I meet a child, I do not expect a child to respect me just because
>I am bigger in size. Sure, I have more experience in living, but those
>experience could be bad influence for the child.
Exactly!!! This child will learn, through your "actions" that you might
be a bad influence on them....
>It seems to me that you see children as naturally bad,
>thus your examples of wild behaviors.
Another assumption on your part...
Children, when they come into this world, and for the next (n) of years
are:
un-tutored
un-disciplined
un-ruly
un-knowing
naive
innocent
but not necessarily "bad"
>IMO, bad behaviors are learnt and are symptoms of parental neglect and
>failure.
To a certain extent, you may be right (IMO)... but then your theory about
them not being puppets or robots falls flat, doesn't it?
>But, in the basenoter's entries, the son sounds very mature and caring,
>for someone his age.
Funny, I got the same impression... but my caveat to that would be that
"the son sounds very mature and caring" when it suits his needs and when
he needs to be that way to (re)gain the upper hand...
>this woman has a son to raise, this child's happiness (short and long term)
>depends so much on his family interaction in the next 8 years or so. This
>child has not had his first chance yet. IMO, our sole purpose of existence,
>the purpose of life, is to ensure that propagation of our species is secured.
Granted... happiness should be a major part of rearing this, or any child.
But happiness can be a distorted view to a child.. no? To a child, happiness
can mean having and getting anything they want, anytime they want. Is that
true happiness?
Teaching respect, kindness, thoughtfulness, love, sharing, giving,
cooperation, sacrifice and all the other things is more the true happiness
(and I'm sure you agree).
>If one is committed to have a child, the child's well being should be #1
>priority in the next 18 years, like it or not.
Absolutely!! I couldn't agree with you more!!
>It seems to me the mother had to choose between his son and
>this guy who had all the chances in the world to fix his life.
Or it seems (IMO) that the mother didn't want to upset the status quo
of the situation where she might have to discipline her son to a certain
extent in the normal course of events of the day...
You see? I can speculate as well as the next guy! "It seems" is a very
easy term to use when one doesn't know the whole story... It's not
clear, from this one-sided account, just what in this guys life
needs fixing.
>To be fair, honorable and dutiful (add in your accountability,
>responsibility), shouldn't the child come first?
Always?? Possibly to the detriment of the child? What if it's in the
child's best interest to be punished for a certain behavior and he/she
isn't? Has the child's welfare come first in this instance?
>happiness per their track records, don't you think it is time that the
>child can be raised without competition from an *adult*?!
Ahhhh!!! There's the rub! Why does the child think it has to be a
competition? Could it be he wasn't taught early on about all those
things I mentioned previously about what true happiness is?
What if the SO is forced to compete? What if he wasn't allowed to be part
of the inner circle from the get-go?
FWIW, .0 and .4 sent up all kinds of warnings, bells and whistles in my
mind when I read them. I personally would have bailed out a long time ago
and would've been happy to cut my losses then and there. Maybe the SO
had too much love in his heart and was blinded by that to do the same...
One will never know.. will they???
Andy
|
| 99.22 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:32 | 19 |
|
re .20
IMO, everything is about principles and values, because every
action (even getting up in the morning to go to work) we take
every single day is a decision, made based on a set of guidelines
(values). We don't just flow through life.
I didn't come in as an authority on the subject, how did you
come to that conclusion? If my remarks said that I didn't have
a clue, then the basenoter would write me off, right? Are you
saying that the basenoter is not capable of sorting this out
for herself and you need to protect her from my wild speculation?!
If you know so much on this topic, why don't you contibute in
a positive, mature manner with substance that will do the
basenoter some good?
Eva
|
| 99.23 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:36 | 20 |
|
re: .19
Eva,
I see your point. I guess my replies (or rat-holes if you want to
call them that) can really apply to the basenoter, or to anyone else
for that matter.
I took exception and replied back to you because of some of your
assumptions in not knowing the whole story. My apologies...
My replies and their content still stand though, whether to the base
noter or to anyone else...
Like I said, this is meant to be a discussion and we can all learn
about human relations and human nature along the way...
Andy
|
| 99.24 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:44 | 28 |
| This note is to the basenoter....
You said you had been married twice and divorced twice.
You said your son was from your first husband.
You said your second husband adopted your son.
This last relationship had conflicts that you couldn't resolve.
I'm sure your son has alot of feelings under the surface. The problems
that you had were there 'before' you got into this relationship.
I think the main thing you need to do is 'don't' jump into another
relationship right away. Take a couple of steps back and determine
what your major problems are. Determine what your sons major problems
are. Work on those for at least a year or two before attempting another
relationship. If you can't resolve those problems on your own then
seek help.
I'm sure it will be difficult to stand on your own two feet and make
it on your own. It's hard to take care of all your own needs on your
own. It gets easier with time.
When you 'do' get into another relationship. Make sure everything is
right 'before' you get in. Better to take a long time then to go
through all of this again.
Good luck and write of your progress.
|
| 99.25 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:42 | 75 |
|
Andy,
There are certainly people I respect, not a lot though. I work for
myself now, after years of working in this industry, seeing unethical
dealings, not just in this company, but everywhere. I obey the rules
of the road because that is the only way to get the traffic going,
do I repsect most Massachusetts drivers, no! I follow the rules of
the financial institutions because I signed my name away (I gave my
word for it) and I need their $, do I necessarily respect the people,
no! I keep off grass because I am an avid gardener and I understand
what it means to the health of the grass. I certainly jaywalk when I
do not put anybody in jeopady because od my actions - I don't see why
I can't cross a street when there was no car coming! But these have
nothing to do with respect, these are common sense - if one thinks
about why these "rules" are there in the first place. I respect people
based on their actions, showing their values and discipline as a
human being. I disrespect (not being rude, just not take them seriously)
people when their actions show selfishness, when they break promises
in situations that they have control, when they take advantage of
others who are less fortunate, when they cannot admit they have made a
mistake, etc.
It is the parents' fault to place a child in a dangerous situation,
like windows, pools, hot stove, etc. The child is curious, not
self-destructive, no child will willing kill him/herself. Like the new
furniture exmaple, if I had a 2 year old, I would not bring my 2 year
old to any house that is not childproofed - why set my child up for
failure. If someone had new furniture and doesn't want a 2 year old to
climb all over it, then don't invite the family over. It has nothing
to do with respect, it is a matter of practicality, IMO. When my
daughter was going thru the terrible-two, I let her get her frustration
out of her system, I didn't get mad, I didn't punish her, I just left
her alone. My husband and I never laid hands on our daughter, but we
never set her up for failure. The out-of-sight-out-of-mind trick works
all the time, thus she was rarely punished. She was taught with the concept
of being fair and just and in case of question, put herself in someone
(something)'s shoes and think about the best action to take. We try to
set good examples for her, live what we teach, and disicpline was never
a problem. To this day, she is a straight A student, a really nice kid
whom we can trust (friends and family have commented on how mature and
good a kid she is). Yes, she likes to argue about things, but it shows
that her mind is working. Sometimes, she actually has better ideas than
we do. The fact that she thinks for herself has nothing to do with her
respect for me and my husband. I can repsect someone and still disagree
with them and vice versa. Yes, it can be frustrating at times, but so was
trying to figure out what a pre-talking child wants. I think it all depends
in what one value in a human being - what differentiate us from other live
forms that we know of is that we can reason, that is the basis of our
civilization, IMO. If no one challenges the status quo, there will not
be progress.
A child is like a new computer with no operating system installed.
The parents are the programmers. No, you didn't say "bad", but un-ruly,
naive, etc are not exactly positive words either. To me, when one apply
those adjectives to a computer, it would not make chance. Those
adjectives are judgemental descriptions based on our current societal
expectation compared to an socially considitoned adult, those are not
innate qualities. Any behavior exhibited by a child is a result of
te parental and social programming, plus some human instincts to
survive and the desire to be loved. The curoisity is a survial
instinct, so is the strong will. It is found in all wild animals, who
have been around much much longer than humans have. So, it does not
make sense to me to quench the survival instincts, so the child could
fit into the current norm. If the current behavior norm of being ruly
and all is that beneficical to us, it would have been in our genes!
Yes, in this day and age, we need to live in a society, but it doesn't
mean one cannot think for oneself. We need to understand where we came
from, how we got here and what we really are, before we make things
better.
Eva
|
| 99.26 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:57 | 19 |
| eva
why don't you give the basenoter something she can really use to
help her situation out - instead of rambling on and getting caught
into a 'big' rathole.
what was the subject anyways???
Massachusetts drivers??
working in the industry??
terrible twos??
I guess I could go on...
I don't think you've gotten the point yet...but then maybe you won't.
maybe we should talk about monopoly.
|
| 99.27 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:02 | 28 |
|
Andy,
Of course I don't know the whole story, the only people
who know are the basenoter and her family, that is obvious. Anyone
who replies to anyone in here does not know the whole story. So,
everyone here has to make some assumption of some sort, if the
assumptions are correct, then what they say may apply. No one
on this planet would have the exact experience as the basenoter.
The basenoter is the only one to make any judgement as to what
applies to her.
Whether knowing the whole story or not, my reply to the
basenoter stands. You may not agree based on value differences,
but anyone who writes anything in here will bring his/her values
in here. I cannot advice the basenoter to do certain things,
because it is her life and her choice. She has to think for herself,
she has to make judgement for herself. My entries can only be food
for thoughts. She can read my entries and say, "no, he is not that
type of a guy." Well, great at least, she thought about it.
Eva
|
| 99.28 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:10 | 18 |
|
re .26
To be courteous, I answered the questions directed at me from Andy.
If you don't want to read my replies to Andy, you don't have to.
I repeat, the replies are directed to Andy, not you.
I have already entered what I intended for the basenoter, if that
does not agree with you, it is not my problem.
To be fair, I entered ONE reply to the basenoter and got TWO
entries directed to me, you entered one of them. I did not ask
for the attention. You gave offered it. I was also the one to
point out the issue in this string. So, please, think about
what really happened here. Maybe the monopoly in yours?
Eva
|
| 99.29 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:21 | 24 |
|
re: .27
Eva,
That's fine.... You told her she did the right thing... I said all
sorts of warnings went off for me...
The problem I see with is that a person, reading the replies here,
might get a false sense of right/wrong in what they did. Personally
(IMHO) the basenoter entered her replies (.0 and .4) to seek support
and justification for what occured.
Whether she gets a whole lot of atta-boys! or gets chastised... will
not solve her deep seated problems.
My advice to the base-noter would be to seek professional help and
to stick to and do what they advise her to do. Too many people go for
help, but keep hopping from one shrink to another because it's not what
they want to hear...
I guess we'll have to let it go at that and use whatever's in here as
grist for the mill...
|
| 99.30 | | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:25 | 14 |
|
Glad I aint 'in' on this one...sheesh ;')
[mod hat on]
I see a lot of energy being exchanged here, just paging on through;
"oh, 197 lines? - like i'm going to read all that". I suspect that this
energy is being misappropriated; that it trully belongs pointed at
someone else, vs "each other". How do I know? I've...been there, done
that.
That being said, have at it - keep it clean as I suspect you have
so far. [mod hat off]
Joe
|
| 99.31 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:39 | 8 |
|
Andy,
Then, why didn't you go after .1, .2 and .3, they
all pretty much said the same things as I did, except I
was more blunt.
Eva
|
| 99.32 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:46 | 19 |
|
Eva,
I wasn't "after" anyone... honest... Maybe yours was easier to
parse... who knows? I didn't single you out and if that's the way it
looks or seems to you, then again, I apologize.
My replies are meant to be a mechanism for ALL to see and learn from
(including myself)...
The whole gist of all this is and should be "balance"... in life, in
relationships, in everything... There was no balance in .0 and .4 and I
guess I saw the pendulum swing waaaaaaaaay over to one (unreasonable)
side and just wanted to bring it back to center...
Andy
|
| 99.33 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:59 | 16 |
| Andy,
I guess that's why I suggested that she take a couple of years out.
That she take a good look at her life. Life is not meant to be lived
like that. Anyone that would get mixed up would probably bring their
own problems. Add that to the problems already there. It's better
to work on problems in solitare.
Maybe some day she'll be ready to be in a healthy relationship. She
can't do that when her situation and her son is in a unhealthy state
to begin with.
Like you said .. you would've bailed out sooner. Well you're probably
in a healthier state.
|
| 99.34 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 16:22 | 16 |
|
Andy,
Understood.
What I meant by she did the right thing - the right thing was to
not be part of a "family" with the SO. She is on her own now, with her
son, seeing the SO once in a while. It appeared to me that she has
already gone thru the thinking process and is looking for support.
Whatever goes on between her and her son is the only thing going for
her, that should be the most important thing in her life for a while.
So, it sort of puzzled me how what I wrote could be so out of it.
Eva
|
| 99.35 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 16:32 | 23 |
| I know you really don't want to hear from me. I'm sure you'd just
as soon that I leave this space.
you make toooo many assumptions
you go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topics
you don't really understand the logistics of everything but you
try to come across like you do (kind of like a know-it-all)
I'm sure that you are a very knowledgable person on 'some' subjects.
It would be ok if you didn't ramble off on something that it's obvious
that you know nothing about. The world isn't cut and dried. It's not
black and white.
you become very defensive when someone tries to talk to you about it.
when someone tries to point something out to you - you go off on these
subjects that you do know something about.
I just thought it was time to get back to reality.
yes I 'am' here..I know you're trying to pretend that I'm not.
|
| 99.36 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 16:52 | 27 |
|
re .35
You underestimate me, I am afraid. I am all ears if you address your
replies to me. What wouldn't I want to hear from you?! I would like to be
treated with courtesy, though. I would never barge into a conversation
between you and someone else, no matter what the conservation is about.
I would not judge your entries, since you have a right to enter your
thoughts. If you go rambling off into something, I wouldn't ask you to
stop, since if you cared to type in all the stuff, it must mean that
it is important to you. Andy asked me questioned concerning respect
and child raising, and I simply answered his questions. I don't see
why that should bother you. If you find that annoying, you could have
ask the moderator to tell us to go off line. I comply by the guidelines
of this conference and I don't see why you are so irate about it.
It is obvious to me that you don't care for my entries, it does not
bother me. Yet, I believe I do have a right to express myself in any
way that does not violate the conference guidelines, without your
approval. Your entry .35 reflects more on your intolerances and lack
of consideration for others than my ignorance in life subjects, IMO.
I do not wish you away since I have nothing to hide from you and I
may even have something to learn from you.
Eva
|
| 99.37 | | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 17:01 | 19 |
| Yes I do have a right to enter/write in here. Anyone does. My point
exactly in the monopoly. Did I get the point across here yet??
You want to talk about intolerances?
You are the one that seems to have some intolerance here.
You want to talk about annoyance?
Aren't you the one that got annoyed when I wrote?
I'm trying to say that it would be really nice if you left
your assumptions out.
Keep it to facts and reality....
I'm trying to say this with courtesy.
|
| 99.38 | | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Aug 03 1995 17:37 | 33 |
|
re .37
When I look back at the sequence of events here, conservation
between Andy and I have happened between my reply to the basenoter
.5 and your entry in .12. I didn't understand your .12, whether
it is related to .5 or my conversation with Andy. All I know
at that point is that I was told that I had no clue. My .5 was
pretty much in line with .1 .2. and .3, except that .4 said
they went the separate ways as an update and basically is looking
for a sanity check. So, if you were talking about .5 being way
out, then it has to be my values. If you were talking about my
conservation with Andy, I didn't see how, what, why .12 would
apply. You, yourself, also made too many assumptions about me
and my entry, but you can't let the basenoter judge for herself.
Yes, I was annoyed when a third party decided that the conservation
between Andy and I didn't worth a dime. When you started to get
into the middle of the conservation that I was asked to participate
to clarify some issues, then I found that impolite. If you thought
that Andy and I were ratholing, why didn't you ask him to stop too?
Why just me? That came across to me as a personal issue, me being
your problem, not the tangent, not the rathole. If you thought I made
too many assumptions, why didn't you say the same about .1, .2 and .3?
They made similar assumptions, they just didn't list them out.
The way you singled me out and interrupting my clarification process
with Andy, signals that you are on me personally. That is how I saw
it. I was not asking anyone to shut up, I was under the impression
that people did not like my values, since that was the only difference
between my entries and others before me, and that I should not be
chasitized by my values.
Eva
|
| 99.39 | is this blunt enough? | ASDG::CALL | | Thu Aug 03 1995 17:52 | 22 |
| No..
I'm sure you are a very noble and honorable person. I'm sure your
intent is good.
Have you been through two marriages and divorces 'and' a third split?
Do you have an inclining of what that might 'do' to an 11 year old boy?
Do you have an inclining of what this persons 'real' problems are?
Do you know yet what a monopoly is?
I'm not trying to be rude to you..I'm just saying that you really have
no idea oviously or you wouldn't be going 'atta girl'.
The only time you can take it personal is when I remind you that you
are make assumptions again. (you do that on a regular basis)
I'm sure I can learn from you also.
|
| 99.40 | | TP011::KENAH | Do we have any peanut butter? | Thu Aug 03 1995 18:10 | 4 |
| Karey:
I just read this entire string, and I have no idea what you're
talking about.
|
| 99.41 | | ASDG::CALL | | Fri Aug 04 1995 12:41 | 21 |
| I guess my hot button got pushed when - here is this person who's
never gone through a divorce - who's never tried to raise kids alone -
who's never gone through any of the asociated traumas - talking about
all these glorious and wonderful things - like principals, values,
honors - like that really has anything to do with the basenoters real
problems and the emotional trauma that she's going through.
It was beginning to monoplize the string. There was a few things that
I wanted to say to the basenoter - that I did. If I caused Eva a
few problems then I apologize. I'm not trying to say that you are not
an honorable and knowlegdable person.
I don't think anyone who has not gone through something like this
doesn't have a clue as to how painful and traumatizing it can be to a
person and the family involved.
The basenoters problems are including her son, but they are not the base
of her associated problems. I think the basenoter really needs to do
some soul searching to find the root cause of her problems. Once she
finds the root cause then and only then can she change the patterns
that are causing her so much pain.
|
| 99.42 | | CHEFS::CARTERC | | Mon Aug 07 1995 12:21 | 11 |
| I just read through most of this string - to be honest I didn't have
time to read every word, but having scanned it I think a lot of this
discussion should have teken place via mail...
The basenoters discussion point has been lost in a lot of personal
discussion between other people...
Xtine
|
| 99.43 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 07 1995 12:41 | 9 |
|
<-------
Not really...
Do you think her situation is unique?
Do you think nobody learned anything from the back-and-forth
discussions?
|
| 99.44 | | CHEFS::CARTERC | | Tue Aug 08 1995 08:14 | 13 |
| I don't think the situation is unique, and perhaps among all the
discussion there is useful discussion...
However, I still think (and I can only speak for myself) that a lot of the
discussion is between 2 or 3 people who are more worried about themselves
then the discussion at hand.
Now we can learn something from that in itself, I agree...
Xtine
|
| 99.45 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Aug 08 1995 09:43 | 20 |
|
Well... it's a good thing you clarified yourself about only speaking
for yourself...
As for your opinion that 2 or 3 people are more worried about
themselves thAn the discussion at hand?
^
I would suggest going back and reading for comprehension. It seems the
gist of my replies was that there wasn't enough information to make a
BALANCED judgment/decision/assessment... The suggestion was made that
much more needs to be known and that fairness be accounted for.
But.. then again, I'm speaking for myself and it's only my humble
opinion..
>Now we can learn something from that in itself, I agree...
yes... your reply says a lot too... Amazing what we can learn from a
few short paragraphs... no?
|
| 99.46 | Basenoter replies | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Tue Aug 08 1995 14:33 | 68 |
|
The following entry is being posted anonymously. You may contact the
author by mail, by sending your communication to me and I'll be glad to forward
it on. Your message will be forwarded with your name attached, unless you
request otherwise.
Joe
* * *
Andy,
>> Do you think nobody learned anything from the back-and-forth
>> discussions?
Since I was the basenoter on this particular string, I have to admit
that I've learned quite a bit. I was looking for support, and in .4
I made mention of my appreciation. I was *NOT* justifying my actions,
but sharing my experience with others. You seem to have, IMO a lot
of pent up frustrations that you needed to vent. Please don't take
this personally, but I really think *YOU* don't know the whole story
either.
It wasn't as bad as what you made it out to be, things didn't work
out, we went to counseling and my SO shared many things that you could
not possibly know about.
Like the fact that he had been in a very co-dependent situation with
his wife, for 25 years. Do you know what that is? Let me explain,
he had no life of his own, every breath he took was based on how his
SO would react. In short everything was the traditional family thing
mom stayed at home and raised the children and dad was at work making
a living for the family. Very simple lifestyle, IMO, I would have
loved to have this, but it just didn't work out that way. Anyway
my SO had this co-dependent life style combined with the traditional
family lifesyle and was very very angry that he never did anything
for himself. It was always for his family, he wouldn't take ANY time
for himself. He wouldn't even go on a weekend hunting trip because
it would take away from the *family* time!
I don't live that way and never will, I would not want someone to
be upset because they weren't able to experience all the things in
this wonderful life!! I could never ever do that to someone and
that someone was my SO. He told me that he in fact had done the
same things that he had done in his earlier relationship, he even
admitted it was sick, but he just wanted *ME*. He said he couldn't
take the time to make himself happy because it didn't involve *ME*!
I think you should put yourself in someone elses shoes, for a moment.
All things happen for a reason, my SO did NOT have a vengeful wife,
he had an ongoing co-dependent relationship that I couldn't turn
around for him. I'm doing fine and I know what I did was the right
thing for everyone concerned. He will be a healthier person for
this, if he does things for himself. I'm talking about all the
things we take for granted, like hopping on a bike to go for a ride
because *YOU* want to. My SO wouldn't do that because it would take
away time, that could be spent with *ME*!
Don't be so quick to judge a situation, until you really KNOW what's
going on.
I'm sure you have things you love to do by yourself, just imagine if
you weren't capable of doing those things because something inside you
said you just couldn't.
I can NOT make a person happy and I DON'T want the responsibility.
I have ONE CHILD and only one.
|
| 99.47 | The Emperor has no clothes... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Aug 08 1995 16:29 | 142 |
| re: .46
>Since I was the basenoter on this particular string, I have to admit
>that I've learned quite a bit. I was looking for support, and in .4
>I made mention of my appreciation. I was *NOT* justifying my actions,
>but sharing my experience with others.
Well, in my opinion of course, from your very brief description of your
situation, the best possible support you could get would be professional
help. As I stated earlier, when I read your account, all sorts of warnings
and bells and whistles went off...
The best thing for you might be help rather than support. Help to determine
why you've gone through (at least) three relationships, and if you're
starting a fourth, to help you determine why you should/should not be where
you are.
Support is a funny thing.... it's great when it does some good, but lousy
when you're determined to only get justification for whatever you're doing
(you being a generic term here). We can all go through life looking for
and getting support for all sorts of things that we do, but if I, for
instance go through life explaining to everyone why I drink and am heading
on the road to alcoholism and want and expect support in my decision rather
than help, who am I hurting?
Sometimes support is not "reality", no matter how hard we try for it to
be...
I know a few "friends" of ours who avoid us like the plague, because they
don't hear what they want to hear. They would rather go to what I consider
pseudo-friends and have these toadies tell them all sorts of wonderful
things about themselves rather than face some hard truths... To each his
own I guess..
>You seem to have, IMO a lot of pent up frustrations that you needed
>to vent. Please don't take this personally, but I really think *YOU*
>don't know the whole story either.
No, actually my frustrations are taken care of pretty well through my
physical work-outs and sharing communications with my SO... I discussed
this particular note with her, and yes, I told her of my "frustration"
at the imbalance of what was noted and discussed. She's a very reasonable
and level-headed person, very loving and understanding and loyal. We both
communicate extensively, which I feel is critical in a relationship, and
she's taught me a great deal about sharing and sacrifice, which is lacking
in many relationships today...
Anyway... she also noticed the "imbalance" and warning signs...
Please be at ease, as I'm not taking anything personally from your accounts
in .0 and .4 .... I tried to reiterate through my responses that I didn't
*KNOW* the whole story and never could. Even if I knew you and your SO
intimately, I still could never know everything...
I would like to take the time to caution you on a few things that you
wrote in .46....
You are divulging very personal details about this ex-SO of yours. Is he
a Digital employee? If so, would he see these things written here? Will
co-workers who might know some little bits and pieces of your relationship
figure out who you and your SO (assuming he works for Digital) are???
You admitted you went to counseling with him, and I presume all this
information is supposed to be confidential? Are you aware that you may
be liable in a civil litigation? You may be in jeopardy of dismissal too
by transmitting much of this info. Even if your SO didn't work for this
company, he may subpoena Digital, the moderators, and you to testify. Is
it worth it to garner "support"??
It seems it's very easy for you to divulge this information to show much
of your justification, vs. your understanding and love (IMO). I personally
would be averse to divulge, let alone mention some of these personal,
confidential things unless it was to gain some sort of upper hand and to
garner more "support".
>I think you should put yourself in someone elses shoes, for a moment.
But I thought that's what you didn't want me (or anyone else) to do
because we didn't know the whole story? How could I, when all I'm
hearing is your, obviously biased, side of the story?
Does your ex-SO work for Digital? Would it behoove you to make mention to
him all of the personal and confidential things you mentioned here and
allow him to enter some things from his perspective?? Perhaps he needs
some "support" too!
>My SO wouldn't do that because it would take away time, that could be
>spent with *ME*!
Ah... a sort of selfish (IMO) attitude seems to be rearing its ugly
head!! From much of your account, it seems sharing and sacrifice weren't
at the top of your list...
Did you, in your relationship, always try and make time for the two of
you?? With an 11 year old, who might try and manipulate his Mom and
monopolize her time, it could be trying at times to make those private
moments happen. Did you try? Hard? Somewhat? Never?
No need to answer here, these are rhetorical questions you need to answer
for yourself and not here (besides, the confidential aspect of it might
come into play).
>Don't be so quick to judge a situation, until you really KNOW what's
>going on.
Exactly!!!! Will you also tell that to all those people who might have
given you "support" and who don't know the whole story???
Would they give you that same support and pat on the back if they did
know the whole story??
Some deep points to ponder and reflect on. I'm sure I will...
Will you?
>I'm sure you have things you love to do by yourself, just imagine if
>you weren't capable of doing those things because something inside you
>said you just couldn't.
Is this your ex-SO you're talking about? Are you saying he was incapable
of doing anything on his own? With/without you? Because of some ingrained
indoctrination he suffered through all the years of his marriage??
Once again, it's very difficult because there's no balance here...
>I can NOT make a person happy and I DON'T want the responsibility.
Are you saying you can't make anyone happy, or just your ex-SO? Gee!
It sounds like you're saying the whole onus of the relationship and
carrying it through and making it work was on your shoulders! Or is
it you didn't want the "responsibility" of having to learn to share
it? Will you ever accept any sort of responsibility, in part or in whole
for any sort of relationship?
>I have ONE CHILD and only one.
Your obvious referal to your ex-SO in the above is extremely transparent
and sort of shows your distain for the situation/relationship.
As I stated at the top, it seems the best course for you is to seek
good, professional help.. Heaven knows we all need it at some point
in our lives!!
|
| 99.48 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Aug 08 1995 17:17 | 9 |
|
RE: .0 .4 .46
You know... my SO and I used to have a good friend (who, I guess, liked
her pseudo-friends more) who is/was in an extremely similar
situation...
Naaaaaaaaaah... couldn't be!!
|
| 99.49 | Understanding Codependence | QUARK::MODERATOR | | Wed Aug 09 1995 14:46 | 35 |
| The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
who wishes to remain anonymous. If you wish to contact the author by
mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
your name attached unless you request otherwise.
Steve
The comment in .46 regarding your SO's codependent marriage
relationship really struck a chord with me. I dated someone who
explained to me that she had been in a codependent marriage. Without
really understanding what codependence meant, I assumed that her ex
had had an unhealthy dependence on her. I further assumed that she
was the "healthy one" and that all this had no meaning in our
relationship.
But as we got to know each other, I learned something about
codependence. I learned that it is a two-way street, both people get
something out of it. I began to understand that she got a feeling of
being needed by someone that she felt could not cope with life without
her. I also came to understand that this part of their relationship
had survived their divorce. It made me sad to feel that she had such
a desperate need for him in this way.
Sometimes she would talk about changing her relationship with her ex
and her need set boundaries with him but she wouldn't or couldn't. I
don't think she was comfortable with any kind of changes in any part
of her life. I developed this nagging feeling that I was in love with
someone who had an unhealthy emotional need that I couldn't and didn't
want to relate to.
|
| 99.50 | | CHEFS::CARTERC | | Thu Aug 10 1995 06:56 | 21 |
| Re .45
Why must you continue to be so defensive and make personal attacks?
thEn versus thAn - a simple typo - you were able to make the correction
and therefore understood the meaning of my sentence - why do you feel
the need to make a mountain out of a molehill?
I don't want to perpetuate any more one-to-one non topic related
discussion... so you can slag off this note as much as you want and I
will not reply.
Xtine
ps. .47 - 'distain' is not a word! people in glass houses and all that ;-)
|
| 99.51 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 10 1995 11:57 | 33 |
| re: .50
>Why must you continue to be so defensive and make personal attacks?
Sorry if you saw it as a personal attack. Actually, you couldn't be
farther from the truth...
Please show me where I attacked you personally. What I asked you to do
was go back and read for comprehension. You stated yourself that you
"scanned" through everything, and then you made a bold pronunciation
that 2 or 3 people seemed to have problem. All that from just
"scanning"?
Who's being "defensive" here?
>thEn versus thAn - a simple typo - you were able to make the correction
>and therefore understood the meaning of my sentence - why do you
>feel the need to make a mountain out of a molehill?
It seems you're the one creating the mole-hill.. I corrected your
"typo" because the two words have completely different meanings. I
didn't linger and make a "mountain" out of anything, but went on to
explain "balance"...etc...
Who's being too sensitive here??
I'd rather not discuss this here either, as it takes away from the
main topic.
As for "codependence".. perhaps a new topic can be started??
Andy
|
| 99.52 | | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Fri Aug 11 1995 11:50 | 13 |
|
This string is all about co-dependency. Healthy relationship do not
engender emotional exhaustion, co-dependent ones do. People in healthy
relationships do not end up negotiating with themselves at their own
bottom line. However...people in co-dependent ones end up negotiating
with themselves all the time - until they're so sick and tired of being
sick and tired of it all that they get themselves out, like the
basenoter has.
Recommended reading: "Codependent No More" by Melody Beatty. You
can learn something about codependency, before you speak of it.
Joe
|
| 99.53 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Aug 11 1995 12:45 | 19 |
|
re: .52
I don't know if this was directed at anyone in particular, but my
suggestion for a new topic is purely from ignorance.
I have no idea what the term "co-dependant/co-dependence" means.
Is it some recent, New Age touchy-feely type term for a
condition/situation that's been around all along, but under a more
traditional name/term?
I really have no intention of reading the suggested material as it is
not apropos to my situation/relationship, but would like to hear/see a
succinct definition that would be understandable to a lay person.
Andy
|
| 99.54 | | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Your mind is in here and mine is also | Fri Aug 11 1995 15:50 | 41 |
|
Re -.1
> I really have no intention of reading the suggested material as it is
>not apropos to my situation/relationship, but would like to hear/see a
>succinct definition that would be understandable to a lay person.
Ummm, how do you know whether it's appropriate if you dont even know
what it is?
Anyway, "codependency" is a state of being in a relationship
between two people. Where one person in the relationship is getting
something from the other - and vice versa - that is *inappropriate*
to be either taking from someone or getting from someone else, in an
essential way.
A good example might be where one person is getting esteem and
admiration, in exchange for giving sex; the other is getting sex, in
exchange for giving admiration and esteem.
The inappropriateness in my example is that the person with issues
around self-esteem is sourcing fulfillment of that need from outside of
themselves; they have replaced an essential part of their self-development
with this "deal" to get it from another person. It's "easier", basically,
than it is to work through whatever is blocking their inner source - or
finding it in the first place.
Now for the other half, their willingness to accept sex from
someone who has this serious yet-to-be-resolved issue with themselves...
means they are exploitive, which is inappropriate. By giving to the
other person that which is essential to be developed on their own
accord, they are actually depriving them of the opportunity to do so.
In addition, their choice is indicative of a less-than well developed
relationship to their own sexuality, so another consequence is a
suspension of the opportunity to do that for themselves.
Hope I've made some sense here. Codependency is the deep belief that
this kind of interaction is all-okay, to the point where it's routinely
sought out as a way to form and do relationships.
Joe
|
| 99.55 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 16:48 | 8 |
|
re: .54
>Ummm, how do you know whether it's appropriate
Well... I got a smattering of what it might be from .0, .4 and .46
and based my answer on that. Sorry if I wasn't clear...
|
| 99.56 | exit | WRKSYS::MACKAY_E | | Thu Sep 14 1995 15:10 | 21 |
|
Karey and Andy,
I apologize that I got side-tracked in this note. I should not
have involved myself answering your questions. I should not have
taken notice of your accusations. I was too naive to think that by
clarifying myself, I was helping someone in some way. Instead, I
became the justifcation for your dysfunctional behaviors and the
vehicle for your own ideology.
This is one lesson I have learnt well and I will remember it for
good.
I have no intention to read this conference any further, since I do
not have time and energy to deal with your own personal hot bottoms that
I may push in the dark.
Eva
|
| 99.57 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Sep 14 1995 20:18 | 4 |
|
I guess that "dysfunctional behavior" was the cause of my "hot
bottoms"!!
|
| 99.58 | good one eva | ASDG::CALL | | Fri Sep 15 1995 10:51 | 8 |
| Andy
I'm sure glad that eva doesn't have the time and energy to push my
hot bottoms in the dark. Now that would be dysfunctional behavior.
I got a good laugh out of that one...
eva - I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but that was a good one.
|