| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 158.1 | Approval/verification | ADVAX::ENO | Bright Eyes | Thu Jan 08 1987 12:02 | 21 |
| I think many women do this to some extent. Certainly when I was
younger and involved with a man, I defined myself by his standards.
I can remember standing at the window, just waiting, for more than
an hour for a boyfriend to show up, and being totally at loose ends
when a weekend didn't include a man.
Thank heavens that I'm grown up a bit. It's a lesson that many
women (and men, too) learn at an early age -- looking for approval
and verification of everything they do from someone else. As a
very wise women once told me "Who says you have to please anyone
else? You can choose to, but there is no law that says anyone else
has to approve of what you do."
Sad to say, I still see my Mom doing this (she's 54, divorced five
years from her second husband). She wants to do some traveling,
but doesn't want to do it alone ... translation "doesn't want to
do it without a man". There's so much happiness she could get out
of life if she would stop feeling cheated because she is left so
young without a man to love her.
G
|
| 158.2 | Great Book! Great Topic! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Jan 08 1987 16:28 | 78 |
| If it's the same book I read, it's _Why Do I Think I Am Nothing
Without A Man_ by Penelope Russianoff, and I'm sorry I don't remember
her credentials but they ARE good!
Penelope also played Jill Clayburg's therapist in the movie "An Unmarried
Woman" and coupled with her knowledge and insight, I just fell in
love with this big, gypsy-looking woman. She's GREAT!
I've always remebered a particular line from the book that said,
"Don't you ever just sort of putter around until HE gets there?"
(accent was theirs!).
Well I was like that with my first SO when I was 16. He lived two
houses away and I used to sit in the front window staring at his house
and going NOWHERE just in case he decided to give me a call! As luck
would have it, he capitalized on my dependency and broke dates with me
at the last minute to go out with his buddies and I would watch as
they came and picked him up and off they went, hating myself but para-
lyzed to do anything about it. I remember crying and punching my
pillow and wanting to know WHY I couldn't change him.
This is the truth - I just woke up one day and said never again!
I just woke with this strength that has never left me since, and
I gathered together all his "things", (his class ring, albums, shirts,
little doo-dads), trekked over to his house, walked in and dumped them
on his kitchen table. His family was all there, he was shocked, and I
held my head up and said "I'll see ya' Paul!". He tried to get
me to stay but I turned and left.
Within a year he was crying at my feet and I was cruel, lounging
in the bittersweet taste of victory and the joy of finding out that
I was strong and happy and that I didn't die without him at all!
"Did you think I'd crumble, did you think I'd lay down and die?
Allright now go! Walk out the door! Don't turn around now,
You're not welcome any more!"
I am now 34 and I have NEVER forgotten the pain of dependency. The
scene was somewhat repeated when I was 27 and again in love. (love
is a pretty rare thing for me!). I found out he was after someone
else, (I guess he wanted to keep his sex privileges with me while he
tested the waters elsewhere!), and I gathered up his "things" and
tossed him out of my life so fast his head spun. It was obvious he
was NOT used to women with personal strength because he tried to jolly
me out of it and change my mind but I LAUGHED at him. I laughed that
he thought he could manipulate women so EASILY! Can't blame him,
women must have taught him that he could!
Dependency is NOT love! If a man makes you feel bad, get RID of
him! Same with a woman. A lover should be the very BEST part of
your life and fidelity should NEVER be given to anyone unless they
SHOW you, more than once, that they deserve it.
I think men tend to offer women crumbs and tokens of love to gain their
intimacy and fidelity, because too many women tend to fill in the
blanks for them as in "He really loves me in his own way" and stuff
like that while they endure his mis-treatment. Too many women don't
demand respect from their men because they are afraid he'll dump
them for someone he can mis-treat more easily. Women "assume" too
much and don't take men at face value. If he doesn't SAY he loves
you, then don't think he DOES! If he hasn't discussed being exclusive
with you, then date to your heart's content! Don't let them get
away with hinting that the relationship is what you want. Make
them come out and say what they feel and make them responsible for
it!
I'm sorry to ramble, but so many of my friends cry on my shoulder,
about their men and most of the problems are that they "assumed"
something the "innocent" man never actually said, (INTENTIONALLY
never said because they know they can usually get the same results
without declarations!). It frustrates me to see women cut themselves
off from the world after the second or third date when the guy never
said anything about being faithful to HER!
Read the book and get strong. Men DO want women and you don't have
to be a doormat to get one. In fact, you'd better NOT be if you
want to get a good one! No man respects a woman he can walk on
and he'll separate the women from the girls by trying!
|
| 158.3 | PS | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Jan 08 1987 16:32 | 1 |
| Quote in previous note by Gloria Gaynor - I forget the song title!
|
| 158.4 | It's a GREAT song!! | REGENT::MOZER | Joe | Thu Jan 08 1987 16:45 | 6 |
|
The title of the song you refer to is "I Will Survive".
Gloria Gaynor made it a hit and it's once I listen to often.
Joe
|
| 158.5 | If the shoe fits... | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Thu Jan 08 1987 16:50 | 7 |
| Wow. I'm speechless. That was a GREAT note, and one I
need to re-read until it sinks in!!!!
Thank you!!
Deborah
|
| 158.6 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Thu Jan 08 1987 16:51 | 2 |
| P.S. Does anyone have all the lyrics to that song?
|
| 158.7 | Thank you | WR1FOR::HENSLEYIR | | Thu Jan 08 1987 20:27 | 7 |
| re .2
Thank you. Your strength and lesson were just the right thing
I needed to hear just now.
/rene
|
| 158.8 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Jan 09 1987 00:30 | 69 |
| RE: .2
Definitely agree with the idea of being strong
and self-sufficient. But I hope that we can keep all
this in perspective by being aware of a few things:
Women have certainly been conditioned to believe
that their lives were "defined" by the presence of a
man and a stable relationship. A woman who was *NOT*
married by the age of 30 or so was labeled "Spinster"
(while a man in the same situation was labeled "Bachelor.")
The message was pretty clear -- a woman without a man
was someone to be pitied. A man without a woman was
someone to be envied.
In that framework, it stands to reason that women
would have a bit more anxiety about relationships than
men would have. Women were responding to the pressures
exerted by our culture to be a "success" (i.e., to have
a man.)
I'm speaking in the most general of terms, of course.
Not all women responded to the pressures by becoming
doormats. My Mother (who is now 63 years old) would laugh
herself silly at the idea that *she* could have ever been
*ANY* man's doormat. (Believe me, she never has been!!!)
Before we jump into an "us against them" bandwagon
(deciding that ALL men set out to try to test us to see
how far we can be pushed and/or mistreated) let's try to
keep in mind that NO ONE can turn any of us into doormats
unless we ALLOW it to happen! (We have a CHOICE in the
matter!)
In today's world, women do not NEED to find their
identities through their involvement with men. A woman
who is over 30 and not married is now called something
along the lines of "Career woman" (NO one says "Spinster"
anymore.)
It is no longer an economic necessity to have a man
(with a "man-size" income) to support us. Many women make
as much or more than the men they date/marry.
Since we no longer have the pressures on us to "define"
ourselves through men (and we no longer have to consider
it an economic necessity to have a man's support), we can
AFFORD to look at relationships the same way that men seem
to have looked at them: as companionship, love, emotional
security, development of family, etc.
In other words, we are free to stand up and approach
our relationships as "equal partners" with men (sharing
in the pleasure and satisfaction of building lives with
them.)
The key is that the CHOICE lies within ourselves!!!
Men are not the ones who force us to pace the floor (waiting
for them.) Men are ALSO not the ones who force us to be
mis-treated. We can only be mis-treated if we ALLOW ourselves
to be mis-treated.
Men are *not* the ones we have to worry about -- we
have to make the right choices OURSELVES about who we are
and how we want to approach relationships with members of
whichever sex we happen to choose to be involved with on
a romantic level.
Suzanne...
|
| 158.9 | | PARITY::DDAVIS | Dotti | Fri Jan 09 1987 08:27 | 9 |
| Re: 2
Thank you reminding me of an old situation, that for a long time
I had to work at getting up and brushing myself off and starting
all over again....and now that I can, what a release it is for me.
I can especially empathize with you about, "if he doesn't say he
loves you, don't assume he does".
Thanks again, for the reminder.
|
| 158.10 | happiness sometimes depends on relationships | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Fri Jan 09 1987 09:22 | 17 |
| To a lesser extent, I think a lot of people define their happiness
on their involvement with another individual. So many of my single
friends talk about how they wish they could find someone to date,
maybe eventually marry. And the pressure from others on them is
tremendous. They keep getting asked if they're going with someone
by well-meaning (but not very understanding) friends. I'm almost
made to feel guilty at times that I am in a wonderful relationship.
Some even make comments like they wish they could have a relationship
like mine.
All these people are out there looking for someone, trying to make
due until they find that special person. It's really sad that
society doesn't emphasize the individual more. People should be
able to be happy with what they are and not have to worry all the time
about where they can go to meet someone.
...Karen
|
| 158.12 | Don't shut yourself out from happiness | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Fri Jan 09 1987 11:55 | 27 |
| I'm quite taken aback by all the bitterness I read in most of this
note, and others in this conference. I agree completely that everyone,
women and men alike, must be strong and self-sufficient, but I think
Suzanne said it most succinctly that you can only be taken advantage
of if you allow it to happen. (Ann Landers often offers the same
advice.)
I am well aware that, from childhood, women are trained to be
subservient to men - mostly by their mothers who learned it from
THEIR mothers - but if you have half a brain and any willpower at
all, you can break out of that mold, and be accepted as an individual
much more so today than in years past.
If you had a particularly bad experience where you essentially sold
yourself into slavery to a man who treated you poorly, in one sense
he was only treating you as you were treating yourself. But even
so, that should not place such a big chip on your shoulder that
you are unwilling to be a partner to someone else - someone with
whom you can SHARE life - as equals. If you insist on keeping your
heart closed forever, you're going to miss out on a lot of pleasure.
So, be strong, yes. Be independent, yes. But also realize that
depending on others, and being depended on, is part of living.
To modify the old cliche - no woman is an island. Sharing life
with others is what it's all about.
Steve
|
| 158.13 | Tangent alert | ULTRA::ZURKO | Security is not pretty | Fri Jan 09 1987 12:03 | 23 |
| In general, I've balked badly when I've read notes telling women
not to be angry or bitter (.12, this is not an attack on your note;
it's something I've been thinking about for a while).
I am under the impression that it's OK, and maybe even healthy,
for women (and people) to go through a negative stage in their
emotional development. Women have been taught that expressing anger
or bitterness is bad. However, anger, properly directed, is often
the right response (for some period of time). I don't recall anyone
in this notesfile implying that they were angry (or bitter) all
the time, and that they will continue to be so. It seems to me people
need support at this time. They need to hear things like "I was
there too" and "I can see why you feel this way". And then talk
about how you worked through it, or how one can work through it.
And, of course, why it's better to work through it, then let it
stay.
I personally always allow myself negative emotions *for a predetermined
amount of time* (when possible). If I'm going to be depressed, I'll be
depressed for a day, or a week. Then I'll get my act together. That
sort of thing.
Mez
|
| 158.15 | Defined by society? | ULTRA::ZURKO | Security is not pretty | Fri Jan 09 1987 13:06 | 5 |
| re: .14 Thanx Steven_D. While I consider myself pretty good at not
defining my happiness by a man, on reading your reply, I realize
I am less good at being alone, and doing all those alone things
I enjoy doing. I'll give the suggestion a shot.
Mez
|
| 158.16 | A thought for either sex | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Fri Jan 09 1987 13:22 | 6 |
| Try a relationship with yourself first.
Only when that is successful, try one with someone else.
Mike
|
| 158.17 | All is not what is seams | STING::BARBER | | Fri Jan 09 1987 14:25 | 123 |
|
Iam glad to see that one of the women in this file came up
with this subject. Its been kinda kicking around in the
back of my brain for a wile and I was under the impression
that it would have sounded too sexist or whatever if entered
by a man.
There can and is sometimes two side to this coin, as I will explain.
I can think of some good examples of the different types of
behavior with some of the different women Ive known over the
last 10 years or so.
Last summer brought about an end of a four year relationship
that was very special to me. When I first met her, she was
a care free person that was not concerned with anything beyond
supporting herself and enjoying life. With in a few months of our
being together she started to come into a developing stage
of life and was starting to come into a realization that she wanted
more from life that just to work and party. Only one major problem
stood in her way to obtain this, she did not believe in herself.
I say this in that she was a very bright, intelligent person,
with incredible potential yet sought approval for most everything
she did. She found it difficult to make decisions because of this
insecurity in her own abilities. She had a degree in sociology
yet was working as a receptionist answering phones and hating it.
I believed in her and encouraged her to leave this job that she
hated and find something that she liked and compensated her for
what she was truly worth. I came to realize that I represented a
strong self confident person to her and she was relying on my
opinions and approval for her decisions. She eventually left the
receptionist job and found one as an administrative assistant,and
began to realize that she could do better for herself.
Still she knew that there was something missing, that this new
job was not fofilling something she needed. What I explained to
her was that she still needed something that was more of a challenge
to her abilities yet we ran into the old bug a boo of her not
believing she was up to anything else. This led to some major go
rounds since she was still not happy with herself and I kept
pressing her to go find something that would allow her to be
happy and believe in herself. A side effect of this insecurity
started into removing the belief in our relationship, what was
" yes I know I love you " became an occasional "well I dont
know and Iam not sure".
Well as it turns out 1986 turned out to be the year of that
transition. She changed jobs to become a benefits administrator,
changed apartments, got a new car, gained confidence in herself
by leaps and bounds, made all these decisions on her own, without
seeking approval. I began to see the person I always believed in
emerge and was really happy for her in that she was becoming a
more happy with herself person.
And then the unexpected change came, she left me for someone else.
She explained it to me in that she was'ent sure that it was the
right thing to do, but it was something that she felt she had
to do. It was not a fact that she didn't care about me any more,
that she did, yet she felt that she was still growing and would
not be able to ever catch up to my experience and confidence level,
and therefore would have a tendency to still rely on me rather
that do it on her own. That I was not a bad person, that I had
always been loyal to her and she knew how much I cared about her,
that she appreciated all the pain I went through helping her to
get where she was. It was just a matter of needing someone that
was at the same place in life as her and would grow with her.
Many would say who was I to judge that I was right in determining
what was right for her. I didn't judge, about a year or so into
our relation, she admitted to me that part of the attraction to me
was the belief and confidence in myself and that it showed in the
successes I had attained in life. That I was the only person that she
had met that did not take advantage of her dependency on a man and was
actually trying to help her believe in herself. I just tried to instill
the same belief that I had in her that she could have it herself.
Ill be the first to admit that some of the methods I used were
tough on her, and I remember the times Ide go overboard out of
fustration when the lack of confidence in our relation happened.
All I can say at this time is that I was doing it for us, because
I believed in us as two people that were good for each other.
The big difference being I didn't pray on her dependency like many
of the men who have been related to in previous notes, that my
intentions were good just some of my methods were wrong.
Some would say who was I to evaluate her as someone who needed
this by my standards. Well theres two things here, one was the
fact that she asked me for my opinions and help. The other was
that I was the same way 8 - ten years ago. The lady Ive been
talking about was ten years my junior. Back ten or so years
ago I was in a major slump just surviving. I had a degree in
Engineering yet had no confidence in myself or my abilities.
At that time I met a lady twelve years my senior, that started
off by being friends, and became something more intimate.
She was a self made person that had great confidence in herself
and was very sucessfull in the corporate world. Her problem was
a series of unsucessfull relationships with corp CEO types that
were married to their careers and could not devote the time to
a serious commitment.
This relationship was good for the both of us in that I tought
her the value of enjoying life in the slow vs fast lane.
She reciprocated by teaching me self confidence and that I was
better that the penny anty jobs that I had reneged myself to.
There then came the time where we both needed to go our separate
directions and parted as friends, we are still in occasional
contact today providing support to each other.
Now that Ive gone on too long and opened myself up too much,
The bottom line is that not all men take advantage of insecure
women and visa versa. I kinda think back into a note in HR by
Al Flood that related a situation similar to this and remember
thinking good greef, Iam not alone in this happening. It drives
home the point said by Polonious in Hamlet "know yourself and to
your ownself be true". This goes for both women as well as men.
If your not at peace and comfortable with yourself, youll never
be happy with someone else.
Bob B
|
| 158.19 | | RSTS32::TABER | If you can't bite, don't bark! | Fri Jan 09 1987 14:48 | 56 |
| Wow, Bob.... wow....
While I was reading your note all I could think was that both of you sound
like EXCEPTIONAL people... You've obviously got the courage and emotional
stability to see exactly what happened to your relationship and NOT be
bitter, and still help this young woman emerge as a strong individual,
and she had the courage to take it all the way....
I feel bad that you broke up, but only because I know you probably had
to sort through alot of pain to come as far as you did...
And boy, howdy, I admire you for that....
I don't know which is worse: being dependent on a man without being
aware of it, or being aware of it and being too weak to respond to it.
This kinda relates to the previous topic on having kids (not LIKING kids,
they're 2 different things :*)), but that I've been educated to the
point that not only do I have to worry about having kids in general, but
I have to worry about the position of dependency that puts me in
concerning society!!
If I want to stay home for 5 or 6 years, and get everyone safely out of
diapers and into kindergarten, I have to worry that should I lose my
"source of income and solace" (read my husband), I'm left helpless
(figuratively -- I've been accused of alot of things, but helpless has
never been one!) and in dire need of assistance!
I like to think that I'm not dependent on my husband as a "man"...
Yes, I am dependent on him as a partner in the marriage -- emotionally,
physically, and, sometimes, spiritually.... but I try not to let my
life spin around him. My life spins around me, and his life spins around
him, and where it's labelled "Married", we intersect for however much
we each need. Sometimes I'm 95% in there, and other times he feels only
the wind as I pass by from a distance.... and he's the same way..
Although I admit that all too recently I did elect to cancel a weekend
trip with a friend so I could stay home and pine for him as he went
off on a business trip.... *sigh* I know, I know... it still bothers
both of us and we fought about it for awhile....
Anyway, what I was TRYING to say is that it's all too easy to slide
into dependencies all in the name of "marriage" or "love" or
"making things work" when all you're doing is leaning on the other
person so you don't have to stand on your own two feet.
And since I now watch for those dependencies, it makes me cringe when
I run into one, even a little one, and I worry that I'm justifying
that potentially dangerous little habit in the name of marriage!
And pretty soon, I'm gonna have a whole batch of them to deal with!
And I'm probably talking too much as well.... It's been a tough week
at home and some of these issues are being raised... and I don't know
that I'm not more than just a little worried about them right now.
Karen
|
| 158.20 | | HBO::HENDRICKS | Holly | Fri Jan 09 1987 15:33 | 6 |
|
Bob--
Thanks for sharing all that with us. I'm impressed with your ability
to analyze a painful situation so deeply. I don't think you went
on too long--what you wrote was pertinent.
|
| 158.21 | It is NOT bitterness - to women it's status quo! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Fri Jan 09 1987 15:49 | 54 |
| re: -1 No one said anywhere that all men take advantage of dependent
women, (or vice versa). You read more than what was there.
re: .12 No, no one can be taken advantage of without their permission.
Women are raised specifically and deliberately to ALLOW it and enough
men in our lives enforce the lesson by taking advantage and trying to
"blackmail" their women by threatening to leave them if they DON'T
continue to allow it.
To a women bred to believe that having a man is EVERYTHING in life,
this is a very real threat and one that almost EVERY woman has backed
down to at least once in her life. Because women DO respond to
this threat, men learn the strength it has and the vicious circle goes
round and round. The whole topic of this note is that we must unlearn
this knee-jerk response to men. You, (or maybe another noter, sorry
if I'm wrong), stating that this SHOULDN'T be so is not news to anyone.
And no one knows that as much as the woman who "stands by her man",
and "chews her fingers to the bone, where is my man?", (I love quoting
songs - they really reflect our attitudes!), and suffers the pain
of the dependency they're taught.
We don't make conscious, clear though-out decisions to be doormats.
We become doormats because we have been taught we MUST have a man
NO MATTER WHAT! Don't ever forget that we have been taught that
having a man is MORE IMPORTANT than what we may even want to do
with our lives!! Our desires are supposed to be only "hobbies"
that we should willingly relinquish for "him".
In their interactions with women men begin to realize that women "put
up" with far more than they, (men), ever would from a woman. They may
or may not know why women are like this, and most YOUNG men don't
really CARE why but simply think "Hot damn!" and act accordingly.
And women sigh and commiserate.
But we're not sighing anymore. We KNOW now that we don't need to
be doormats but old habits, (and they ARE habits), die hard. Women
as a group are still not quite sure that they can BE strong and
have thoughts, feelings and desires apart from their mates and STILL
KEEP THEIR MATES!
That there exist men today who want strong and independent women goes
against all we've been taught, (and SHOWN), so naturally we look
at such declarations warily and are a little suspect. We know the
common joke where the man says "Sure she can, as long as she has
my dinner on the table!". The joke comes from truth. These are
TRUTHS to women! Whether or not men believe it, understand it or
agree with it is immaterial. Women lately don't believe it understand
it or agree with it EITHER! And that's the whole point here. Defining
ourselves by our men. Being, thinking, feeling nothing on our own
for fear it will upset him in some way and make him leave.
You men should be shocked that society has taught women that our
desires are NOTHING compared to those of our men and NOT shocked
that we've learned our lessons so well!
|
| 158.22 | A Different Vantage Point... | CAD::LTSMITH | Leslie | Fri Jan 09 1987 15:58 | 28 |
| Hi Folks,
Hope I can articulate this right, but it's a position that I
haven't seen in the replies yet. What triggered me was the
question of whether SO would be accompanying people to our
get-together, even if they don't contribute to the conference.
So here goes....
I have been one of those people that is always fiercely
independent. I run from anything that tries to make me
dependent. That's not to say that I run from responsibility, I
don't. I run from things that make me unnecessary dependent on
others.
So what happened after I fell in love? Turns out that the power
of our love gave me the freedom to become dependent on my hubby.
(Now I'm sure that sometimes he wishes I was more dependent, but
he should have seen me before I met him. :-)) The relationship we
built allows me to drop some of that incredibly strong
independent shield and enjoy the rewards of sharing our lives
together. Weird huh?
So anyway, he'll be at the get-together we're going to have
(especially since its at our house and we'll need help in getting
the cars parked for maximum room -- ha ha). But even if it was
somewhere else, I'd like him there to experience one of the
support systems that I use, and hopefully see another facet of
me.
-Leslie
|
| 158.23 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Fri Jan 09 1987 16:18 | 11 |
| re 12:
>...you can only be taken advantage of if you allow it to happen.
Well, one may allow it, but the person doing the taking advantage of
is not completely innocent. And that's why the anger exists. Anger
at oneself for allowing it is also very strong.
re 14 and 17: thank you for sensitive comments and sharing.
-Ellen
|
| 158.24 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Fri Jan 09 1987 17:08 | 33 |
| Re: .23, others
I would not even think of disagreeing that someone who takes advantage
of another is not innocent. My note in .12 was reacting to what I
read into a lot of the replies - mainly an attitude of "I'll be
damned if I'll ever open my soul to another man again!" Perhaps
I read it wrong because I've been wrestling with the same feeling
(but substitute "another woman" for "another man") over the past
year and a half.
Once you feel you have been betrayed, or taken advantage of, there
is this VERY strong defensive urge to just build up a strong wall
between you and everyone else. You want to make very sure you
don't get hurt again, so you don't let ANYONE past your defenses.
It was this kind of attitude I read into so many of the replies.
It takes a lot of effort to pull down the wall - and the patience
of a special someone. I'm still working on my own wall - it's
tougher than I thought.
I think I wanted my message to say that dependence comes in many
flavors, and some are not bad at all. To be TOO independent is
to prohibit yourself from sharing, from caring, and that to me
is sad.
As for the notion of a party where noters are being questioned as
to why they want to bring SOs - I think it is silly to think of
it as "I am defined by my man". I would hope that the noters want
to share their joy and their experiences with their SO. If you
make the partners feel unwelcome, you may make a lot of people
unhappy.
Steve
|
| 158.25 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Jan 09 1987 17:51 | 76 |
| RE: .24
Whoa!! Where did you read any women in this
conference say that they would never ever open up
their souls to men ever again? (I don't recall
seeing that myself, so please point it out if you
have a direct quote.)
Considering that so many of the female writers
in this conference are married (or have SO's), it's
not likely that we've all written men off.
I'm one of the folks who keeps saying "Let's not
be angry at men in general" but I certainly have a
great deal of determination myself to be EXACTLY WHO
I want to be (and not "define" myself by whatever man
is in my life.) That is not the same thing as saying
that I refuse to *ALLOW* a man in my life or that I
would not be willing to *GIVE* of myself to a man (if
I suddenly found myself in a long term relationship.)
I just don't want to *GIVE UP* my own identity --
and I know whereof I speak because I did exactly that
when I was married to my ex. He and I had a great deal
in common: We both loved HIM more than anyone else in
our lives, and we both made all decisions with HIS best
interests at heart. :-}
I feel that I have much to give someone, but I don't
intend to ever lose "myself" again in the process. As
someone else said, old habits die hard. (So I often have
to remind myself that the idea is to be an "equal partner"
and that if I end up laying myself down in front of the
door to be a mat again, I have only myself to blame because
I *KNOW BETTER* now!!)
I think much of the anger is directed at "no one in
particular" (because, after all, who is directly to blame
for having our culture teach us that we were "second class
citizens.") As we overcome that feeling, we probably feel
anger at ourselves for believing it in the first place (and
allowing it to influence our actions with men.)
But -- NONE of that is the same thing as saying that
we don't want to ever be involved with men again. (At
least, I know that *I* certainly don't feel that way!!!)
I *do* feel, however, that if I have to compromise who
I am (and the life I've built) that maybe I'm better off
on my own. I'm more than willing to *SHARE* myself and
what I've built with a man, but I'm not willing to just
give it all up. I don't think I'm "incomplete" without a
man (so therefore, I feel I have a choice as to what I'm
willing to sacrifice for one.)
There are moments when I realize that sometimes one
*HAS* to make tremendous sacrifices for love -- but I see
it as a two-way street now. (It shouldn't be determined
by which one happens to be the female.)
I think of love as two people coming together because
they both have something to offer each other (in the way
of love, companionship, commitment, etc.) I see both
people coming together in a strong, positive way (and in
their opening up to each other, they become vulnerable to
each other -- equally!!)
Since women were not basically taught how to be "equal
partners" with a man in a relationship, we've had to teach
ourselves (and remind ourselves that this is healthier than
what we were previously taught to believe were "our roles"
as women.) What you're seeing here, I think, Steve, is a
reaffirmation by many of us to keep all this clearly in
mind.
Suzanne...
|
| 158.26 | All in all it's just another brick in the wall... | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri Jan 09 1987 18:19 | 27 |
| Whoa there, Suzanne... I didn't see Steve say anyone had *said*
that. In .24 he explained that he was reacting to what *he read
into* some of the replies. In other words, his personal
interpretation of what had been written. That's not the
same thing as claiming anyone actually said that in so many
words.
As for the general topic... dependency isn't necessarily
bad. It's nice to be able to open yourself up to someone,
and be able to make yourself vulnerable without fear. That's
trust: it's an important part of any lasting relationship.
It's true that some people overdo it, and completely lose
any sense of themselves, trying to live entirely for the
other... and that's certainly the traditional woman's role.
People who are close---particularly spouses---tend to like
to help each other out, take care of each other. You can't
help out someone who's maniacally independent. You've gotta
relax. But you don't have to give up any of yourself to
do it... in fact, you gain quite a bit. Everyone changes
over time, particularly from living with someone who has
different ideas on some things... but that's just growth,
education. Don't let pieces of yourself slip away... but
don't be afraid to reach out for something more than just
yourself, either!
/dave
|
| 158.27 | sometimes it just takes growing up | CSC32::KOLBE | Liesl-Colo Spgs- DTN 522-5681 | Fri Jan 09 1987 19:44 | 30 |
| This topic certainly rings true for who I was in high school and
college. I can remember waiting painfully for THE PHONE CALL THAT
NEVER CAME. Part of that was youth and inexperience, plain girls
don't get a lot of dates and shy ones even fewer. Then after a few
hurtfull relationships I began to to see the light. That doesn't
mean that I don't depend on my husband. It just means I don't have
to.
Once you can get yourself to do the things you want to do regardless
of compaionship you are ready for a relationship. There is a lot
to be said for not putting all your eggs in one basket. If you expect
your SO to define who you are you have placed a terrible burden
on them.
I hate the articles in women's mags that suggest joining organinzations
just to meet men. But then as stated in another note women's mags
are sometimes trying to force the status quo to remain. I have several
sets of friends that my husband does not share. I had a guy here
at the center once say to me that I had a very strange marriage
because my hubs and I did things without each other. Yet I think
I'm very dependant on him. I hate to do bills so he does, I hate
to vacuum so he does etc and so on. If I didn't have at least a
little need for him why bother with the hassle of making a marriage
work? On the other hand, if we spilt up I still have a life that
does not require his presence.
As I look at the above I suppose it seems I leave no room for love
but thats not true I do love my husband, I do depend on him but
I won't crumple without him. I am a person in my own right. God,
how I wish I had known that 20 years ago at 17. Liesl
|
| 158.28 | Let me rephrase that a bit...... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Jan 09 1987 22:53 | 82 |
| RE: .26
You're right, Dave, he *did* say in .24 that
he was reading things into the replies. I over-
stated my case by asking him to supply quotes.
Let me rephrase: Steve (re: .24), I think you
may have read too much into the replies (based on the
personal feelings that *you* have because of your own
situation.) I read the same replies -- and, although
I basically disagree with the idea of feeling "anger
towards men," I never for a *minute* assumed that any
of the women writing about anger had decided to "give
up" on men permanently. (I certainly haven't myself!)
Dave -- about dependency -- don't be misled by the
strong words I'm using to relay my feelings of strength
and independence. As I stated in .25, I see the value
(and necessity) of "opening up" to loved ones and that
a certain "vulnerability" is inevitable from both sides
(and is desirable!) Like *you* said, it's part of TRUST
(which is necessary in any intimate relationship that *I*
care to have.)
I think we are basically in agreement (but are using
different words to express it.) I can see the value in
being able to depend on someone (and extending yourself
so that the other person can depend on you.) The inter-
dependency of two persons in a committed relationship is,
like trust, inevitable (and desirable -- to a point.)
My objection is to being "overly dependent" on someone
(the definition of which would have to be determined by
the parties involved.) If I were one of the "involved
parties," I would define it as a "loss of individual identity"
(and my feeling is that, because of the influences of our
culture, it would be *easier* for ME to fall into that role
than it would be for some men.) So -- as a result -- I'm
conscious of it and am reminding myself that being "overly
dependent" (and losing my sense of identity as an individual)
is something that I don't want to do.
The most important thing I have to offer to someone
(in a committed relationship) is *MYSELF*! (The income
I make and the assets I have are part of the package, but
they mean very little in comparison to what *I* have to
offer a man and what *HE* has to offer me, which is *HIMSELF*.)
If I lose *MYSELF*, then what do I have to give? Nothing
of very much value, as far as I'm concerned.
People do change over time (and are influenced by those
that share the intimate parts of their lives) -- quite true!
I'm not suggesting that I want to be totally inflexible about
everything (or anything!) I just want to enter into the
relationship on "even footing" (as *MYSELF*!)
What you said about "don't be afraid to reach out past
yourself" -- my thoughts on the subject have nothing to do
with fear. I'm not afraid to reach out (nor am I afraid
of "losing my identity.") I'm UNWILLING to lose my identity
-- that's something totally different.
As much as I have the "desire" (but not the desperate
"need") to share my life, I'm a "complete" person already.
If the opportunity to share my life doesn't come along, I
will still *have* a good life (and there will be people in
it!!) I won't consider it a tragedy if having a man is not
part of it.
I have no intention of "shutting men out of my life"
(no way!) :-) But I have no intention of "crumbling" (as
Liesl said) either if I end up on my own. Not only would
I survive -- I'd find happiness!!
How can I possibly expect to like anyone else or
make anyone else happy if I can't like *MYSELF* and make
*MYSELF* happy first? (I couldn't do that when I was
younger, but I can now.)
That's *all* I'm really trying to say. (OK? :-))
Suzanne...
|
| 158.29 | | TOPDOC::STANTON | I got a gal in Kalamazoo | Sat Jan 10 1987 00:47 | 27 |
|
Being dependent on a man for your identity can be painful for the man
as well. I had two relationships where I was "the phone call that never
came," where I was "never there" when I was needed, where I was
"insensitive" to her needs. I called more often, saw no one but
her, and spent hours talking about everything. Yet the minute I
stepped out the door the clock started ticking again until my return,
and all the travails of the day resulted from my inability to "be
there" when things fell apart.
Men get hooked on this dependency. At first it's flattering, and
next you feel a slight sense of power, but unless you are a heartless
person you eventually realize that anything you do has a great affect
your relationship. The wrong word, the wrong gesture, or the wrong
touch topples the house of cards. You become afraid to do anything
lest it hurt the person you love. Yet in the end it is not unlike
dealing with an addict. You must realize you are not the cause of
all the problems, only the symptom. After the second relationship
of this kind it took some time for me to feel like I had anything
to offer women. I buried many inner feelings for fear I would, again,
hurt someone I loved.
Not by chance, I married a very strong woman who has no qualms
telling me I am not the center of the universe, and I am grateful
every day to awake next to her. She is proud, happily defiant, and
thoroughly unique. We can make mistakes without feeling like the
world is coming apart.
|
| 158.30 | hmmmm... | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Sun Jan 11 1987 13:49 | 14 |
| .28: As I said (or at least, as I *thought* I said!), you
shouldn't want to or have to give up any of yourself in a
good relationship... there's some change, but it's mostly
additive. I think we're in violent agreement...
In any case, if it wasn't clear (and from your reply, it
appears that it wasn't), the words "As for the general topic"
in the beginning of .26's second paragraph were intended
to end the part of my reply directed to you... the rest was
just generic discussion. You know me well enough that I'm
sure you didn't take it *too* personally... but it never
hurts to make sure! :-)
/dave
|
| 158.31 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Jan 12 1987 02:51 | 27 |
| RE: .30
Oh, yeah -- looking back, I can see that you said
"As to the general topic..." (Guess the whole note
just hits a little too close to home for me.) Your
words hit me somewhat on an emotional level (although
you're right, I *do* know you well enough that I didn't
take it too personally!) :-)
I started to realize that one or two men (at least)
were seeing some of the notes from women in this conference
as being a bit extreme (having excessive hostility
towards men and possibly turning away from men in the
process.) I'm not suggesting that *you* have these ideas,
but I did want to take the opportunity to clear up what I
saw as a POSSIBLE misinterpretation of what *I'd* said earlier
(and some other notes in this conference.)
Also, must confess that I found the basenote somewhat
disturbing (the suggestion that professional women could
be subject to the kind of "over dependency" on men that
I had thought most women tended to leave behind as they
became self-sufficient.) I'm NOT saying that the book
mentioned was untrue -- I just found the material quite
disturbing to think about.
Suzanne...
|
| 158.32 | not all "professional" women are really smart | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Mon Jan 12 1987 09:29 | 20 |
| RE: .31
> Also, must confess that I found the basenote somewhat
>disturbing (the suggestion that professional women could
>be subject to the kind of "over dependency" on men that
>I had thought most women tended to leave behind as they
>became self-sufficient.) I'm NOT saying that the book
>mentioned was untrue -- I just found the material quite
>disturbing to think about.
The kind of dependency on men that I think is being discussed
here has nothing to do with income or profession. At least
that's not what I've interpreted. I resent the thinking that
I infer here which is "a professional woman can't be that dumb".
I've known plenty of professional women who are brilliant in their
careers but are in really dumb and dependent on men! I've also known
other women (non-professionals) who were *much* "smarter" about men
and not being dependent on them emotionally.
-Ellen
|
| 158.33 | Trust & Sharing is NOT Dependence! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Mon Jan 12 1987 09:34 | 40 |
| TOPDOC::STANTON, whoever you are, your note was perfect! I suppose
the base note isn't specifically looking for men's reactions to
their women's dependencies, but I find it fascinating.
First it's flattering, then you feel a sense of power, and then,
depending on what kind of man you are, (think you are or want to
be), you either stop at the "sense of power" step or decide you
want a whole woman. Most young men, (the ones we date in our
"formative" years, stop at the sense of power. It's got to be heady
stuff to an 18 year old that he can do as he pleases and have one
or more girls waiting at his beck and call. Some men grow up, some
don't. If society tells them they don't HAVE to, ("There will be
other women to dominate - don't sweat over this chick! You just
want an 'old-fashioned' girl!"), then treating women fairly
becomes a choice for a man, with society sanctioning whichever choice
he makes.
And Steve, I agree with Suzanne, (as usual!), in that no one here
is stating or suggesting that they will "never again open their
souls to a man". Just that they will never again keep around the
type of man who demands dependency of his woman. The first step
is to recognize him because the male dominant/female dependent balance
is so ingrained in our society and until now so accepted that we,
men and women alike, don't always realize what's actually going
on.
And for the two noters who said dependence can be a good thing -
wrong! One said that and went on to describe the aspects of trust
and sharing. That is NOT dependence. When doing for another is
a requirement rather than a courtesy and/or a pleasure, that is
dependence. When you NEED rather than want - that's dependence.
When you simply cannot do without him - when the clock starts ticking
the minute he walks out the door, (you've got some great insights,
Mr Stanton!), that's dependency.
When you occasionally lean on your lover who occasionally leans
on you, that is NOT dependency. When you open yourself up and become
vulnerable to your lover that is NOT dependency. If your lover
abuses that vulnerability AND YOU ACCEPT IT, that's dependency.
|
| 158.34 | You jumped to a few erroneous conclusions.... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Jan 12 1987 10:06 | 46 |
| re: .32
You seem to have inferred that I think that only
Professional women are smart (and that being overly-dependent
on men is "dumb.") If I felt that way, I'd be insulting
myself! :-)
I stated (somewhere) that my Mother would laugh herself
silly at the thought of being *ANY* man's doormat. (In my
whole life, I've never seen her compromise her dignity an
*INCH*!) She was a career secretary (never wanted to be
anything other than that.) My father was a big exec in a
worldwide company (and traveled to the Far East every month
on business.) Even when she became a fulltime homemaker
in her early 50's, she kept Dad on his toes. She may not
have ever had a huge "professional" career, but smart? You
betcha! Doormat? No way! (But I don't think brains had
much to do with it.) She has always had a certain
self-confidence that I have envied.
When I realized that I was being a "doormat" for
my ex-husband, I was already a college graduate with a job
in Management (not DEC.) It was a Professional job and I
knew I was smart. The relationship I had with my ex was
*UNFORTUNATE* (I don't see it as dumb, exactly.)
I think of it as "unenlightened" (and when I wanted
to change it, I looked to other women as role models.)
The ones I looked up to happened to be women in more
professional jobs than mine. (No prejudice intended --
we are all free to pick our own inspirational figures!)
My definite impression was that they did not exhibit the
same behavior that had been a problem for me in my
marriage.
I don't think *ANY* women should be doormats (no
matter what their occupation or level of intelligence!!!)
It has nothing to do with "brains"!
All I meant was that the basenote reminded me (or
informed me) that my role models had some of the same
problems that *I* used to have.
Well, I guess we're all human....
Suzanne...
|
| 158.35 | How about this? | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Mon Jan 12 1987 14:15 | 21 |
|
I was recently given a bit of "advice" from a friend which reminds
me of this file. I was involved in a conversation with a good friend
who happens to be 32 yrs. old, female, has a college degree, and
worked as a professional (course developer, instructor, tech. writer)
until she recently quit to be full-time mother of two. This
conversation involved a decision which I have made regarding a
financial matter. She totally disagreed with my decision and spent
the better part of a lunch hour trying to change my mind, which
she didn't do. Finally she looked at me sadly, shook her head,
and said, "What you need, Lorna, is a MAN to take care of you!"
She wasn't kidding. I was too surprised to even give a good answer.
I think I said something like, "Do you *really* think so?"
This, from a 32 yr. old, female, college graduate in 1987! Oh,
dear.
Lorna
|
| 158.36 | I'm a lot better now, thanks... | ARGUS::CORWIN | Jill Corwin | Mon Jan 12 1987 15:34 | 79 |
| (mostly a reply to .0)
Just over two years ago, my ex-husband decided he wanted a divorce, rather
than "working things out." I was 26, and I had never been independent; we
were married 2 weeks after I graduated from college. I was scared more than
anything else; I actually had to find my own apartment, buy my own car, pay my
own bills and everything.
I finally started living my own life, and doing what I wanted. I didn't need
anyone's approval anymore. I went out with one man frequently; I suppose he was
sort of my "boyfriend", but that didn't stop me from dating other men, or making
new friends of my own and visiting them. It also didn't stop me from enjoying
time spent by myself at home. I was very happy with the status quo; I didn't
feel like I needed a man or a "committed relationship" to be happy. I think
the experience of living alone was what I needed then to gain some self-
confidence; I really could live alone and be happy.
Well, one fine day (a year ago today, to be exact :-)) I had a "date" with a
man I had never dated before. I figured I'd have a good time (since we had
communicated a lot via VAXmail in the past, and since we had interesting plans
for the day.) Within a few days, I was dating him exclusively (and, yes, he
was also dating *me* exclusively!) and I was spending less and less time doing
what I had been doing until that day, and I was spending more and more time
with Bill, because it was what we both enjoyed the most.
Now we're engaged, and I'm glad I had that time on my own to prove to myself
that I didn't need to spend the time between men looking for a man.
No, I don't hang at the window waiting for him to waltz in. I know better than
that. I'm usually working on one of my hobbies or reading when he calls from
work to say he'll be late. :-)
> Do you put your life in limbo, looking for HIM to give approval or
> validate what you said/did/felt?
I've finally gotten enough self-confidence to let him know my (strong) feelings
on some controversial subjects when I know he disagrees with me. I've also told
him I was willing to do some things his way, because I loved him and cared more
about him than about what I was giving up, although I couldn't change my
underlying beliefs. I could never let my ex-husband know how I felt about some
of those things, so this is a big step for me, being able to communicate my
thoughts without fear of what someone else would think.
I don't define happiness through my man, but we can find it together, and, on
the other hand, when one of us is unhappy, the unhappiness gets shared.
> One woman bought an expensive sports car, but found it hard to drive,
> and so her SO/spouse drove it for her and did all of the driving...
That's an interesting story. I've found that one of my biggest dependencies,
one that I hadn't totally given up while "single", is driving. It has nothing
to do with "power" or a desire for the dependency. I just don't like driving
at night, especially in the rain, and would much prefer SOMEONE ELSE be doing
it, be they male or female. I'm not crazy about daytime driving either, and will
opt for being the passenger (with a few exceptions :-)). But this "fear of
driving", I believe, detracts from some things I would normally do without Bill,
because I'd have to drive there myself. And this, I know, is not good.
> Do you spend every available moment with your spouse/SO?
Not every available moment, but lots of them. I find I'm visiting my friends
less. I enjoy spending the time with Bill, though. I don't feel like I can't
go see them if I want to.
> How many of you are coming to the party WITH SO's and spouses because
> you'd feel funny without them... when they're not directly a part of
> our conference?
I usually feel funny going to parties by myself. Maybe I am still too shy and
don't expect to socialize enough to feel a part of things. As stated before,
I also don't like driving in the dark, especially when I'm tired.
I am planning on coming to the party without Bill, because I don't think he'd
enjoy himself there (he hasn't been reading this conference.) I have skipped
several parties in the past because Bill didn't feel like going and I wasn't
extremely interested in going, but I want to go to this party badly enough to
take the plunge!
Jill
|
| 158.37 | logistical/emotional dependence | CLAB8::ENO | Bright Eyes | Tue Jan 13 1987 11:53 | 25 |
| I'd like to make a distinction between emotional and "logistical"
dependence.
I am definitely logistically dependent on my husband. He deals
with the cars due to a higher level of knowledge about them, so
I don't have to think about it. He also doesn't worry too much
about managing the budget, since that's my area of expertise.
But that's not dependence, that partnership. We can lean on each
other and give up some self-sufficiency so that the family unit
functions more smoothly. This doesn't mean that I can't check my
own oil and he can't balance the checkbook.
Emotional dependence is another story. I think a lot of women become
emotionally dependent on men because they fear loneliness so much.
But speaking as someone who had loneliness for a roommate for a
number of years, there are many things worse. Knowing that, should
I lose my husband in some way, I could still function and still
be happy and still have a good life, keeps me from being emotionally
dependent on him. It would not be the life I choose, but it would
still be my life.
G
|
| 158.39 | independence through networks | CLAB8::ENO | Bright Eyes | Tue Jan 13 1987 16:39 | 6 |
| Steven, you've clarified my point. It's dependence when you are
looking to only one person. If you look to a variety of people,
you have a network holding you up, and if one link no longer supports
you, you don't fall down.
G
|
| 158.40 | Cry and you cry alone! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Tue Jan 13 1987 17:39 | 22 |
| Dependence is dependence! Whether you lean on one man or lean on
one class of people you still are admitting you can't stand on
your own two feet. And whether you like it or not, every person
you lean on KNOWS it and makes a conscious choice to be charitable
about it or to use it against you.
My feeling is why give another person the choice to hurt you? Sounds
kind of like a sting operation. Lay a million bucks in front of
someone and then judge them according to what they do about it?
Not fair! If you want a whole, real person, you must BE a whole
real person and you deserve to get what you are willing to give.
When you "fall down" you do it alone. You are damn lucky if you
have even ONE true, real friend who comes to comfort you. If you
go looking for someone to comfort you, you are dependent.
If you accept comfort that is OFFERED in the spirit of love and
friendship that is NOT dependent, that is luck. And that is what
we are all after - real friends, real love, real people. We owe
it to ourselves and to everyone else who is looking for the same thing
to BE a real person because "as you sow, so shall you reap."
|
| 158.42 | Independent people are *NOT* rabid perfectionists... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 06:18 | 80 |
| RE .41 (Steve Thompson)
> Dependence is no less evil than militant IN-dependence ...
> We suggest that the few truly independent people out there are
> at a extreme of ego_centric behavior that is just IN-human...
Why is being "independent" considered by you to be MILITANT
and IN-HUMAN? I haven't seen anyone here swear off people on
a permanent basis -- do you feel that women who do NOT feel
"dependent" on men have some sort of serious problem (you
keep using negative words to describe "independence.")
>> If you want a whole, real person, you must BE a whole real person
> Very Nice ... and surely no problem for the few perfect
> women out there. But what about the many who still seek to be
> balanced enough to love and be loved by someone while we have
> not yet resolved our imperfect tendency to "depend" on having
> that love available on a regular basis?
Why does the idea of "PERFECTION" keep coming up (in the
notes on whether or not we are dependent on men and whether or
not we try to change men)? Independent people are not rabid
perfectionists who shun people!!
The idea of *NOT* being overly-dependent on MEN (as love
interests) does not mean SHUTTING MEN OUT OF OUR LIVES. It
does not mean that we do not CHOOSE to be with men (and do
not value closeness, love, sharing life's chores, etc.) For
me, it merely means that I can *CHOOSE* to have a man in my
life as a love interest, but I'm *NOT* "incomplete" or FORLORN
if I don't happen to have one at any given moment. I can be
*HAPPY* on my own!!
Having a good "SUPPORT SYSTEM" is wonderful (and *NOT*
the same thing as being dependent on men as love interests.)
Ever since I joined DEC, I've always had people (male and
female) that I've been able to COUNT on for emotional support.
I'm not "joined at the hip" with ANY of them (they have their
own busy lives, and I have mine.) I don't see any of these
people on an extremely frequent basis (to prevent boredom.)
With a teenage boy in the house, I'm never bored. (Tired,
but not bored.) :-)
I'm completely capable of entertaining myself (and making
my own plans to make life interesting.) But, boy, when I need
someone to offer true emotional support, there are people THERE
for me. Luckily, it's not a constant need of mine (but it's
good to be part of a "support system" anyway!) A good example
of this was recently, when I thought I might need major surgery.
Two DEC engineers (one male, one female) offered to take a
vacation day on the day I went in to the hospital (to drive
me there and help me get settled.) They've both told me that
any time I have a need like that in the future, they will take
me (and use up vacation time, cancel plans, or whatever.) Even
if I don't "hang out" with these folks every Friday night, they
are THERE for me (as I am THERE for them.) That's what counts!
Support systems are *NOT* the same thing as "being defined
by a man" (or being DEPENDENT on a man.) Being "INDEPENDENT"
does *NOT* mean that we do not allow ourselves to have support
systems (or to interact regularly with other humans.)
Believe it or not, being "independent" is not an insult
to men. It is not an attempt to be "perfect" (and is not
"ego-centric.") It's just a state of being that allows us
to be close to men out of choice (without making men the
"reason to exist" and the most central thing in our psyches.)
Not all women (or men) can be this way. It's a choice
we all have to make for ourselves. (I think it is *sad* and
possibly *unwise* to see a woman who lives through a man, but each
person has the choice to be that way if he/she chooses to be.)
Myself, I'd rather *not* be that way. That is strictly my own
opinion (my own perspective.)
The important thing is that being independent is not an
EXTREME position. It may not be feasible for all of us, but
it's NOT a sign that a person is mal-adjusted or ego-centric.
Suzanne...
|
| 158.43 | Thank you, Suzanne! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Jan 14 1987 09:10 | 3 |
| There is a LOT of room between living totally and completely for
a man to the exclusion of your own thoughts and ideas and being a
fiercly independent, rabid perfectionist!
|
| 158.44 | you're not dependent on anyone, huh? | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Jan 14 1987 09:44 | 66 |
| Everyone's dependent on everyone else. You depend on your
mortgage holder or landlord for housing, you depend on Digital
for money, you depend on our government (and others) for
the continued existance of our civilization (not to mention
of our world). You depend on the field service engineers
(unless you are one!) to keep the hardware you use working
(virtually *everyone* in Digital depends on at least one
computer, at least for MAIL). You depend on the software
engineers in operating systems and layered products to make
useful and reliable products. You depend on other drivers
not to be malicious maniacs, you depend on the fire department
and police department to protect your residence, car, or
whatever when necessary. You depend on your doctor(s) to
keep you healthy. Most people depend on some form of birth
control to prevent pregnancy when it's not desired... and
on nature to *provide* it when desired.
If our civilization died overnight most people would die
with it... if only by starvation as the electricity ended
and the food supplies rotted away.
The only way to be completely independent is to live alone on an
island, and grow, build, or catch *everything* with your own two
hands, be entirely responsible for every phase of your entire
life and death. *Nobody* in any even moderately advanced
civilization can honestly say they do that: very few are even
capable of it.
Complete independence is every bit as ridiculous and unrealistic
as complete dependence for anyone reading this conference:
independent hermits just don't sit at computer terminals
reading notes.
What people in this topic seem to be attempting to argue against
is complete and total submergence of a woman's personality to a
man. That's complete dependency; such a woman has completely
forsaken any ability to function by herself which she might have
had. That's bad. It's also a highly incredible image, but
I won't argue boundary conditions.
But I'm dependent on Barbara, and she's dependent on me. As
*all* spouses, to be honest, are dependent on each other. If
nothing else, neither of us could afford our house, nor our
current lifestyle, were we to separate. Certainly neither
of us would be as happy (at least for a while).
But neither of us has attempted to become an appendage of the
other, either, completely without function in the absence of the
other. We survive, and function more or less normally, when the
other goes on a business trip; and were we to separate for some
inconceivable reason, we'd both adjust and go on with life.
Neither would collapse instantly in an inert lump of protoplasm.
I suspect, and hope, that this is what is being talked about as
"independence"... but if so, some noters aren't expressing
themselves very effectively.
There isn't a binary scale of "independent" on one side and
"completely subserviantly dependent" on the other. It's
a continuous gray scale, and very, *very* few people have
ever sat at one end or the other of that scale. If I found
myself at the full-dependent end of the scale, I'd probably
kill myself (although I doubt such a person would be capable
of it alone :-))... at the completely-independent end of
the scale, at the very best, I'd be unbelievably bored.
/dave
|
| 158.45 | My parents figured out early that I took movies seriously... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 10:09 | 46 |
| RE: .44
Just a quick side tangent (can't help myself!!) :-)
The first time I ever became aware of being technically
inclined was when I saw a movie about "life after the bomb"
and saw that technology seemed to be lost forever (because
the only people left alive on earth knew nothing about it.)
I was just a kid, but I remember thinking that *I*
had better learn how things worked (electricity, electronics,
etc.) because I'd feel like sh*t if I was the last person
left in the world and didn't *KNOW* about technology (and
CAUSED the whole thing to die out!) :-)
Not that I *wanted* to be alone on earth, but I felt
that the future of technology could rest on my shoulders
(so I had better know what the heck it was all about!)
Don't you love the way kids think sometimes?? :-) :-)
Seriously, Dave, you're right -- the whole point is
that being "independent" does not mean being a total hermit
(or not "depending" on folks and institutions in many ways,
and it doesn't mean not being THERE for folks to depend on YOU!)
If you could look into your future and it was going
to be without Barbara (I'm sure that's not true) and it
was going to be without *ANY* serious relationship with
a female -- would you kill yourself? Or would you just
set out to enjoy life in whatever way you *COULD*?
I've always convinced myself that I could make a life
no matter what circumstance I end up in (including jail,
God forbid.) Not that I'm doing anything to risk that,
of course (but just as an extreme example.)
We could get bogged down in definitions of what
"independence" is (and I do agree that we're NOT talking
about total isolation.) I've been ALARMED at how the
idea that women can exist on their own (without a complete
personality-merge with a man) can bring visions of
maniacal freaks who don't want human contact. As I said
in my last note, that's not what "independence" means AT
ALL!
Suzanne...
|
| 158.46 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Wed Jan 14 1987 10:51 | 12 |
| re .44:
Thank you, Dave! You said it perfectly.
re .40:
Is falling down all that bad? I've fallen down a couple of times
and, although it wasn't fun at the time, it wasn't the end of the
world. I'm happy again. I'm also smarter and wiser and I like myself
better.
-Ellen
|
| 158.47 | department of redundancy department | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Jan 14 1987 11:00 | 28 |
| > If you could look into your future and it was going
> to be without Barbara (I'm sure that's not true) and it
> was going to be without *ANY* serious relationship with
> a female -- would you kill yourself? Or would you just
> set out to enjoy life in whatever way you *COULD*?
I explained that already, actually, so I won't repeat myself
aside from this implicit question as to whether you read
my note carefully enough... :-) :-)
My point is that I've been seeing in some of the replies here
(and often it's explicit, not just my interpretation) that
"dependency" is *bad* and must be totally avoided. I'm saying
you can't do that, and probably shouldn't want to. There's
nothing wrong with dependency... in any case, it's a fact
of life, and simply isn't avoidable. It's the extreme of
dependency which is deplorable... when someone is reduced
to a useless blob of protoplasm in the absence of some external
factor (whether it's a man, a woman, a religion, or whatever).
Being "dependent" just isn't the same thing as being helpless.
If someone says "women shouldn't be helpless without a man",
I couldn't agree more. When someone says "women shouldn't
be dependent", and especially when they make it pretty clear
that they don't mean just "dependent to the extent of being
helpless", something's wrong...
/dave
|
| 158.48 | You MUST risk failure to grow! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Jan 14 1987 11:07 | 19 |
| Who said falling down was bad? It's bad if you stay down, good
if you learn from it. The point is that it's something you do
ALONE. Most everything you do is "alone" in the sense that no one
else is in your brain experiencing what you are. Others can share
but you are each experiencing alone.
This is the fear of dependent women. They don't want to BE alone
and fight the fact that they must be separate, (literally and
figuratively), entities from their men. They cling to their men
and willingly give up their identities to avoid what they perceive
as the pain of being alone. When they fall down they stay until
they are rescued and the only thing they learn is to cling more
tightly in case they ever fall again.
The saddest part is dependent women are NEVER happy, (I sure wasn't
with my one dependent relationship!). Occassionally, if the man is
'performing well', they are placated and calm but fear and panic walk
beside them every day and not a word is uttered or a deed done without
first considering its man-keeping implications.
|
| 158.50 | We've *got* to stop meeting like this... :-) :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 11:45 | 33 |
|
>> If you could look into your future and it was going
>> to be without Barbara (I'm sure that's not true) and it
>> was going to be without *ANY* serious relationship with
>> a female -- would you kill yourself? Or would you just
>> set out to enjoy life in whatever way you *COULD*?
> I explained that already, actually, so I won't repeat myself
> aside from this implicit question as to whether you read
> my note carefully enough... :-) :-)
Uh, Dave -- it was supposed to be a rhetorical
question (to make the point that as much as you love
Barbara and being married, it wouldn't *KILL* you even
if you lost that part of your life forever and *KNEW*
that there was *NO HOPE* of getting it back with another
woman.) Life would go on!!
We're still getting pretty bogged down here (no
matter *HOW OFTEN* some of us keep saying that "YES, there
will always be a degree of dependency in *ALL* of us --
but NOT the degree of dependency on men as love interests
that precludes having lives and personalities of our own!!"
To general topic: If there is a better word OTHER
than INDEPENDENCE (one that is less dirty than that one
seems to be), then let's try it. Cuz obviously, the word
carries some pretty emotionally-loaded definitions that
have NOTHING whatever to do with what *I've* been talking
about (can't speak for anyone else, of course.)
Suzanne...
|
| 158.51 | Maybe this will clear things up? Maybe? | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Jan 14 1987 12:14 | 18 |
| > We're still getting pretty bogged down here (no
> matter *HOW OFTEN* some of us keep saying that "YES, there
> will always be a degree of dependency in *ALL* of us --
> but NOT the degree of dependency on men as love interests
> that precludes having lives and personalities of our own!!"
There... that's exactly what I'm saying. We agree. However,
it's obvious that some people are claiming that dependency, of
any sort, on another person is bad... and that it's somehow
avoidable. I disagree on both points, and I'm discussing with
them... not with you, Suzanne. I don't even know for sure
if we're having a real disagreement or just severe semantic
difficulties... which is partly what I'm trying to establish.
So if you can stop arguing that you agree with me, we can
get on with it :-) :-) ;-)
/dave
|
| 158.52 | Dependency is no fun | MMO01::CUNNINGHAM | | Wed Jan 14 1987 17:40 | 34 |
| I Have been reading Womennotes for awhile, but until now I have
not made a contribution. I would like to say first how much I
appreciate how everyone truely opens up and expresses themselves,
inspite of the fact that everyone in DEC (including K.O.) is watching.
It takes some courage, but I do believe it helps our understanding
of the world we live in, and by doing so is a valuable contribution.
I was once married to a very dependent woman. It was not a
pleasent experience, to say the least. I know we are talking about
emotional dependency, but strong emotional dependency will make
someone physically dependent as well. There are so many examples
that I could run on forever, but I think one will probly suffice.
We lived in New England for 7 years, and in that entire time my
wife would not get a drivers liscence. You can do a lot of things
for someone, but get their lisence for them is not one of them.
She prefered that I take her where she needed to go, or better yet,
do whatever needed to be done myself. The funny thing was, she
was not at all like this when we were dating, but marriage does
funny things to some people. Anyway, we eventually split up, and
I felt like a drowning man who had finally come up for air.
Four years later I married a woman who was independent and sure
of herself. That does not mean we don't do things for each other,
but it does mean that when I go on a business trip, life does not
come to a screaming halt till I get back, and when I do get back
my SO is quietly going about taking care of herself and her life
and in doing so feels good about herself and life.
The intresting thing is....I married the same woman I had split
up with four years earlier. People change, and she had grown up
into the person that I KNEW had to be there all along. Living on
her own had been the experience she needed.
DRC
|
| 158.53 | Great | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | It is a time to remember | Wed Jan 14 1987 18:30 | 6 |
| .52
That was a great story....
It is nice to see good things happen in marriage. It also proves
that people can change.
|
| 158.54 | Just a bit of constructive criticism........... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 22:46 | 10 |
| RE: .51
Thanks for clearing that up, Dave. It might
be helpful if in the future you direct your remarks
to the specific ideas/people that you object to
(I didn't have the time to re-read 40 replies to
figure out what you were talking about earlier.)
Suzanne...
|
| 158.55 | INTERDEPENDENCE | JUNIOR::TASSONE | Cat, s'up? | Fri Jan 16 1987 13:15 | 10 |
| Suzanne, how about the term "inter-dependence" as used in the following
sentence, "My <SO, husband, boyfriend> and I have an inter-dependent
relationship in that..."
Althought the word "dependence" is written, the "inter" means that
it goes back and forth between partners. Kind of sums up alot of
what has been said here. I welcome other definitions but that would
be a Note> in itself.
:-) Happy Weekend everyone CAT (purr)
|
| 158.56 | say yes to interdependence | MIRFAK::TILLSON | | Tue Mar 10 1987 13:20 | 53 |
| A couple of comments:
Women are not the only ones who can wind up defining themselves
in terms of their relationships. I have had a couple of relationships
in the past where the men in my life were far too dependent on me!
It seemed to happen mostly with younger men who had not lived away
from home before. Mom cooked, cleaned, made their descisions, and
ran their lives, and goddess forbid that they should have to buy
their own underwear and socks. (No kidding, one guy I dated had
underwear I wouldn't use to scrub the floor with. His excuse: well,
my mom always buys my underwear...and she lives so far away now.)
At first my relationships with these men seemed so very good, becuase
they had the same opinions on everything as I did, always wanted
to do the same things as I did, never disagreed with my ideas.
But I woke up to the realization that they had the same interests
as I did because they were *my* interests, not thru any real interest
of their own. In both cases where this happened, I broke off the
relationships to give these men the opportunity to live *their*
lives, not mine. How well they did is another story; too often
it is too easy to find a roommate, friend or lover with a lifestyle
to copy, and figuring out what you want to do with your life by
yourself is hard! At least one seems to be living some other woman's
life now...
As for dependence: I really like the word interdependence, because
that really is what the bottom line for a partnership is. I am
married, but I am still myself. My husband is still himself.
We have many common interests, but we do things seperately sometimes,
too. Sometimes it is **real** important to each of us to have someone
to depend on. Illness is a particular case in point.
Last year I had pneumonia. I was dependent on Tom for the three
weeks I was ill, and you can bet I was glad to have someone to depend
on! I was too weak to get my own grapefruit juice from the kitchen!
(In the name of independence, I tried. The net result was an 8oz
sized grapefruit juice stain on the dining room rug. Sometimes
insisting on being independent is really stupid.)
Tom had a coronary on Christmas night this year. Only recently
has he been more independent. For a while he was totally dependent
on me to care for him (after he had finished being dependent on
the doctors and nurses). On the other hand, he took full
responsibility for taking his medicines on time, scheduling his
doctor's appointments, etc., so he was only dependent where it was
really needed, cooking cleaning, shopping, driving. As he has regained
his strength, he has returned to sharing responsibility for our
household.
I am not saying that we all should have to be dependent on someone.
It sure is nice, though, to have someone to depend on when that
is the appropriate thing.
|