Skip to main content

janelaw

janelaw 's Public Library

06 Jul 06

2001-06

  • Yeah, but.

    You and DH are different in your approach to conflict resolution.  So are my DH
    and I.  It's not as though one of you is right and one is wrong.  Stockpiling
    issues that you don't feel you can effectively resolve between counseling
    sessions, then discussing them in front of a referee is a valid approach.  It's
    not your approach, but it's not the same as not seeing fit to discuss things
    with you.  

    I don't really know what compartmentalizing is, but I think it's what your DH
    does.  

    I'd go back to the counselor.  If you're feeling "attacked" when he tells you
    how he feels in the office, then that's probably exacerbating his difficulty
    addressing issues outside the office.  Do you see what I mean here?  When he
    finally *did* raise issues that seemed critical of you, you felt devastated and
    betrayed.  That's a daunting thing to face the next time you've got an issue to
    raise.

    >snip

    >I guess that my long-about point is that I don't know what he expects from
    >counseling or what he truly gets out of it.  I know that I expected *our*
    >counseling to be about helping us hash out how to be effective, consistent
    >parents and partners while I think that he saw it as an opportunity to ream
    >me out a new a-hole with an audience -- and then go to lunch.

    I'll tell you why I agree to counseling.  I firmly believe that I am right and
    the other person is wrong, and I expect him to see that.  That's what my DH is
    looking for too.  If the counseling goes well, to some extent you both get what
    you want.  

    jane

2001-06

  • >>Frankly, it seems a little punitive to me to make anyone stay in her room
    >>without tv when she's sick,

    >If she is contagious?  If you had 5 kids, including an infant in your home
    >and
    >you are sick yourself, do you REALLY want that child to infect all the
    >others?

    Well, no.  When we were growing up the healthy ones went outside.  And really
    stomach flus are not the kind of thing that you get from being in the same
    room.

    But aside from that, there was more of an emphasis on doing whatever you could
    to make the sick person less miserable.  Since she couldn't go out like the
    other kids, the sick one would get the tv, and the living room if she liked.
    We always had stainless steel bowls to throw up in.  Or if it was some
    respiratory thing, the tv would go into the bedroom. If more than one was sick,
    we'd be together in a little ward.  

    jane
    whose kid has never once made it to the toilet

2001-06

  • Thanks.

    We've gone back and forth on these things a few times now.  Here's my take:
    Sure everyone has her own opinion, but if you don't want to see yours analyzed,
    torn apart, and challenged, then don't say it on usenet.  This isn't a
    cyberjournal.  It's a forum for discussion.

    You know, newsgroups vary wildly in tone.  ASSP is generally pretty moderate
    and mild-mannered.  But I get the feeling sometimes that people think we should
    all be making nice or something.  I like intellectually stimulating,
    well-reasoned, passionately-argued debate myself.  I don't want the entire
    content of the ng to be namby-pamby, air kiss, agree to disagree exchanges.  I
    don't care whether people say "you're wrong" or couch it in "I disagree;" it
    all boils down to the same thing.

    This opinion thing has me stumped.  It seems to me that there's some view out
    there that if you say something is "just my opinion" you don't have to back it
    up.  Once you hit the send button, you've stated that opinion to the entire
    world.  You'd better have thought it through ahead of time.

    Also, I don't understand the concept, but there seems to be a school of thought
    that because something is an opinion it can't be offensive or personally insult
    others.  It's like saying, "I think you're fat, ugly, and stupid, but that's
    just my opinion" and expecting the other person to say, "Oh, well that's okay
    then."

    I don't see the one main view point part, but I do see unequal division of
    support on some issues.  And when people feel very strongly, they can fight
    like tigers.  

    jane

2001-06

  • >  Children do
    >occasionally wish things were simple like when they were babies, though.

    Sometimes I STILL do.

    >My teen has been known to look at photos of herself and wish she were still
    >a baby, even though it would mean giving up lots of the things she does now.

    I remember a teen fad a few years ago where everyone wore infant accessories -
    baby pins, pacifiers, tiny bottles full of bubbles.  IIRC, Ecstasy pretty much
    put and end to it.

    Anyway, it does seem pretty common for a kid to retreat briefly when something
    new in her development or her life is unsettling.  

    jane

2001-06

2001-06

  • >>So here is your opportunity to explain.  Just what were you trying to say?

    >Read them at face value, without any perceived implications.  

    The problem is that human communication does not work that way.  It can't.  

    >Saying I don't
    >want my SD to do or be certain things or that I don't want to be the kind of
    >woman who does certain things is not the same as implying everyone else who
    >is
    >or does is bad.  

    To some extent it is.  

    Look at what your statement "I don't want to be the kind of
    woman who does certain things" does say:  1)The certain things are done by one
    kind of woman.  2) You do not want to be that kind of woman.  

    Since we generally want positive things for ourselves in our culture and want
    to align ourselves with groups that we esteem and admire, the clear implication
    is that there is something wrong with "that kind of woman."  This is not a
    complex, far-reaching, unpredictable inference for someone to draw.  In fact,
    it is difficult for me to believe that you do not see that this is the clear
    implication of your statement.  Imagine someone saying, "I am so impressed by
    the kind of woman does certain things.  That is just so admirable.  I sure
    don't want to do that."  It just doesn't make any sense, Geri.  

    >It just says that is not what I want for me and for my SD.
    >Period.  It is impossible to be a psychic and guess what someone could
    >possibly
    >read into every single statement. I am able to take other people's statements
    >at face value, so I know it isn't a tough concept.

    "Face value" is an illusion.  Communication begins with an idea in your mind
    and ends with ideas in the minds of others.  In between, you attempt to express
    the idea through some medium and the other parties convert what they perceive
    in that expression into ideas and concepts of their own.  

    Each individual is unique.  We are each unique in the way that we express our
    ideas and we are each unique in the way we perceive.   This is the result of
    who we are as people: our personalities, our intellect, our skills, etc.
    Therefore, your expression of your idea is determined by your vocabulary, your
    knowledge, your view of life, your idiolect, your culture, your education, your
    assumptions, your experiences, and whole host of other factors.  My perception
    is determined by the same influences in me.

    So in the end, every communication is like a game of Pictionary.

    >To me this whole discussion is getting to be a dead horse.  Does anyone think
    >opinions are going to change on this issue?  If people want to read things
    >into
    >my statements as all encompassing, that is their choice.  

    But how do you expect people to read YOUR mind and figure out where you do not
    intend your statements to apply?  If you say, "Men suck," then you have to be
    prepared to justify yourself with respect to every single man everywhere.  

    I think that we have the responsibility to have some integrity, to be fair to
    each other.  If you state an opinion, be able to say why you hold it.  Or at
    least be willing to discuss your reasons with others.  No one cares if you
    think the sky is green, unless you have some reason for thinking it.  Don't
    take others out of context. If you don't know what someone means, then ask.  If
    you didn't mean to imply what you did, then clarify yourself.  Above all, keep
    in mind that anyone in the entire world has the right to comment on anything
    you put out in this forum.  

2001-06

  • I completely agree that Stevie doesn't need me to make her arguments.  I was
    saying that your tone annoyed ME. In retrospect, you're right, it's not worth
    arguing about.

    >> Look, if the premise is that all girls that call boys are pathetic, then a
    >> single nonpathetic girl calling a boy refutes the premise.

    >I have never said that all girls that call boys are pathetic.  I'm sure Geri
    >hasn't either.  Why would you reframe the discussion this way?

    Suddenly, I think I understand what Audra was saying now.  All this quibbling
    could be avoided if we just logically considered the statements we make.

    Okay.  What Geri said about calling being pathetic does not matter.  I was
    attempting to illustrate by example.  I said that if the premise is that for
    all A, then B, a single A without a B disproves the premise. What I meant was
    that I find your reasoning flawed, not Stevie's.  I should have taken the time
    to make myself clearer:

    If you are saying, "all men have feet," then a single footless man proves you
    wrong.  It is not true that all men have feet if one does not.

    OTOH, if you are saying "some men have feet," then a single man with feet
    proves you right.  It is true that some men have feet if one man has feet.

  • Stevie said: " Frankly, I resent the implication that because I ask out and
    call my boyfriends that I *can't* get a guy to call me (which is not true), or
    that I have such low self-esteem that I have to chase a guy into spending time
    with me (also not true). Those allusions have been present in many postings up
    to this date, and all one would have to do to discover that they are false is
    spend just a little time with me and my friends." [X-Trace: allhats.xcski.com
    992801648 3900 192.168.1.1 (17 Jun 2001 18:14:08 GMT)]

    I analyze this to contain two separate arguments:  
    1(a) FACT: Others have asserted Premise A: If a girl calls a boy, she can't get
    a guy to call her.  (All girls who call boys cannot get guys to call them.)
    {Premise = If A, then B}
       (b) FACT: I call guys.   {A is true}
       (c) FACT: It is not true that I cannot get a guy to call me.  {B is false}
       (d) CONCLUSION: Therefore, Premise A is false.  {Premise is disproved}

    2(a) FACT: Others have asserted Premise B: If a girl calls a boy, she has such
    low self esteem that she has to chase a guy into spending time with her.  (All
    girls who call boys have such low self-esteem that they have to chase the guy
    into spending time with them.) {Premise = If A, then B}
      (b) FACT: My friends and I call boys. {A is true}
      (c) FACT:  It is not true that we lack self-esteem. {B is false}
      (d) CONCLUSION:  Therefore, Premise B is false. {Premise is disproved}

    There is no flaw in the logic of these arguments.

    There are, of course, counter-arguments to be made.  If I were going after
    Stevie, I'd have taken issue with the initial statements 1a and 2a.  I would
    say that others did not assert the premises that she stated and that what they
    really said was that SOME girls who call boys, cannot get boys to call them (or
    lack self esteem).  Then we could argue about whether or not the preceding
    posts necessarily implied an ALL or a SOME statement.

    If the premise were a SOME statement (and a single incidence could prove it
    right) then it would make sense for you to counter with: "Just because
    something is true in a local group or subgroup, it has no necessary bearing on
    the truthfulness of the statement per se.  That is, the concepts aren't "false"
    simply because you have self-esteem."  [X-Trace:
    UmFuZG9tSVa4qz891Krt7KZDiWJBWkIpUAHOa8+mOm98+ivkIfAoU0j+9HVzZjdk]  Basically
    you would be saying that to be certain that it was not true that SOME men have
    feet, you have to look at every man.  

    Of course, you could also have refuted any of Stevie's other statements of
    fact.  You could say that she can't get a guy or she does lack self-esteem or
    she doesn't call guys.  But you can't say that her facts are true and her
    conclusion is false.

    Okay.  Then things got confusing.  Stevie basically said that if Geri were
    arguing with anecdotal data then she could too: " And yet, isn't that the
    argument that Geri has been making? That girls not calling boys may be a
    regional thing or something that went on in her social set?…. In the end,
    unless some of us have been scientifically researching this topic in our spare
    time, all any of us have to go on are our local groups." [X-Trace:
    allhats.xcski.com 992873997 27078 192.168.1.1 (18 Jun 2001 14:19:57 GMT)]  

    At that point you could have explained that you were talking about SOME
    statements and that looking at local groups is not the most compelling
    evidence; you'd have to look at every girl in every group to prove that a SOME
    statement was untrue.  

    Instead you said:  " Yup.  But you said our reasoning was FALSE.  That was your
    word. " [X-Trace:
    UmFuZG9tSVZJF54RjIJ86nx/BRc71BINsLn0tpgvwWy4sHg+WS4TVMjOLUiCKpBA]

    I think we can all see that here the two topics have become confused.  Stevie
    used the word "false" in connection with the premises that girls who call boys
    lack self-esteem and cannot get boys to call them.  You OTOH are applying it to
    the separate discussion about the universality of the practice of girls calling
    boys.  

    That led to the following:

    BETH: And while it is obviously acceptable for you and your group of friends to
    call one another freely, that doesn't mean all girls are being raised to do so.

    MELISSA: The fact that all girl's aren't wasn't the point of her argument.

    BETH:  Yup.  It was.  She said for proof just look to her and her friends.
    That's a fallacious argument. [X-Trace:
    UmFuZG9tSVbz3pAMLscZZxgqJdoeFC683L1t3H90cTqWLOFmN80n/1k/D7d8ObhO]

    Here I think it's clear that Melissa was correct.

    Now I don't mean to appoint myself logicop of assp.  I'm just going over this
    because you said that Stevie's argument was flawed.

    jane

2001-06

  • >OTOH, when other people have done this in the past, it's irritated me
    >enormously - why do I have to sit waiting in the car when I'm perfectly
    >capable of opening a door by myself?

    >Wendy

    Good point for clarification.  DH opens the car door for me when I get in (and
    I do it for people too), but I never wait to get out.

    jane

2001-06

  • >jane wrote:

    >> This phone calling thing is one example of how we train our children to
    >have
    >> dysfunctional relationships later in life.

    >No.  It's just one decision a parent makes for her daughters.

    See, now here again, the two are not mutually exclusive.  It can be a decision
    we make for our daughters AND a way we train our children to have dysfunctional
    relationships.

    jane
    (just keeping it real)

2001-06

  • >Stephanie Pollanen wrote:

    >> Yes, in the way *you* raise *your* children, your perspective is the only
    >> applicable one.

    >Ah!  So you did understand what I meant :-)

    >> It was also once "romantic and proper" for a woman to get married and stay
    >> at home instead of going to college, becoming educated and pursing a
    >> career.

    >I guess it won't surprise you then that, all things being equal (caveats for
    >single parent circumstances, extreme poverty, etc. [although let's not get
    >into the concept of adults refraining from having children when they can't
    >afford them, hmmm?]), I believe one parent should stay at home.  In this day
    >and age we have the freedom for the father to be at the stay-at-home parent
    >if
    >that's how the parents want it.  But personally, I went to college, became
    >educated, then got married and stayed at home :-)  And guess what?  When my
    >baby turns 18 in 15 years, I'll only be 47 and we'll travel the world and
    >learn until we die (hope that doesn't happen at 48, ahem).

    >> In Afghanistan, it is "romantic and proper" for women to wear burqas at all
    >> times, never leave the house, never be seen with a male who is not a
    >> relative or husband, and to risk beatings and murder for the violation of
    >> any of the above. Am I equating those things to the issue of girls calling
    >> boys? No. But I am suggesting that it is time for some ideas to go the way
    >> of the dinosaurs.

    >Sure.  Because, as you've said, there's no sense in equating those things to
    >the issue of girls calling boys.  Which, I believe, is still the topic at
    >hand.  I don't like girls calling boys.  But the women in Afghanistan
    >shouldn't be beaten or murdered.  'Kay?

    >> And yet, isn't that the argument that Geri has been making? That girls not
    >> calling boys may be a regional thing or something that went on in her
    >> social set?

    >Yup.  But you said our reasoning was FALSE.  That was your word.  Geri only
    >made suggestions for why she feels the way she does.  She didn't say that
    >girls calling boys isn't going on.  You're saying, however, that girls call
    >boys everywhere these days.  I would suggest, without further research to
    >back
    >this up, that there are regional areas where girls are brought up not to call
    >boys.

    >> Though I do know that it isn't just my social set; I know that it is
    >> common practice in all of the 4 local high schools for girls to call boys.
    >> Also, my cousin Katy recently graduated high school in Fort Collins, CO,
    >> and I am sure that she and her friends also called boys. AFAIK, I am not
    >> aware of even one family that holds it taboo for girls to call boys.

    >Okay.  But now you know of *two* families--Geri's and mine!  ;-)

    You know, your condescending attitude in your replies to Stevie is uncalled
    for.  

    Look, if the premise is that all girls that call boys are pathetic, then a
    single nonpathetic girl calling a boy refutes the premise.  

    And BTW, maybe you should put in the time and produce some evidence  of
    regional areas where girls do not call boys.  You wouldn't want to be making
    unfounded allegations to a minor.  

    jane

2001-06

  • >LOL - my husband always opens doors, car doors, etc. for me.  I don't think
    >it
    >is a big deal, but it is nice and he likes to do it.  Once in the car, I
    >unlock
    >the door for him so he doesn't have to do it.  :-)  

    Mine does too.

    jane

2001-06

  • >I used to feel comfortable posting my feelings or opinions; now I feel like
    >I'd better enroll in Critical Thinking 101 before clicking "Send".  Sheesh.

    I'm confused.  You say that as though it were a bad thing.  I certainly read my
    posts over and make sure that I've said what I wanted to the way I wanted to.
    I check to make sure that my reasoning makes sense to me, that the argument is
    coherent and logical.

    I don't know what you are saying.  I don't think it's that we should all post
    thoughtlessly.

    jane.  

2001-06

  • >I don't know the proper etiquette either.  SS13 had a girlfriend too.
    >They were on the phone constantly!  We would just tell him to get off
    >the phone at a certain point, usually after 20-30 minutes.  But, then
    >she would call again and want to talk some more!!  She seemed too pushy
    >to me.  

    I don't get it, though.  Would you have objected if a male friend were calling
    him?  

    In my area girls seem a lot more persistent about phoning, both to boys and to
    other girls.  Boys, interestingly enough, seem less phone- oriented and prefer
    to use the internet for communicating with friends of both genders.  That is,
    of course, until they get a cell.

    jane

2001-06

  • Oh, sure.  As long as there is a cultural basis, completely irrational beliefs
    are not considered delusions, right?  

    But I always felt that something beyond potential psychosis classification
    motivated people to look inside themselves and their beliefs.  I think that
    that is the basis of all growth, development, and wisdom.  Beliefs are always
    much stronger when they have been examined and questioned.  Unless you look the
    tenet over from different angles and test its weakness and its strength, then
    how to you trust it?  I guess I think that holding to a belief without really
    looking at it is ignorance not faith.

    jane

2001-06

  • >>Huh?  Who says that because you ask a guy to go to a movie that you can't go
    >>on
    >>your own?

    >I just wouldn't bother to ask someone who didn't ask me first - I would just
    >go
    >myself.  When I have been asked out, the gentleman always has asked me what I
    >would like to see, so it was never a guessing game.

    Well then if I had a son, I wouldn't want him to be a "gentleman" either.  The
    guy is supposed to call you, take you to see a movie whether he wants to see it
    or not, and pay for the privilege?  Hell, I'd expect to get laid, too.

    jane

2001-06

  • It's a two part answer.  There is no distinction between males and females in
    the etiquette regarding any kind of communication, including phone calls, im,
    email, chat invitations, paging, etc.

    The second part, the rules for the telephone in your home, are yours.  You
    decide what time phone calls are allowed.  Here it's until 10 p.m.  So I'd
    handle the girl the same way I'd handle any of SS's friends; whatever you'd say
    to Tommy you can say to Tammy.  

    jane

2001-06

  • >I never said that an opinion based on fact has to be accepted as
    >truth.  I also believe that there is very little objective truth in
    >the world, and this is coming from a physicist.  I just said that
    >opinions that are unsupported by fact don't deserve the respect that a
    >well-thought-out, researched position does.

    Vicki,

    My newsgroups are all out of order, and I don't seem to have your original
    post.

    I know I'm taking this quote out of context, but I've been thinking lately
    about intuition.  I find that sometimes what I consider "truth" is not based on
    specific facts that I can articulate.  Or the facts themselves could lead to a
    variety of conclusions, but I feel in my gut that one of those conclusions is
    right.  I have learned not to ignore those feelings.

    Now I think of you as both intuitive and scientific.  I'm wondering how you
    integrate these approaches.  

    Again, I realize I'm going off on a tangent.  I'm not talking about "I think
    the sky is green" opinions.  

    jane

2001-06

  • I understand how this can drive you nuts.  What happened in my situation was
    that DH just was never going to stick to rules regarding SD, and he was never
    going to back me up doing it.  

    Have you considered just admitting that there are going to be different rules
    for SD?  I understand that you need a system with all those kids, but you don't
    want to get too locked into the idea that everything has to be exactly the same
    for all the kids all the time.  There are always different rules for each kid.
    If you refuse to make exceptions, then you're being rigid and unfair.

    I agree that the worst thing to do is become polarized.  And it looks as though
    you're thinking: There's *always* an exception for SD.  DH seems to be
    thinking:  She *never* sees that it's different for SD.  This kind of
    difference in perception is just the sort of thing that counseling can actually
    help with.  

    jane

    Counseling helped us to see the situation.  

2001-06

  • Okay, this is good.

    Didi, do you see that all this has nothing to do with whether or not DH sees
    your redirecting as humiliation?  

    What counseling has helped us with is coming to terms with the real issues
    involved.   You are defending your actions as medically necessary.  That
    doesn't change the fact that DH feels you are picking on his child.  Whether
    or not you are right medically doesn't mean squat.  You're still married to and
    trying to coparent with a man to feels that you are picking on his kid.  

    There seems to be a lot of frustration about who makes the decisions about
    parenting when you two disagree.  DH does not want you to redirect; you do not
    want him to bring your daughter's thumb sucking to a conscious level.  DH does
    not want SD to go to counseling; you do.  It sounds as though you each do
    whatever you think best with all the children, and it doesn't sound as though
    that's working for you.    

    I would consider seeing a counselor about developing strategies to resolve
    conflict.  You need a way to work things out in light of both your
    personalities.  Whether you are defensive, passive-aggressive, confrontational,
    or stubborn is not an issue of right and wrong in this as much as a factor to
    be considered in the strategies you develop together.  So you might end up
    practicing putting off confrontation while DH works on addressing issues when
    he'd rather put them off.      

    jane

2001-06

  • My cat pretty much lost his will to live when he lost his testicles.  He used
    to be active and lean and a hunter.  Since the surgery, he's pretty much slept
    and eaten.

    jane

1 - 20 of 2524 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page

Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

Join Diigo