Some days you just can't win. 
Shake my head......

I guess I'm the neighborhood hippie

Recently we attended a neighborhood party and I was chatting with a long-time neighbor.  While discussing general stuff and kids, and grandchildren, etc. she made a comment, in response to my daughter's lesbianism, that our family had always been rather eclectic and avant garde.  This was not said in a bad way but was rather her way of understanding how I am so matter of fact about what my children do and have done.  Then I came home and read an article about grandparents not accepting their gay grandchild.  I realized how lucky I am that for my family, including grandparents and if still alive, great-grandparents, we never flinched at the choices our children have made. And it does make for an interesting family tree.

Read and discuss...

From Jezebel.com

Guilt Just Makes You Feel Guilty About Your Guilt

 Tracy Moore

I was going to ask you how often you, as a woman, feel guilty. But I don't have to, because studies have shown that you feel guilty all the time. At least once a day. And for the high-level worriers among you, the awful feeling in the pit of your stomach that you've yet again failed to do or be something better than you actually are can strike up to four times a day. That's a lot of sad trombones, ladies. What's our damage? Let's excavate.

In order to feel guilty all the time, a few components have to be in place: you'd have to feel enormous pressure to achieve an arbitrary benchmark. For women, that ideal no doubt, is "goodness." To be good. We are taught from an early age that we are nicer, kinder, sweeter, more compassionate, more delicate, more gentle souls. Spiritually nobler, sexually less tempted. This ideal of goodness, however, is at odds with our actual humanness, which causes untold levels of dissonance as we try to make our way through the world as people first, and women second, all while being so good.

Another component in place for guilt is that you'd have to believe your ability to be this thing you're supposed to be, in our case, "good," is entirely within your power, so that when you fail to hit the mark, you correctly deduce that it is your fault. So when you are treated badly, or skipped over for the promotion, or ignored, or worse, when crimes are committed against you, you search yourself for your own culpability.

In a Germain Greer piece over at CNN called "Guilt Poisons Women," she cites a Spanish study that found that women are "more susceptible to guilt."

Guilt is one side of a nasty triangle; the other two are shame and stigma. This grim coalition combines to inculpate women themselves of the crimes committed against them.

While some guilt is, of course, necessary for us to become "considerate, conscientious adults," on overdrive, it's a paralyzing anxiety that leads to real depression. And women tend to feel this at a much more significant level.

In the study, some 350 people were interviewed, aged 15 to 50, about their feelings of guilt about a variety of daily occurrences. Women, it turns out, cared a lot about hurting other people, whereas men felt guilty when they overate or binge drank, but not so much over things that actually affected other people who were not them.

The heightened worrying, it was concluded, led to a weakened defense system with fewer antibodies in their saliva, so that even when a woman was doing something she liked, it didn't make much difference if she was also fretting about what she should be doing instead. So much for escapism.

For many women, this becomes a kind of ever-present background anxiety over angering friends, forgetting a birthday, not being attractive, not being generous enough, and on and on and on.

Greer says:

Rescuing women from their burden of unwarranted guilt is going to require "educational practices and socializing agents" even more effective than the ones that have been relentlessly loading female humans with responsibility for other people's behavior from their earliest childhood.

I doubt there is a woman among us who hasn't been told to smile more, be nicer, be more pleasant, make nice, play nice, share more and in general, sunny up whatever joint she happens to occupy. Certainly men are taught to be polite, too.

But you can't throw a friendly dart today without hitting a mixed message about "how to be" when you're a woman in terms of balancing other people's feelings with your own desires and goals. This very debate rages today over women in the workplace having to mix deference with determination in pursuing that corner office.

These lifelong messages of deference and greater sensitivity to others — some of which are incredibly useful, such as in the care of babies — combined with the pressure to achieve on equal footing with men, are a perfect recipe for guilt. It can become so ingrained in women to consider others at all times, that healthy activities that promote well-being that (may) serve only us, whether getting a master's or masturbating, can be loaded with guilty feelings of self-indulgence.

And this goes back further than our collective childhoods. Women have historically been handed a swirling cauldron of mixed messages about their "true nature," and it is almost always one of perplexing duality as viewed through man's eyes: we are pure, but evil, spiritually superior, but a gateway to sin. We are noble, but we have to be, since we're lower forms of life. Even our ability to carry children has been viewed with great awe and greater suspicion. Viewing ourselves through this distorted kaleidoscope of femininity as defined by others has not made it easy to become fully enfranchised human people, particularly when we are still fighting for the concrete laws and protections necessary.

In my view, the problem of women's guilt is precisely that gap between being "female" and being "human," when the very definition of feminine still comes heavily burdened with implicit or sometimes explicit instructions on the care and concern of others, and always, about how you come off and look. There is nothing in connotations of maleness per se that suggests a similar kind of reflexive, selfless concern. (Saving people is one thing; caring for them quite another.)

Sometimes it seems as if we decided collectively that women could join men in equality, but only if we promised to still be nice. Being "tough" — like men — while still feminine, as in pleasing, deferential, is still a recipe for success, even when the femininity is the very argument being used to keep us out of the things we want into, whether it's the military or the boardroom. Doing otherwise is seen as impractical.

But in a world where the blame for men's crimes still lands squarely on women's shoulders, "nice" feels like a suffocating mask. Or worse, it's massive scapegoating.

And Greer sees the cost of this scapegoating as a major impediment to women's true equality:

Women feel more guilt than men, not because of some weird chromosomal issue but because they have a history of being blamed for other people's behavior. You get hit, you must have annoyed someone; you get raped, you must have excited someone; your kid is a junkie, you must have brought him up wrong.

Any victim of sexual offenses who denounces the perpetrator should incur no shame. But she does. And to conceal the identity of a victim of a sexual offense, which is routine, is to endorse this profoundly misogynist prejudice. Until women feel free to identify offenders without shame, the wounds inflicted on them will remain unhealed.

Those wounds have been unhealed for a long time already. It was St. Jerome who allegedly said that women are the root of all evil, but St. Clement of Alexandria totally had his back when he said that the "consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame."

What is shocking about that is not that some misogynist dudes from the single-digit centuries — venerated Saints, no less — thought women were intrinsically shitty and ought to know it, but that women still suffer gravely from these attitudes to this very minute. Says Greer:

For example, the Indian gang rape victim who was given the International Women of Courage Award by the U.S. State Department on International Women's Day recently is known only by a collection of sobriquets, of which the popular favorite is "Nirbhaya," or "Fearless."

No member of her family was present at the ceremony to hear U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry say fatuously that there would be "no more stigma against victims or survivors" when he had perpetuated that very stigma by refusing to reveal Nirbhaya's identity.

Why can we not know who Nirbhaya was? Because to be raped by a gang of drunken goondahs is to be dishonored. The stigma extends to her family, her community and even to her university. She has been honored because she did the decent thing. She died.

She is not around screaming for justice; she is dead. Her achievement is to be a victim. When the Obama administration hooked its wagon to the star of a sex martyr, it did little for the women who endure humiliation and stigma every day.

And so we go on with our lives of continual apology. Greer says that, "Until women themselves reject stigma and refuse to feel shame for the way others treat them, they have no hope of achieving full human stature."

This is important, but easier said than done. And we cannot lay this at entirely at women's doorsteps. Feeling less guilty, while critical for women to behave as free people in pursuit of their own autonomous, emotionally healthy lives, still won't single-handedly change the compulsion for men and society to tell women what they are like, or how they are to behave, or to blame them as victims. But greater sensitivity from men for women to define themselves on their own terms could prevent all this from happening in the first place.

Image by Jim Cooke

My daughter and her partner would love to have a child.  KT discovered after many tests that she had a less than 1% chance of success of getting pregnant through artificial insemination or IVF due to the chemo she endured.  G is somewhat iffy about the whole pregnancy thing so they may decide their best option is adoption.  They're attending some info sessions to get a perspective on what the challenges they will face adopting being a lesbian couple with one partner with a history of cancer.  But they are also reviewing prospective parent profiles to see how people describe themselves to the birth mothers in their attempt to win the adoption lottery.   After reading some of them (who am I kidding, I read a LOT of them), most of them blend into white bread soup of 1) we really respect your decision, 2) we really want a child 3) we really think that we will be good parents and provide a great extended family experience, and 3) we live in a nice home in the suburbs with a yard and good schools.  You could pick any one of these people and not make a mistake that you could forsee.  So how would my letter read?

Dear Birth Mother,
I'm the potential grandmother of your child.  I did my very best with my two children and will always do my very best for your child, too.  I will provide love, direction, care, discipline, laughs, hugs, and lots of hand-knit sweaters and hats, and trips to the beach.

I realize that things don't always turn out the way we want them to or expect them to.  I imagine that is true in your case but I promise to support our child even when they make bad decisions and I will always love them, even when I'm mad or discouraged or disappointed in them.  Because that is what grandmothers do.  And I hope that your family is supporting your decision to allow your baby to be adopted. 

And I'd like to tell you that my daughters may not have a fancy house in the suburbs, or take European vacations, or even vacuum enough to please me, but they have love that is overflowing, and passion, and they will be the best mothers around, teaching their child about  love, and joy, and respect, and tolerance, and inclusion, and soccer, and basketball, and piano, and guitar, and there will be crazy poopy talk at the dinner table so that everyone rolls their eyes and laughs.  Because that is what families do. 

Please help them complete their family.

Sincerely,
The Grandmother

maybe it really is the end of the world

Our elected officials, ostensibly the people we think can best represent our interests, are acting like recalcitrant children.  The Republicans can't even get their own people to play well together, much less play nicely with the other team. And there is no end in sight to this temper tantrum.

After one of the most horrific episodes of gun violence ever, the NRA wants to energize its base to arm virtually everyone except those people on its "database of the mentally ill."  I believe that Wayne LaPierre, exec vp of the NRA, should be the first name in that database.  This man is truly delusional and dangerous and has a huge following through the NRA membership.  Scary.

And the pope rails against gay marriage in each of his recent addresses to his followers.  This hatred, this bigotry, from a man who is purportedly the personal emissary of god.

Are any one of these people in touch with reality?  Or have they been so taken with their self-centeredness and righteous anger that they are unable or unwilling to see anything but their own very narrow perspective?


I've not felt so hopeless since the Vietnam War.

My daughter posted this article - "A Day in the Death of America" - from the The Guardian, June 8, 2007 on her Facebook page.  Although it is from 2007 it is sadly still relevant today.  It follows one 24 hour period in the United States and the deaths due to gun in children under 19.   If the average number of gun deaths of children under 19 still stands at 9 as referenced in the article, and I have no reason to think that it has decreased, then since this article was published based on November 25, 2006 data,  that means that over 19,000 children have died due to guns (and don't give me that shit about 'guns don't kill people, people do.') And that doesn't even count those that were injured and maimed such as the two year old  little girl who was shot in the face, and her mother killed, last week in Washington as she was being held in her mother's arms boarding a city bus. 

How many more thousands of children will we sacrifice to placate our gun lobby?  It's a shame that the children don't have the deep monetary pockets to influence our politicians to do the right thing.   Every politician that has been swayed by the financial backing of the gun lobbyists should hang their heads in shame, as should those citizens who supported and voted for them.

When is the right time?

So, why, exactly, is it NOT the right time to get all political about gun control?  Why do people keep saying this?  When, exactly, would be the right time?  Never?  If I hear that comment one more time I will rip the cord out of the back of the television.  Let's use this anger and energy and outrage for some good.   And although there is tremendous shock to the killing of 20 six and seven year olds in their school, is it really less awful to have children killed and maimed one at a time by guns through random violence, accident, and design as happens every single day? 

And where is the outrage that a mother who had a son with acknowledged behavior and mental health issues - one news report I read said that she had told people he had Asperger's syndrome - had guns in her home?  Yes, she is dead and that's sad, but I can't feel all that bad for her as she did such a stupid, stupid thing.    In fact the current Connecticut gun laws had stopped the son from buying a gun, but the mother had them readily available to him. And she had assault weapons!  She was worried about her safety in her large home in her safest town in America?  Didn't she ever hear of intruder alarm systems that will summon the cops?  THEY have guns so you don't have to have them.

And some of the Republicans who now think that we should arm school personnel or have even MORE gun availability so we could shoot people we think are the bad guys.... This just leaves me speechless. 

And I know that there will not be sweeping change.  We will all wail and gnash our teeth and politicians will blather on and Christmas will come and this will fade from the news and maybe, just maybe, Congress will pass some watered down bill that will do little good because it has to pacify the card-carrying, gun-toting gun lovers, and some child will get shot and it will barely make the local news because it's not 21 children that were shot.