There's some things in life that we are better off letting go. One of those is when someone has an obsession with another person we simply can't let it go. I've been on both ends of that ruler and it's not very smart albeit I'm not sure we can do anything about it. I could probably sugar coat even my own failings at it and make it sound like it was all good. Truth is trying to replace someone that is no longer part of our life is a bigger no-no than trying to have someone in our life that is simply not good for us. I've got a couple of friends that I would simply call ridiculous when it comes to replacing someone or some relationship. I myself could make those same accusations when I'm looking in the mirror. Ironic when we consider that I kicked my ex-husband to the curb and only looked back in wonder as far as the impact on my boys.
Let's go there first, shall we? My ex-husband cheated on me while I was pregnant (many of you know this already) and rubbed my nose in it similar to rubbing a dog's nose in poop. I kicked him to the curb so fast it made his head spin faster than mine was at the time. He eventually married and is still with the last of several mistresses at that time. While I didn't just walk away, I mean I was at a brisk run in any direction away from him, he spent the next 10 years calling me at 7 am his time--which sometimes meant 2 am my time--for my birthday, the anniversary of our engagement, our first son's birthday, Valentine's Day, and our wedding anniversary. I could tell you that it was a big ego feed. I'd be lying. It was annoying as hell, particularly to the one or two boyfriends that happened to be there over the years. His obsession, for lack of any other description, was simple. I wanted nothing to do with him and that was a blow to his ego. So frankly, a blow to someone's ego can cause an unhealthy behavior that will go on for years and years...and years...and years. Frankly, he quit paying his child support 6 months before he was supposed to and I was told that I could file to get the money through our son's senior year. I thought about it. It would mean driving down to Florida. It would mean having to chase his *ss around for the next year to 2 years. Honestly, I've never wanted someone out of my life so bad ever. Making any effort for a lousy 6 months of child support that would mean I would have to endure contact with that jerk for more time than I had originally anticipated...well, no thanks. All of his actions have ever done is fortify that I was correct in walking away. His obsession with trying to piss me off, aggravate a situation, upset the apple cart, try and get a rise out of me...well, yes, yes, I absolutely made the right decision kicking him to the curb. The lesson here? Obsessing over someone where we think we are going to make them miserable does two things: 1. They won't care. 2. They will ultimately be positive they made the right decision.
So am I immune? No. I obsessed over an ex-boyfriend for years. It was a really good relationship. Never argued--until we broke up. Always had his undivided attention when we were together. He was kind and fun. And sexy as hell. Seriously, never be with someone that you don't find attractive. And I was blinded by all the good stuff. He was smart, soft spoken, and always a gentleman, at least while we were dating. I suppose that was all debatable after the fact. The thing that made it so good is that I realized that I could have a normal, non-jealous, secure relationship. That was really what I was obsessing over. I hadn't had that in years and years by the time I dated him. The main flaw that I kept overlooking was that he was basically a coward. That's how it ended; he was afraid of another guy I had dated. Moreover, he would keep tugging on that string that I left in his reach until I moved away from him. But it was my own fault. I just didn't want to forget how great that had been compared to everything else I had ever been in. There's a keyword there: Compared. Compared to everyone else I had dated, only one other relationship had been that great and that one had been cut short by a Gulf deployment. I kept kicking myself when the reality was I was sugar coating a major flaw. Cowardice was just as bad as the cheating--in some ways even worse. At least the cheating was upfront and in my face. The cowardice problem was something I kept sugar coating and telling myself that wasn't the problem. Faced with his lying to his brother about our relationship, I realized that his cowardice had little bounds. Ten years later he had minimized 10 months, plus 5-6 months on and off again to two weeks. I could've crowned him. All I could think in that moment was WTH did I spend all this time obsessing over a coward?
Truth is none of us know why we obsess over someone. I have a really good friend who's 1st wife passed away suddenly. He loved her very much, and still does. He's had a couple marriages since, but I think he spends a lot of his time searching for another her, someone just like his first wife. I'm not sure how much the last couple were like her, but I can say that isn't working for him. It won't work for anyone. We cannot replace what's lost. We have to move on and accept that it's gone. In this case, she's gone forever. There's no reconciliation even possible. Still, I watch him wallow in it sometimes and listen because that's the kind of friend I am. My advice is always the same. She wouldn't want him looking to replace her and she would want him to be happy. There's a major difference there. My ex-husband wanted to make sure I knew he was still around. Shove that knife in my side as often as possible. Truth is that my friend's first marriage sounds perfect, and I'm not saying that it wasn't. However, nothing is perfect. It was simply as close as he has ever gotten. He won't find another as perfect until he stops dwelling on how perfect that one was.
Over the years, I've observed lots of my friends, male and female, run into this rut called obsession. Sadly, sometimes it's not all their faults. I'd say at least half the time the person being obsessed over plays a part. My ex-boyfriend popped up every time I posted on FB where I was when I first moved home. So I quit posting. He give me dirty looks--I assume (yes, I know *ss-u-me) it was because I would text him but not acknowledge him in person. However, I had made up my mind that if he couldn't acknowledge me that it was definitely time for me to move on. I'm not sure it helped or hindered my "recovery" or acceptance. All I know is at a certain point I realized that it wasn't making me feel better. It was like stepping back in time and having that string tugged. It was worthless. I had a good friend who insisted on dating every woman he could get his hands on. More often than not, annoying trashy women. In fact, that seems to be most men's ways of dealing with their obsessions--find as many trashy women as possible. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work from my humble observations. In fact, if anything, it hyper-exasperates the fact that they are still obsessing. Women, most anyway, we tend to cut ourselves off, short, whatever and do anything but date. I suppose that's just how we cope. Ironic when you think about it. The male ego is probably in general far more fragile than the female ego. Not to say that confidence and ego are mutually exclusive, but in terms of recovering from a bad relationship, women are far more likely to recover in a healthy way regardless of their self confidence levels.
Sadly, I suppose the only way we truly get passed the obsession is by seeing the obsession for what it is. I'm not really sure how my friend can get passed his first marriage since she passed away. It's not like he can see all of her flaws and accept that it ended for a reason. It ended because of happenstance. Life can be funny (ironic not haha) that way. My own obsession ended when I saw the cowardice. It had been there all along right there in front of me. It hadn't been hidden; I just chose to ignore it. I watched a good friend of mine lose her obsession with a guy after she realized that she was always paying for everything. I watched a guy I know obsess so much over his ex-wife that he turned into a complete butt. By the time a couple of years had gone by, he only had 3 guys that would still hang around him. (Yea, no even yours truly bailed on him.) So I don't have an answer. I suspect the best answer I have is see the person that you are with for what they are. Flaws and all. If it ends, then focus on the flaws--not what you thought were the good things.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Not just about motorcycles...Look Twice, Save a Life.
To a self-proclaimed business owner from the Charlotte, NC area after he was so kind as to post that he was sick of bikers and us asking non-riders (and riders) to Look Twice, Save a Life and threatening to run us off the road. He used his FB page to comment on a female rider killed in a motorcycle accident in his local area, so I sent him the following message:
Let's be blunt. It's not just our lives you put at risk when you don't take the time to look twice. Every time that you blow through a Stop sign, pull out of a parking lot without taking time to check what might be coming, you put yourself and everyone in your own vehicle at risk also. If you drive an SUV or truck, you may feel very confident in your safety, but the truth is side impacts can result in significant damage to a vehicle and often severe injuries to drivers and passengers. Would you want someone you love to die or suffer long term injuries because you didn't take the time to Look Twice? Let alone what impact it might have on you and any passengers to observe someone else dying?
Look Twice, Save a Life should not just be about motorcycles. It should be about everyone that you care about also. It's an extra second of your time which could mean the life of someone you care about. Look Twice, Save a Life. The life you save could be your own.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
The Cross Sectional Sample is Screaming It
"Welcome to the United States Navy, ladies," I remember the Company Commander, the Navy's equivalent to a Drill Sargent, screaming at about 3:30 in the morning, after I had less than 2 hours of sleep. The screaming CCs, the banging on the tin garbage cans, and the counting off. Four months later, I was in Millington, Tennessee for A school, the Navy-Marine Corps version of technical training. About 2 weeks after arriving, the Senior Chief in charge of our barracks had about 10 of us in her office. All of those in her office were slightly older than the average recruit. About 80% were straight out of high school, but some of us were 20 to 30 years old. I was part of the later. She asked us what we had joined the Navy for. Our answers varied: College money, see the world, get out of a small town, challenge ourselves, serve our country, the usual answers that any of us give. She took a long pause, mainly for effect. "Well," she said. "Each of you have your reasons, but you all got a little more than you bargained for. In the United States Navy, you are either a bitch, a dyke or a whore. You choose now, or someone will choose for you." She went on to explain that whatever we were named, by choice or not, would follow us through our career in the military. Over the time I served, I can honestly state that this was the case. While the civilian world doesn't directly translate, the military is a reflection of the United States as a whole. There is nowhere else that is made up exclusively of Americans or people that are from the territories. There is also nowhere else that you have agreed to sign away your Constitutional rights. When we join the military, we accept that for the duration of our lives we can still be under orders, and we also accept that we have no formal legal recourse if we are mistreated in the military. If the women that have served suffered sexual harassment or assault while serving, there is no civil lawsuit against the employer. There is only what the command, the Commanding Officer, the Officers we serve with, and the Senior Enlisted do to protect the rights of the women in their charge. So I am loathe to find out that a Command Master Chief (highest enlisted rank in a command) has been dismissed because of sexual harassment and that the Commanding Officer of the Blue Angels, the most recognized unit in the Navy, has been taken to Admiral's Mast, lost his command, ruined his career, by allowing a sexually charged atmosphere to exist. Twenty, yes 20, years after Tailhook we have not made a real dent in the male chauvinism in the military, and as I said, since we are the reflection of the United States as a whole, what does it say about us as a country?
After the rants of a crazed young man, I would like to believe that we don't tolerate this and he was a "one off", but only weeks later we are facing a military that is breaking down. I have heard all of the arguments of why women don't belong in combat. I'll be blunt. I've watched grown, trained men break down, freeze, literally poop their pants at the face of what we are trained to do. I've watched women, straight women--not just the stereotypical butch lesbian, that have leapt up and let the training take over. Did their jobs without a second thought about their safety, completely focused on the mission and taking care of their brothers and sisters in arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether we belong or don't. We can do the job. We have higher standards and when those standards are upheld, we are the greatest military in the world. So why do some in the military still have a problem acknowledging that women can serve and should be treated with the respect their predecessors have earned? Well, it's simple: We are a reflection--we are the mirror of the best, the worst, and everything in between that the United States has to offer.
Years ago, a friend asked me in a conference call, a sidebar discussion while waiting for the meeting to start, what I thought about a situation another co-worker had experienced. He asked the other guy to describe the situation. Let's call the guy Ted (not his actual name). Ted's son was a varsity wrestler at a high school ranked in the Top 10 in his state. His son was a ranked wrestler in his weight class and the school had recently participated in an invitation only competition. The top 3 schools in wrestling in the state had been invited. In his son's weight class, a young female competitor was wrestling for one of the other schools. She was also a varsity letterman and was one of the top 3 wrestlers in the state in their weight class. His son had forfeited his match to her because he had refused to wrestle her. The coach from the team, the family of the young woman, her teammates, became irate with his son, their coach, their team and him and his wife that his son refused to wrestle her. She was top ranked. He was apparently the first to refuse. Her teammates had accused his son of being afraid to lose to a girl. He and his wife were proud of him. The other friend, let's call him Tom (he reads this blog so he'll know who he actually is), Tom asked me what I thought. I said that Ted might not want my opinion. Ted said that he did because from his point of view I was the only one that might be able to explain to him why this young woman, her team, her coach and her parents were so upset. So I asked why did his son refuse? Ted explained that he refused because of the positions that they get into while wrestling, where he had to put his hands, and that he felt it wasn't right. His son had felt that because she was a girl he might have to put his hands in places that he didn't want to. So I asked him to clarify what I already knew: The competitor with the lower center of gravity has the natural upper hand (women by nature have a lower center of gravity than men), the weight classes are pretty tight so the girl and his son were relatively close in size, and the smaller competitor often has a natural upper hand also. She was ranked higher than his son in the state rankings in their weight class? Yes. She was wrestling for the top coach in the state? Yes. She was wrestling for a higher ranked team than his own son's team? Yes. She was a varsity letterman? Yes. I sighed. And the only reason, I asked, was because his son was uncomfortable with where he might put his hands? Yes.
Well, I said, she had put herself there to compete. She was a varsity letterman for one of the top teams in the state and was higher ranked than his son. Her coach was the best in the state so he wasn't going to just hand out a varsity letter to just anyone--male or female. Just because his son was uncomfortable didn't mean that she shouldn't compete. By his actions, the actions that Ted was so proud of, he had said that a girl didn't belong because he was uncomfortable, not because she was uncomfortable. She had put herself there, her parents had agreed, her coach had agreed, she had earned the respect of her team, she was obviously a fierce competitor and because his son had deemed that she shouldn't be there he had refused to compete with her. He had decided that his discomfort over-weighed the respect she had already earned. I couldn't tell him what I would tell his son, but if it were my son, I would have told him that you don't turn down the best because it happens to be in a female package. It was male chauvinism at its worst. A woman should not be told no because it's going to make a man uncomfortable; she should be able to choose whether she wants to be there like any boy/man could. He chose to compete and she chose to compete. He had insulted her coach's ability to choose a letterman, he had insulted her team that depended on her record as much as they do everyone on their team, and worst yet, he had insulted her because of where he, he I emphasized, was worried about where he (again emphasized) might put his hands. This is the biggest problem in our society. This is the problem with our military, and with our society as a whole still.
What is? People, men and women, defining women for all women. No one tells a man no because he's a man. We tell girls they can't play football, they can't wrestle, they can't serve in the military, they cannot serve in combat. We tell our boys that girls are less, more fragile, and we instill in them that women are still less than they are. Then we wonder and scream at the boy who refuses to wrestle our top ranked varsity letterman daughter. We wonder why women still hate on each other so much, yet we teach our daughters to self loathe and thus to loathe each other. We flash sexually charged 18 year olds naked on a wrecking ball and wonder why our daughters are so devalued, why they only think of themselves in the simplest sexual object formats. We have taught them that is the majority of their self worth. It's not that they can compete. We tell them they can't all the time by our own words. It's not that their minds, their brains, their ability to converse, their ability to think quickly on their feet, their ability to contribute to a team. No, it's their manipulative skills and sexuality that is valued. Girls, heck women, hate on the other girl that they perceive as smarter, prettier, or more affable simply because we have continued to devalue girls. We allow our sons to devalue women, then wonder why women are sick of it. We haven't changed that women in a male setting often think the only thing that they have to offer is sexual content. I'll be blunt again. I'm an educated, smart, attractive woman. Not because I am all those things to everyone that I come across but because I was taught to believe in myself in spite of what society has told me over the years. My grandfather taught me that I was equal to a man. My Grams wanted that for women, and yet of my grandfather's 3 granddaughters, I was the only one he instilled that in. While I believe women can instill it partially, I truly believe that the only ones that can make sure that girls believe it to their cores are the fathers and grandfathers. It's all fine and dandy for a woman, the mother, the grandmother to tell girls they are equal, but only when a man tells his daughter or granddaughter and backs it up with his actions does that little girl, eventually woman, believe it no matter what other men tell her.
The United States military instills that belief in these young women. Tries to anyway. So they become indoctrinated into a world that tells them they are equal, but then brow beats them as our society does. Three months of boot camp cannot change years and years of societal woe, especially not when the leadership, a Commanding Officer, the Officers and Senior Enlisted themselves still harbor those beliefs, those tendencies and allow the behavior to continue. Women serving is not the problem. Men who serve and served that believe that women are inherently less are the problem. Just because we as a society continue to view women as lesser doesn't mean that women are. A man should probably be writing this. Men like that don't respect that view coming from a woman. They often don't want to hear it from other men either, but truth is that a lot of men even when they believe women are the greatest, can be equal, fail to instill that in their own sons and more importantly in their daughters. No man wants his daughter to be treated as less of a person simply because she's a girl or woman. Yet, we brow beat girls in society to think of themselves as sexual objects. And, in an ironic twist, sometimes even when we teach our daughters to ensure they are treated with respect we still encourage them to be housewives, dependent on someone else, and wonder why every women has at some point in her life questioned her own self worth. How do you think seeing pictures day in and day out of men's genitals, naked women, and being told if they want to be equal to a man that means that they need to tolerate sexually charged comments? Equal to a man doesn't mean that at all. Yet, appallingly, it still apparently is happening in the United States Navy. While the military doesn't directly translate to most civilian workforce environments, consider that it's a cross section, a 2% sample of the United States population, from all the corners that this country has to offer. The military is a small reflection of our country--the good and sadly in this case, the bad. Isn't it time that the men that want their daughters, granddaughters to be treated with respect and equally start telling those girls that they can, they are and never to accept less? The irony is that without that male reinforcement it's hard for a woman to turn on the male chauvinist and tell him that he's wrong. The cross sectional sample is screaming it.
After the rants of a crazed young man, I would like to believe that we don't tolerate this and he was a "one off", but only weeks later we are facing a military that is breaking down. I have heard all of the arguments of why women don't belong in combat. I'll be blunt. I've watched grown, trained men break down, freeze, literally poop their pants at the face of what we are trained to do. I've watched women, straight women--not just the stereotypical butch lesbian, that have leapt up and let the training take over. Did their jobs without a second thought about their safety, completely focused on the mission and taking care of their brothers and sisters in arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether we belong or don't. We can do the job. We have higher standards and when those standards are upheld, we are the greatest military in the world. So why do some in the military still have a problem acknowledging that women can serve and should be treated with the respect their predecessors have earned? Well, it's simple: We are a reflection--we are the mirror of the best, the worst, and everything in between that the United States has to offer.
Years ago, a friend asked me in a conference call, a sidebar discussion while waiting for the meeting to start, what I thought about a situation another co-worker had experienced. He asked the other guy to describe the situation. Let's call the guy Ted (not his actual name). Ted's son was a varsity wrestler at a high school ranked in the Top 10 in his state. His son was a ranked wrestler in his weight class and the school had recently participated in an invitation only competition. The top 3 schools in wrestling in the state had been invited. In his son's weight class, a young female competitor was wrestling for one of the other schools. She was also a varsity letterman and was one of the top 3 wrestlers in the state in their weight class. His son had forfeited his match to her because he had refused to wrestle her. The coach from the team, the family of the young woman, her teammates, became irate with his son, their coach, their team and him and his wife that his son refused to wrestle her. She was top ranked. He was apparently the first to refuse. Her teammates had accused his son of being afraid to lose to a girl. He and his wife were proud of him. The other friend, let's call him Tom (he reads this blog so he'll know who he actually is), Tom asked me what I thought. I said that Ted might not want my opinion. Ted said that he did because from his point of view I was the only one that might be able to explain to him why this young woman, her team, her coach and her parents were so upset. So I asked why did his son refuse? Ted explained that he refused because of the positions that they get into while wrestling, where he had to put his hands, and that he felt it wasn't right. His son had felt that because she was a girl he might have to put his hands in places that he didn't want to. So I asked him to clarify what I already knew: The competitor with the lower center of gravity has the natural upper hand (women by nature have a lower center of gravity than men), the weight classes are pretty tight so the girl and his son were relatively close in size, and the smaller competitor often has a natural upper hand also. She was ranked higher than his son in the state rankings in their weight class? Yes. She was wrestling for the top coach in the state? Yes. She was wrestling for a higher ranked team than his own son's team? Yes. She was a varsity letterman? Yes. I sighed. And the only reason, I asked, was because his son was uncomfortable with where he might put his hands? Yes.
Well, I said, she had put herself there to compete. She was a varsity letterman for one of the top teams in the state and was higher ranked than his son. Her coach was the best in the state so he wasn't going to just hand out a varsity letter to just anyone--male or female. Just because his son was uncomfortable didn't mean that she shouldn't compete. By his actions, the actions that Ted was so proud of, he had said that a girl didn't belong because he was uncomfortable, not because she was uncomfortable. She had put herself there, her parents had agreed, her coach had agreed, she had earned the respect of her team, she was obviously a fierce competitor and because his son had deemed that she shouldn't be there he had refused to compete with her. He had decided that his discomfort over-weighed the respect she had already earned. I couldn't tell him what I would tell his son, but if it were my son, I would have told him that you don't turn down the best because it happens to be in a female package. It was male chauvinism at its worst. A woman should not be told no because it's going to make a man uncomfortable; she should be able to choose whether she wants to be there like any boy/man could. He chose to compete and she chose to compete. He had insulted her coach's ability to choose a letterman, he had insulted her team that depended on her record as much as they do everyone on their team, and worst yet, he had insulted her because of where he, he I emphasized, was worried about where he (again emphasized) might put his hands. This is the biggest problem in our society. This is the problem with our military, and with our society as a whole still.
What is? People, men and women, defining women for all women. No one tells a man no because he's a man. We tell girls they can't play football, they can't wrestle, they can't serve in the military, they cannot serve in combat. We tell our boys that girls are less, more fragile, and we instill in them that women are still less than they are. Then we wonder and scream at the boy who refuses to wrestle our top ranked varsity letterman daughter. We wonder why women still hate on each other so much, yet we teach our daughters to self loathe and thus to loathe each other. We flash sexually charged 18 year olds naked on a wrecking ball and wonder why our daughters are so devalued, why they only think of themselves in the simplest sexual object formats. We have taught them that is the majority of their self worth. It's not that they can compete. We tell them they can't all the time by our own words. It's not that their minds, their brains, their ability to converse, their ability to think quickly on their feet, their ability to contribute to a team. No, it's their manipulative skills and sexuality that is valued. Girls, heck women, hate on the other girl that they perceive as smarter, prettier, or more affable simply because we have continued to devalue girls. We allow our sons to devalue women, then wonder why women are sick of it. We haven't changed that women in a male setting often think the only thing that they have to offer is sexual content. I'll be blunt again. I'm an educated, smart, attractive woman. Not because I am all those things to everyone that I come across but because I was taught to believe in myself in spite of what society has told me over the years. My grandfather taught me that I was equal to a man. My Grams wanted that for women, and yet of my grandfather's 3 granddaughters, I was the only one he instilled that in. While I believe women can instill it partially, I truly believe that the only ones that can make sure that girls believe it to their cores are the fathers and grandfathers. It's all fine and dandy for a woman, the mother, the grandmother to tell girls they are equal, but only when a man tells his daughter or granddaughter and backs it up with his actions does that little girl, eventually woman, believe it no matter what other men tell her.
The United States military instills that belief in these young women. Tries to anyway. So they become indoctrinated into a world that tells them they are equal, but then brow beats them as our society does. Three months of boot camp cannot change years and years of societal woe, especially not when the leadership, a Commanding Officer, the Officers and Senior Enlisted themselves still harbor those beliefs, those tendencies and allow the behavior to continue. Women serving is not the problem. Men who serve and served that believe that women are inherently less are the problem. Just because we as a society continue to view women as lesser doesn't mean that women are. A man should probably be writing this. Men like that don't respect that view coming from a woman. They often don't want to hear it from other men either, but truth is that a lot of men even when they believe women are the greatest, can be equal, fail to instill that in their own sons and more importantly in their daughters. No man wants his daughter to be treated as less of a person simply because she's a girl or woman. Yet, we brow beat girls in society to think of themselves as sexual objects. And, in an ironic twist, sometimes even when we teach our daughters to ensure they are treated with respect we still encourage them to be housewives, dependent on someone else, and wonder why every women has at some point in her life questioned her own self worth. How do you think seeing pictures day in and day out of men's genitals, naked women, and being told if they want to be equal to a man that means that they need to tolerate sexually charged comments? Equal to a man doesn't mean that at all. Yet, appallingly, it still apparently is happening in the United States Navy. While the military doesn't directly translate to most civilian workforce environments, consider that it's a cross section, a 2% sample of the United States population, from all the corners that this country has to offer. The military is a small reflection of our country--the good and sadly in this case, the bad. Isn't it time that the men that want their daughters, granddaughters to be treated with respect and equally start telling those girls that they can, they are and never to accept less? The irony is that without that male reinforcement it's hard for a woman to turn on the male chauvinist and tell him that he's wrong. The cross sectional sample is screaming it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)