So, I just have to ask, what is it with you Canadians and DD? Hugs! A lot of my bloggy friends are Canadians and HOH/DD types...I'm still not sure what term to use. Why do I mention this? Because I have started corresponding with a Canadian of the HOH variety. It is very early yet, but he seems like a keeper. We have very similar views on how a relationship of this sort should be and we have a lot in common just lifewise...likes, dislikes (although he doesn't like animals on the furniture - good luck on that one, I have cats). We both like to travel and read and he actually believes in God (Don't laugh those three things are pretty hard to find in a guy) among other things. So, we are tentatively starting to see if we might work out and it is making me smile.
It is still in the getting to know you stage, which is fine. I am a thinker so I like to take things slow and that seems to be okay with him. I hope you all will be around for advice...I suspect I am going to need it.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Men and Women working together
Yesterday I had two men at my home to do a couple of things I needed done that I couldn't do myself. The first to arrive was in his twenties the second to arrive was in his fifties. I got the fifty year old started by showing him what needed to be done and we discussed what he thought he needed to do and I agreed. I turned back to the twenty year old and started to tell him what I wanted from him and he started out with, here's what I was told you want, but here's why that decision is wrong about materials. I told him I understood that he was supposed to push that other material, but I really wanted the materials that I had indicated. He tried again to tell me I was wrong. I then told him that if he didn't think he could do what I wanted that I could find someone else. He apologized and said they COULD do what I wanted. But over the course of the next 10 minutes he mentioned the material that he thought would be better several times. I told him again why I wanted to materials that I requested and after measuring, he was on his way.
In the meantime, the fifty year old shows up with the materials he needs for the repair. We had a great time talking to each other and I told him about the encounter with the 20 year old. He laughed and said he would have stopped asking the first time I explained why I wanted what I wanted. He laughed again and said, "He's just young. He hasn't learned yet." So, I followed him around as he fixed what I needed and then he needed my help for the final repair. He was asking me about myself and I told him about growing up with a lot of men and helping them. I said, they always told me what needed to be done and I told them what I was capable of doing and they just had to work around that. I told him my rules for moving furniture are that I always walk forward, with the piece in front of me, I don't do the behind the back carry (how do men do that?). I also always carry the lightest end even if that means we have to move the piece around so it is oriented so that I walk forward. Finally, if I say I need to put it down, I NEED TO PUT IT DOWN!!! even if we are two feet from where it needs to be. The men I worked with were okay with the rules because they needed the help and were smart, realizing that men and women are different and that men have to modify how they work sometimes to make things go smoothly. The fifty year old agreed and said it is about communication with woman. He said men know when something isn't going to fit through a doorway and there is a silent communication to rotate it. With woman, he said, you need to discuss the plan ahead of time. As we worked together, he did just that, told me what he was going to do and made sure I was ready to do my part......verbally.....grin. I guess thirty years of marriage had taught him about men and women working together and it was a pleasant afternoon for both of us.
In the meantime, the fifty year old shows up with the materials he needs for the repair. We had a great time talking to each other and I told him about the encounter with the 20 year old. He laughed and said he would have stopped asking the first time I explained why I wanted what I wanted. He laughed again and said, "He's just young. He hasn't learned yet." So, I followed him around as he fixed what I needed and then he needed my help for the final repair. He was asking me about myself and I told him about growing up with a lot of men and helping them. I said, they always told me what needed to be done and I told them what I was capable of doing and they just had to work around that. I told him my rules for moving furniture are that I always walk forward, with the piece in front of me, I don't do the behind the back carry (how do men do that?). I also always carry the lightest end even if that means we have to move the piece around so it is oriented so that I walk forward. Finally, if I say I need to put it down, I NEED TO PUT IT DOWN!!! even if we are two feet from where it needs to be. The men I worked with were okay with the rules because they needed the help and were smart, realizing that men and women are different and that men have to modify how they work sometimes to make things go smoothly. The fifty year old agreed and said it is about communication with woman. He said men know when something isn't going to fit through a doorway and there is a silent communication to rotate it. With woman, he said, you need to discuss the plan ahead of time. As we worked together, he did just that, told me what he was going to do and made sure I was ready to do my part......verbally.....grin. I guess thirty years of marriage had taught him about men and women working together and it was a pleasant afternoon for both of us.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Have you ever...
This sounded like fun and reminded me of a drinking game...
Have you ever:
Shot a gun? Yes
Watched someone die? Yes
Served on a jury? Yes
Flown on a plane? Yes
Swam in the ocean? Yes
Cried yourself to sleep? Yes
Been camping in a trailer/RV? Yes
Rode on an elephant? No
Rode on a camel? No
Been lost? Yes
Eaten just cookies or cake for dinner? Yes
Been on TV? Yes
Been on radio? Yes
Been in a car accident? Yes
Donated blood? Yes
Got a speeding ticket within the last 12 mos.? No
Gotten a piercing (not ears)? No
Gotten a tattoo? No
Flew in a hot air balloon? No
Flew in a helicopter? Yes
Gone parasailing? No
Been on a jetski, snowmobile or dune buggy? No
I need to get busy turning those nos into yeses...except for the tattoos and piercings... I prefer to be a rebel and not follow the crowd when it comes to body art (smile).
Have you ever:
Shot a gun? Yes
Watched someone die? Yes
Served on a jury? Yes
Flown on a plane? Yes
Swam in the ocean? Yes
Cried yourself to sleep? Yes
Been camping in a trailer/RV? Yes
Rode on an elephant? No
Rode on a camel? No
Been lost? Yes
Eaten just cookies or cake for dinner? Yes
Been on TV? Yes
Been on radio? Yes
Been in a car accident? Yes
Donated blood? Yes
Got a speeding ticket within the last 12 mos.? No
Gotten a piercing (not ears)? No
Gotten a tattoo? No
Flew in a hot air balloon? No
Flew in a helicopter? Yes
Gone parasailing? No
Been on a jetski, snowmobile or dune buggy? No
I need to get busy turning those nos into yeses...except for the tattoos and piercings... I prefer to be a rebel and not follow the crowd when it comes to body art (smile).
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Listening with the heart
Today at mass the gospel reading was about the sheep hearing and knowing the shepherd's voice. He said the meaning of obedience in Greek was to "listen with the heart". I can really embrace that definition whether it is in my relationship with God or my relationship with my future husband. I need to keep that thought in mind.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Feminism and Femininity
Recently Gabrielle Reece published a book called "My Foot Is Too Big For The Glass Slipper". She and her husband have been interviewed on a number of shows and the thing she is really taking the heat for is the fact that she wrote about letting her husband be in charge and her being submissive. Gabrielle talks about empowering her man by letting him take charge. Most of the critical comments have been about feminism and how maybe Laird should submit to Gabrielle.
I have a lot of thoughts about this whole thing. The first is that Gabrielle changed her tactics in how she responded to her husband and it has helped her marriage. They have been married for 17 years and in the interviews she seemed happy and calm and in a good place. So, what's the problem? I don't think she was saying everyone should live that way. I frankly don't think everyone can live that way. Every couple needs to work out a dynamic that works for them and there are so many ways to relate to each other and as long as everyone's needs are being met and everyone is happy for the most part, why not embrace more traditional roles if it works for them?
Second, it seems that even though Gabrielle is the submissive one, she is the one that changed how she acted towards her husband. That seems to be a reoccurring theme (lol). The woman wanted the marriage to be better and she didn't want to divorce him (she had filed five years into their marriage) and so she changed the dynamic. She chooses to yield rather than he seizes control. When Gabrielle says she submits, I am sure that what is going through the reporters heads is that he is being some big jerk and forcing her into a relationship style that stifles who she is, but if you think about who really has all the important power...it is still the woman, which is an interesting thought. She has the power to yield or not, because her husband will not take what is not offered.
The other thing that has been brought up is what a blow against feminism this is. I clearly don't understand the definition of feminism, so I looked it up. The definition is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. So, I'm not sure how choosing to yield to her husband is a violation of the tenants of feminism. She is paid very well for what she does. I doubt there are any doors closed to her because she is a woman. She can vote and do what she wants with her life, even though she is a woman. So how does her choice violate the doctrines of feminism? When feminism started I do think woman were treated unequally and they weren't getting paid the same as men for the jobs that they did and there were more than a few male chauvinist pigs keeping woman down and feminism was a force for good, but as often happens when there is a paradigm shift, the pendulum swung way in the other direction. Things like motherhood and staying at home and being a wife began to be scorned. If you didn't have a job you were a traitor to the cause and I sort of get that: if a woman wasn't working, she didn't have her own money and she often didn't have a way to get out of a bad marriage. I think many of the woman in the forefront of the movement rejected the more traditional roles because they saw them as promulgating the subjection of woman. Being a wife and mother became a taboo thing. I think, thankfully, the pendulum is swinging back. I know many women who I went to graduate school with who have chosen to stay at home and raise kids. Their husbands are not complete jerks who forced them to stay home; they arrived at that decision as a couple. Their eduction allows them to freedom to stay home because they know that if they needed to end the marriage, they would still have a way to make it in the world.
Finally there is the thought that some how Gabrielle is no longer strong. The woman is six feet three inches tall. She is an athlete. She contemplated divorcing her husband because of his behavior and I am sure she would get out of the marriage if it wasn't good for her. She sounds pretty strong to me. She mentions lifting her side with the expectation that Laird will lift his side. She also says it is not about him commanding that dinner be on the table at six, but rather that she is in service to her husband the same way that he is in service to her. She says femininity is about being soft, receptive and submissive. She likes that Laird is acting more like a man and more masculine and treating her the way she likes to be treated. She says she likes being cherished and protected. When I read those lines I often think about the romance novels. You know all those ones where the woman rides in to save the man, where she is independent and has no need for a man, but she saves his bacon over and over and then they ride off into the sunset with him is the passenger seat. Yeah, I haven't read many of those novels either (lol).
One write suggested that Gabrielle likes the relationship the way it is because it "allows her to not have to be Superwoman in control all the time." She may very well be right...I can certainly identify with that. Gabrielle also says that the way they conduct their relationship allows Laird to feel empowered. The reporter argues that not all men need the dynamic to feel "empowered". I would tend to agree, but when you show a man respect and let him lead, you often see a blossoming that just can't be achieved without a woman's hand in that area. I think deep inside of every man is a knight who wants to show his lady what he can do for her and what he can achieve for her. When she respects him and yields to him and shows him how proud she is of him, he is empowered in a way that I don't think can be achieved any other way. I would say the same for a woman. Having a man stand behind you and encourage you and be your strong rock, empowers women in a way that women just can't be achieved on the own, even with feminism on their side.
I have a lot of thoughts about this whole thing. The first is that Gabrielle changed her tactics in how she responded to her husband and it has helped her marriage. They have been married for 17 years and in the interviews she seemed happy and calm and in a good place. So, what's the problem? I don't think she was saying everyone should live that way. I frankly don't think everyone can live that way. Every couple needs to work out a dynamic that works for them and there are so many ways to relate to each other and as long as everyone's needs are being met and everyone is happy for the most part, why not embrace more traditional roles if it works for them?
Second, it seems that even though Gabrielle is the submissive one, she is the one that changed how she acted towards her husband. That seems to be a reoccurring theme (lol). The woman wanted the marriage to be better and she didn't want to divorce him (she had filed five years into their marriage) and so she changed the dynamic. She chooses to yield rather than he seizes control. When Gabrielle says she submits, I am sure that what is going through the reporters heads is that he is being some big jerk and forcing her into a relationship style that stifles who she is, but if you think about who really has all the important power...it is still the woman, which is an interesting thought. She has the power to yield or not, because her husband will not take what is not offered.
The other thing that has been brought up is what a blow against feminism this is. I clearly don't understand the definition of feminism, so I looked it up. The definition is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. So, I'm not sure how choosing to yield to her husband is a violation of the tenants of feminism. She is paid very well for what she does. I doubt there are any doors closed to her because she is a woman. She can vote and do what she wants with her life, even though she is a woman. So how does her choice violate the doctrines of feminism? When feminism started I do think woman were treated unequally and they weren't getting paid the same as men for the jobs that they did and there were more than a few male chauvinist pigs keeping woman down and feminism was a force for good, but as often happens when there is a paradigm shift, the pendulum swung way in the other direction. Things like motherhood and staying at home and being a wife began to be scorned. If you didn't have a job you were a traitor to the cause and I sort of get that: if a woman wasn't working, she didn't have her own money and she often didn't have a way to get out of a bad marriage. I think many of the woman in the forefront of the movement rejected the more traditional roles because they saw them as promulgating the subjection of woman. Being a wife and mother became a taboo thing. I think, thankfully, the pendulum is swinging back. I know many women who I went to graduate school with who have chosen to stay at home and raise kids. Their husbands are not complete jerks who forced them to stay home; they arrived at that decision as a couple. Their eduction allows them to freedom to stay home because they know that if they needed to end the marriage, they would still have a way to make it in the world.
Finally there is the thought that some how Gabrielle is no longer strong. The woman is six feet three inches tall. She is an athlete. She contemplated divorcing her husband because of his behavior and I am sure she would get out of the marriage if it wasn't good for her. She sounds pretty strong to me. She mentions lifting her side with the expectation that Laird will lift his side. She also says it is not about him commanding that dinner be on the table at six, but rather that she is in service to her husband the same way that he is in service to her. She says femininity is about being soft, receptive and submissive. She likes that Laird is acting more like a man and more masculine and treating her the way she likes to be treated. She says she likes being cherished and protected. When I read those lines I often think about the romance novels. You know all those ones where the woman rides in to save the man, where she is independent and has no need for a man, but she saves his bacon over and over and then they ride off into the sunset with him is the passenger seat. Yeah, I haven't read many of those novels either (lol).
One write suggested that Gabrielle likes the relationship the way it is because it "allows her to not have to be Superwoman in control all the time." She may very well be right...I can certainly identify with that. Gabrielle also says that the way they conduct their relationship allows Laird to feel empowered. The reporter argues that not all men need the dynamic to feel "empowered". I would tend to agree, but when you show a man respect and let him lead, you often see a blossoming that just can't be achieved without a woman's hand in that area. I think deep inside of every man is a knight who wants to show his lady what he can do for her and what he can achieve for her. When she respects him and yields to him and shows him how proud she is of him, he is empowered in a way that I don't think can be achieved any other way. I would say the same for a woman. Having a man stand behind you and encourage you and be your strong rock, empowers women in a way that women just can't be achieved on the own, even with feminism on their side.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Common courtesy
So, when did common courtesy go out the door? I'm home, taking some off time and I come out into my backyard to find a woman and a man putting screws into my (our shared) fence because their dog can squeeze through the loose boards. Which is a great thing, but sort of presumptuous...isn't it? Or am I way off the beam here?...You can't knock or ring the bell to tell me what you want to do? They apologized for not ringing first, said they assumed I was at work...grrr...
I'm not sure if I should feel violated or glad...
I'm not sure if I should feel violated or glad...
Friday, March 1, 2013
Respect
Today at work was an interesting one. Today was about respect. Now, I know that word is bandied about quite a bit in these circles. It is discussed how respect is almost more important to a man than love. I guess I sort of knew that in a sort of peripheral way. It was front and center at work today.
I work for a great guy and we have a new boss who is also a great guy. They are fun, easy going, kind and thoughtful. Today one of them got on a rant about respect. He was right. He had been to a meeting where he was ambushed and he thought the ambush was disrespectful. He told that to everyone who came by to discuss the occasion of the disrespect. I guess I have always thought disrespect was most commonly shown in words or body language when two people are communicating.
This disrespect was about hiding something and then using it as a weapon. This disrespect was between two men (yes, I am innocent of involvement...thank goodness and also thankfully the one woman involved did the right thing and wasn't disrespectful. She didn't hide anything). What I realized as I listened to his anger was what that he doesn't mind bitter disagreements or not getting his way, but he doesn't like being caught off guard and not being given the chance to respond in a reasonable manner so that everybody wins. To the guy that was disrespectful it was about a minor victory that made the small disrespectful man feel good about himself. I am sure he gloated! To the guy he was disrespectful to, it was about betrayal. He said he always tries to be respectful of others and he couldn't understand why the other guy was being that way.
It was very interesting and educational to hear all those things we hear in our little blogosphere right out there on the table. Disrespect isn't just about words and body language it is about intent and in this case it was about premeditated intent.
When I started this blog it was about finding teachers...I think I got the Master's Course in the effects of disrespect today!
I work for a great guy and we have a new boss who is also a great guy. They are fun, easy going, kind and thoughtful. Today one of them got on a rant about respect. He was right. He had been to a meeting where he was ambushed and he thought the ambush was disrespectful. He told that to everyone who came by to discuss the occasion of the disrespect. I guess I have always thought disrespect was most commonly shown in words or body language when two people are communicating.
This disrespect was about hiding something and then using it as a weapon. This disrespect was between two men (yes, I am innocent of involvement...thank goodness and also thankfully the one woman involved did the right thing and wasn't disrespectful. She didn't hide anything). What I realized as I listened to his anger was what that he doesn't mind bitter disagreements or not getting his way, but he doesn't like being caught off guard and not being given the chance to respond in a reasonable manner so that everybody wins. To the guy that was disrespectful it was about a minor victory that made the small disrespectful man feel good about himself. I am sure he gloated! To the guy he was disrespectful to, it was about betrayal. He said he always tries to be respectful of others and he couldn't understand why the other guy was being that way.
It was very interesting and educational to hear all those things we hear in our little blogosphere right out there on the table. Disrespect isn't just about words and body language it is about intent and in this case it was about premeditated intent.
When I started this blog it was about finding teachers...I think I got the Master's Course in the effects of disrespect today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)