Who says???

Who defined our current philosophy of how best to develop a lifelong relationship?

Today's philosophy is largely built around the concept that everyone has someone with whom they are completely, incomparably, and unequivocally 'meant' to be with from day one. Their likes and dislikes are in complete harmony. They understand each other completely. They never doubt one another and never put less than perfect respect and love into their relationship, and there is not turmoil until babies and bills come along. Things just 'happen' easily, and that means it's perfectly in harmony with the plan of the universe. (Nevermind that half of these people in today's reality find each other by searching endlessly on the internet before they find the person they were 'meant' to be with.)

But in centuries past, women married men in order to strengthen bonds between country leaders, to gain financial stability, or simply to make a family. They disregarded things like social and intellectual compatability, and looked instead for a mate that would provide a solid, stable partner with which to raise a family. They allowed their husbands to be the sole provider, the decision maker, and essentially the ruler of everything that transpired in their life. It was more like a business partnership than a relationship. It doesn't sound very inviting to me, but it worked, didn't it?

In more recent years, my own mother fell in love with my father at first sight, and signed up for a romance that would involve 13 months of separation during the very months of their courtship, due to my father's deployment to Vietnam. She married him and began a life as the wife of an airline pilot. Her expectations, outside of the fact that she loved him, were grounded in financial stability and the ability to raise a family with this man. She did not spend countless hours dwelling on how compatible their interests were, whether or not he held the same religious and political beliefs as her, or whether or not they would want to travel to the same places. And over the years there have no doubt been moments when they both have stopped and thought, "who is this person, and why do I put up with this?" But somehow, without all the training that we have in today's society of compatibility ratings and high expectations, my mother and father have made it through almost 41 years of marital success. (I say success instead of bliss, b/c bliss is an unrealistic expectation we have put on the institution of marriage.) They love their life together. They have learned to appreciate each other's interests, even though many may not have been compatible in the beginning. They travel together, sing together, cook dinners together, and are most certainly happier and more comfortable now, after 41 years of getting to know each other, than they were when they met.

Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly believe in finding someone who inspires you to be a better person, who accepts you with all your flaws, who enjoys your company as much as you do theirs, and who shares a good number of interests with you...

But isn't it harder than simple harmony for most? Don't most people have to experience some level of discomfort in either the process of finding a mate or in the process of keeping one? Surely every story can't be a Cinderella story. As the saying goes, relationships are work. Period. (And I believe this to be especially true for a woman such as myself, at the age of 33, with 10+ years of relationship baggage to bring to the table...)

And no, I don't believe that people should just put up with their mate, or that anyone should just take what they can get. But I do believe that for each individual, the situation, the love, the journey...is different. And just because it's different for me than it was for you, or her, or them, doesn't mean it will be any less wonderful or breathtaking or 'meant to be' in the end. It just means it's different, because I'M different from you, and her, and them.

Sometimes it takes more work for one man to build a bridge than it did for the man before him, simply because the second man had to teach himself. Sometimes it takes more work for one woman to raise a child than it did for the woman before her because the second woman's child came with unexpected challenges that surpassed those of the first woman's. But that doesn't mean that the second man shouldn't have built a bridge or the second woman shouldn't have raised a child. It simply means that one had to work a little harder to get what they wanted. But in the process, make no mistake. The second man and woman undoubtedly experienced an equal if not greater amount of joy, satisfaction and success along their journey than their predecessors, and are likely not sorry they made the decision to follow it through to the end.

Who knows?

Good for you stuff that I love!

HOT TEAS (though I also love to pour them over ice during the day)...
Tazo Zen (green tea with a hint of mint)
Bigelow Constant Comment (green tea with orange and spice)
Twinnings Peppermint (caffeine free; said to calm a bloated or upset tummy, and also refreshing!)
Bigelow Sweet Dreams (chamomile and mint; relaxing and fruity)


FRUIT/VEGGIES/NUTS
Most recent recommendation that I LOVE is cucumber slices with lime juice yum yum!
Roasted chickpeas - roasted for 30 min at 350 (tossed with olive oil and seasoning of choice)
Roasted nuts of any kind on almost anything, and especially in tuna/chk salad
Lemon juice as the dressing for my salad; if you're sensitive to sour, mix in a little olive oil and a drop of honey
Raw asparagus - so crunchy and yummy by itself, but also good with a little dip (esp. hummus b/c it's so good for you!)

SWEET TREATS
Lindt dark chocolate truffles - 73 calories and 6 grams of fat ea., but they're extremely rich and 1 usually satisfies my sweet tooth and chocolate craving for a while
Sliced bananas with chocolate frozen yogurt or ice cream (I like Haagen Daas FIVE - all natural, only 5 ingredients)
Sweet homemade snack mix - roasted walnuts/dried cherries/dark chocolate chips

Martyr Much?

Thoughts on being a giver...

I've always been a giver. My sister describes it as a 'save the world' mentality. I want to do for others and take care of others, no matter what the cost to myself. It's instinctual for me, so it's the only way I feel comfortable. However, it's a catch 22, b/c I also have an inherent need to have my efforts acknowledged. I wonder, does that make me a martyr? I don't want to be a martyr. I don't want to be someone who only gives to others for the accolade. On the flip side, I want to be selfless without being a doormat. So I wonder...Where, exactly, is the line drawn? I have a terrible fear of being taken advantage of and being someone's fool, to the point where it lessens my desire to give when my efforts are not reciprocated or acknowledged. However, I sometimes give at the cost of my own happiness or desires, and as a result I become resentful of those for whom I'm caring. It's so frustrating, and there is no other time than when I struggle with this vice, that I wish more wholeheartedly that I could be more like Jesus.

So that's my goal for tomorrow, to fix my eyes on Jesus, to open my heart to caring and giving selflessly and cheerfully. At the end of the day, isn't Jesus a bit of a doormat for mankind?

Teacher musings

On the subject of teaching kids to fight...
To each his own. My father taught me not to take crap, and to always stand up for what I believe. And if I'd have been a boy, he likely would have taught me how to throw a punch in case I ever needed to. However, he would have FIRST taught me to follow the appropriate steps, such as verbal communication and asking for help, before resorting to physical violence as a last resort, to be used only if all else had failed. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching kids to stand up for themselves. I do, however, think it's wrong to teach a kid that they can whine and cry behind closed doors, never approach authority for help, and then punch somebody in the face and be patted on the back for it. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

On the subject of 'what'...
I know we here in the south are oddballs, and the only ones left in the free world who think it's necessary to use yes ma'am, no ma'am, yes sir and no sir. However, I would like for parents to at the very least teach their kids that the following are not appropriate responses to give the teacher, or anyone else for that matter... What? Huh? Why? Why not? Do I have to? No.
I can't count the number of times in a day I call a student's name, only to be retorted to with, "Whuut?" I'd prefer, under almost any circumstance, that when I ask a question, call a student's name, give a set of instructions, or ask for a favor, that the students would simply and to the point say, "Yes ma'am" or even just a simple "Yes" would do fine. Yes ma'am it would.

On the subject of whole class punishments, for those who are against it...
Compare it to team sports. During a football game, when there is a foul resulting from the actions of one player, the entire team is penalized with lost yards.  Nobody seems to mind when they're watching the Super Bowl.  Just sayin'...