I tend to overengage too. Some of that comes from a genuine love for my creative work and a realization that I actually *need* to do the work I am gifted in and called to, but it's more that for years I've tried to balance what I need and want to do as an individual with what others expect of me, so I end up living double-time. I'm also very susceptible to guilt over "being selfish" - and both my religious background and some of my family and friends are very good at pushing that button. I also take those responsibilities (to love and care for those who I'm closest to)seriously. What are the answers? Beats me - all I know is that I gradually become a little better at balancing, knowing I'm doing my best, and recognizing the guilty and shame when it comes and keeping it at bay.
Beth, you've touched on something very key. Until the rise of the novel, women didn't have a creative voice, well not unless you were a cloistered mystic nun. Women's creativity was subsumed into childbearing and raising broods of up to 2 dozen bambinos. It's all shifted now. Radically and dazzlingly so. Your struggle seems part of this shift, and you are balancing the two aspects... your creativity and being a loving and caring women to those closest to you. It is impossible to have anything but admiration for you...
Brenda, honestly, I think it probably looks a lot better from the outside! I don't have children, for one thing. That's meant that my mother and father, who raised me very selflessly, have never had any grandchildren, unlike nearly all of their rural contemporaries. It means I don't see them often or live close by, and that I am constantly feeling like I am not only juggling two lives but two value systems, much as many immigrants do. (Let me hasten to say that my parents do not complain about this, but I know they feel it.) It means that I worry a lot about what will happen to me when I'm old, especially if I live longer than my husband. Sure, it is impressive when a woman manages to be kind and caring and also develop herself. But that comes at a cost, as you yourself know, and there is no one formula that "works." Although I am certainly a feminist in terms of wanting equal opportunity and happiness for all my sisters everywhere in the world, I am angry with feminism for convincing women they can somehow do everything: marriage, children, career/creativity, caring for aging parents and friends in difficulty - to name just a few of our roles. That message has caused a lot of damage. We need to support each other in finding other ways through life, especially supporting those of us who have found we CAN'T do one or more of those functions and also do the others well. This is not a failure - it is both reality and sanity, but "others" often expect "more" of us -- just because we are women.
Beth, I don't think the myth of being able to 'do it all' is particularly feminist, it's what underlies the whole American Dream, it's a pervasive idea in modern thinking across cultures.
And having children is no guarantee of anything: look at the terrible hardships of the 21 million widows in India.
Beth, even if you'd had children I cannot imagine you not writing.
Much of my later, and unpublished, work on the maternal body is about 'womb envy.' The reason behind silencing the woman who has children, to keep her from speaking. There is anger, I've felt it. It's a profound bodily experience that one half of the human race can never have, and which is cause for a welter of emotions in women who can't or have chosen not to have children. I hope to be giving a paper, that I prepared for the Mothering and Feminism conference that unfortunately I couldn't attend, at the Motherlode Conference in the Fall.
I'm thinking we could collaborate on a creative piece that bridges the divide between women on this issue...
Maybe a group collaboration? Words, music, poetry... a dramatic dialogue?
The issue of mothering runs through these comments like a meditation of its own...
Interesting conversation. But I'm just popping in to say I'll be out of town and offline this coming week. I'll be joining you all in thought, still, as much as I can.
Are we due for a group sit or is that next week... I can't remember how we set it up?
MB, my understanding is that it is the first Friday of the month, so the next one would be Friday 7th April ... someone correct me if I'm wrong. We'll miss you - have a good trip.
April 7th for most of you: late April 6th for me. This time it's the North Americans who will have to be night owls:
Friday, April 7th, 6:00 AM GMT
Which is:
Thursday 11:00 PM Vancouver Thu/Fri 12:00 Midn Boise, Denver Friday 2:00 AM Montreal Friday 7:00 AM London Friday 8:00 AM Paris, Berlin Friday 3:00 PM Seoul, Tokyo Friday 4:00 PM Queensland
Whaddaya know: I always thought that London and GMT would be the same time, but they're not!
Did I leave anyplace out? Montreal, of course, covers New York & Toronto and a multitude of sins.
Do y'all prefer a twelve-hour or a twenty-four hour notation? My impression is that English-speakers usually prefer a twelve hour clock, but I'm happy to write it out any way you like.
Dale, you're a star, thank you. Personally, I prefer the twelve hour clock. And I'm pleased that it is not next week, frankly... it'll be easier to join you from home. Midnight is tough, but it's only fair! ;-)
Thanks for your good wishes, Mary. I'll miss you all, too.
Hey there, everyone. Dale, thanks for keeping track of the dates/times for our synchro-sits. I'll *try* to make it, although sitting when I'm sleepy is a challenge. :-)
These past few days I've been taking it easy, trying to recover from whatever bug I caught. I'm feeling mostly better now...and I've been perfecting the sort of itty-bitty practice that Dale had championed several days ago: a couple breaths here, a couple there.
I'm hoping to hit the cushion tomorrow, but in the meantime this itty-bitty style of practice is better than nothing. :-)
11 Comments:
Brenda and Jean, your honesty is so admirable.
I tend to overengage too. Some of that comes from a genuine love for my creative work and a realization that I actually *need* to do the work I am gifted in and called to, but it's more that for years I've tried to balance what I need and want to do as an individual with what others expect of me, so I end up living double-time. I'm also very susceptible to guilt over "being selfish" - and both my religious background and some of my family and friends are very good at pushing that button. I also take those responsibilities (to love and care for those who I'm closest to)seriously. What are the answers? Beats me - all I know is that I gradually become a little better at balancing, knowing I'm doing my best, and recognizing the guilty and shame when it comes and keeping it at bay.
Beth, you've touched on something very key. Until the rise of the novel, women didn't have a creative voice, well not unless you were a cloistered mystic nun. Women's creativity was subsumed into childbearing and raising broods of up to 2 dozen bambinos. It's all shifted now. Radically and dazzlingly so. Your struggle seems part of this shift, and you are balancing the two aspects... your creativity and being a loving and caring women to those closest to you. It is impossible to have anything but admiration for you...
Brenda, honestly, I think it probably looks a lot better from the outside! I don't have children, for one thing. That's meant that my mother and father, who raised me very selflessly, have never had any grandchildren, unlike nearly all of their rural contemporaries. It means I don't see them often or live close by, and that I am constantly feeling like I am not only juggling two lives but two value systems, much as many immigrants do. (Let me hasten to say that my parents do not complain about this, but I know they feel it.) It means that I worry a lot about what will happen to me when I'm old, especially if I live longer than my husband. Sure, it is impressive when a woman manages to be kind and caring and also develop herself. But that comes at a cost, as you yourself know, and there is no one formula that "works." Although I am certainly a feminist in terms of wanting equal opportunity and happiness for all my sisters everywhere in the world, I am angry with feminism for convincing women they can somehow do everything: marriage, children, career/creativity, caring for aging parents and friends in difficulty - to name just a few of our roles. That message has caused a lot of damage. We need to support each other in finding other ways through life, especially supporting those of us who have found we CAN'T do one or more of those functions and also do the others well. This is not a failure - it is both reality and sanity, but "others" often expect "more" of us -- just because we are women.
Beth, I don't think the myth of being able to 'do it all' is particularly feminist, it's what underlies the whole American Dream, it's a pervasive idea in modern thinking across cultures.
And having children is no guarantee of anything: look at the terrible hardships of the 21 million widows in India.
Beth, even if you'd had children I cannot imagine you not writing.
Much of my later, and unpublished, work on the maternal body is about 'womb envy.' The reason behind silencing the woman who has children, to keep her from speaking. There is anger, I've felt it. It's a profound bodily experience that one half of the human race can never have, and which is cause for a welter of emotions in women who can't or have chosen not to have children. I hope to be giving a paper, that I prepared for the Mothering and Feminism conference that unfortunately I couldn't attend, at the Motherlode Conference in the Fall.
I'm thinking we could collaborate on a creative piece that bridges the divide between women on this issue...
Maybe a group collaboration? Words, music, poetry... a dramatic dialogue?
The issue of mothering runs through these comments like a meditation of its own...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Blogger posted that comment twice, so I removed the duplicate.
Interesting conversation. But I'm just popping in to say I'll be out of town and offline this coming week. I'll be joining you all in thought, still, as much as I can.
Are we due for a group sit or is that next week... I can't remember how we set it up?
MB, my understanding is that it is the first Friday of the month, so the next one would be Friday 7th April ... someone correct me if I'm wrong. We'll miss you - have a good trip.
April 7th for most of you: late April 6th for me. This time it's the North Americans who will have to be night owls:
Friday, April 7th, 6:00 AM GMT
Which is:
Thursday 11:00 PM Vancouver
Thu/Fri 12:00 Midn Boise, Denver
Friday 2:00 AM Montreal
Friday 7:00 AM London
Friday 8:00 AM Paris, Berlin
Friday 3:00 PM Seoul, Tokyo
Friday 4:00 PM Queensland
Whaddaya know: I always thought that London and GMT would be the same time, but they're not!
Did I leave anyplace out? Montreal, of course, covers New York & Toronto and a multitude of sins.
Do y'all prefer a twelve-hour or a twenty-four hour notation? My impression is that English-speakers usually prefer a twelve hour clock, but I'm happy to write it out any way you like.
Dale, you're a star, thank you. Personally, I prefer the twelve hour clock. And I'm pleased that it is not next week, frankly... it'll be easier to join you from home. Midnight is tough, but it's only fair! ;-)
Thanks for your good wishes, Mary. I'll miss you all, too.
Hey there, everyone. Dale, thanks for keeping track of the dates/times for our synchro-sits. I'll *try* to make it, although sitting when I'm sleepy is a challenge. :-)
These past few days I've been taking it easy, trying to recover from whatever bug I caught. I'm feeling mostly better now...and I've been perfecting the sort of itty-bitty practice that Dale had championed several days ago: a couple breaths here, a couple there.
I'm hoping to hit the cushion tomorrow, but in the meantime this itty-bitty style of practice is better than nothing. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home